- Recommended for you
- The Many Halloweens
Sarah L. Voisin / The Washington Post
As abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s murder trial is in the hands of the jury, abortion’s defenders are out in full force to spin and deflect the attention this trial has garnered from abortion in a broader sense.
Recently we wrote an On Faith column explaining how the horror of the Gosnell trial exposed the truth about abortion and the illogic of those who believe that what Gosnell is accused of doing to those infants after they were born would be perfectly acceptable if they were still in the womb.
The backlash from the pro-abortion side was swift. Numerous abortion supporters commented that Gosnell’s trial was about mere “medical malpractice,” not abortion or murder.
The fact is Gosnell is on trial for capital murder for the heinous slaying of four newborn infants, born alive after botched abortions. There is even testimony that 100 illegal late-term abortions were performed by Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” abortion clinic.
To call his actions mere “malpractice” is an insult to the newborns he is accused of slaughtering and a brazen assertion that abortion itself is the real victim. We believe that abortion rights activists are reeling because abortion has been exposed for what it is: the taking of innocent human life.
As a prominent liberal commentator admitted, “I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights.”
Yet, the moment the media blackout on the abortionist’s trial was lifted, even if only for a moment, pro-abortion advocates began doubling down on that same illogical refrain, searching for a resonating pro-abortion message in the wake of the Gosnell trial.
Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times editorial board echoed these sentiments as he attacked the thesis of our column. Taking a page from the playbook of many in the abortion movement, he argues that instead of exposing the way abortion destroys the lives of unborn children, the Gosnell trial proves the need for more abortion, to make it easier to obtain and cheaper. He even criticizes restrictions on federally-funded abortion, implying that they should be removed.
How would directly funding abortionists (including Gosnell) with our tax dollars have prevented the destruction of life? It wouldn’t.
To those abortion activists guided by the mantra “abortion on demand without apology,” the horror of Gosnell is not that he took these babies’ lives, but that he didn’t end their lives before they were born.
Rosenthal ignores the facts in an attempt to separate what Gosnell did from abortion as a whole. He asked, “What does the trial of a Philadelphia doctor who is accused of performing illegal late-term abortions by inducing labor and then killing viable fetuses have to do with the debate over legal abortion?”
“Fetuses”? By any definition, a fetus is an unborn child. Gosnell is on trial for murdering four newborn infants — babies born alive and then brutally killed.
To those like Rosenthal, Gosnell did something perfectly acceptable (abortion) in an illegal manner. It’s as if he were caught driving 65 mph in a 35 mph zone. To them, had he ended these same individuals’ lives a few weeks prior, in utero, it would have been perfectly acceptable.
Going even further, Planned Parenthood and other so called “abortion-rights” activists have long been pushing to change the law so that much of what Gosnell did would be absolutely legal.
Planned Parenthood opposed the federal partial-birth abortion ban, taking their fight all the way to the Supreme Court. It supports legislation in New York that would eradicate that state’s late-term abortion laws. In 2001, Planned Parenthood joined then-State Senator Obama in failing to work to protect babies born alive after botched abortions in Illinois. And until recently it opposed a similar bill in Florida.
How can we possibly trust that the very people who are attempting to end the life of a baby in utero would try to save the child’s life if they botched the abortion and the baby was born alive?
Now there are new reports of several abortionists caught on tape admitting they “would not help” a baby who survived an abortion. As reported in The Washington Post, undercover video shows abortionists and staff workers in D.C. and New York admitting they would
withhold lifesaving medical care
kill a baby born alive
as a result of a botched abortion. The reports indicate there are still more undercover videos to come of this Gosnell-type horror at abortion clinics.
Questioned by reporters following the pro-life group’s expos , one of the abortionists admitted his stance, “You let nature take its course.” In other words, he openly said that he would allow a baby to die on the abortion clinic table without providing the infant due care, then said he considered pro-life activists to be “terrorists.”
Amidst this renewed debate about abortion, President Obama spoke to the largest abortion provider in America. Obama told the organization that performs over 333,000 abortions and receives over $500 million in taxpayer subsidies annually, “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.” Just weeks after a lobbyist for the abortion giant said to a state legislature that the decision on whether to provide medical care to an infant born alive after a botched abortion should be left to the “patient and the health care provider,” President Obama pledged his unyielding support for the abortion industry: “Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It’s not going anywhere today. It’s not going anywhere tomorrow,” he told them.
As the bright light of truth shines on the abortion industry, the horror and illogic of abortion are being exposed, significantly disrupting the movement’s momentum. The truth about abortion –that it is the brutal taking of an innocent life in the name of ‘choice’–is plain to see. We must continue to speak out in defense of the defenseless, and to name the injustice that we witness.
This moment may just end up being abortion’s Waterloo.