Video: Gosnell staffer, defense attorney argue over whether babies were alive

posted at 9:21 am on April 11, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The national media aren’t interested in telling the story of a man accused of butchering women and slaughtering babies, but at least local news outlets are still in the news-reporting business. Delaware Online has a reporter assigned to the trial of Kermit Gosnell, and Sean O’Sullivan of the News Journal provided this low-budget video wrap-up of the testimony of a key witness. Lynda Williams helped Gosnell “ensure the fetal demise” of the babies that resulted from his botched late-term abortions, and got into an argument with Gosnell’s defense attorney about whether the babies were actually alive at all:

Attorneys sparred today over whether the child whose neck Lynda Williams said she “snipped” at Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic was alive or dead at the time.

Gosnell’s defense attorney John McMahon also brought out on cross examination that the 44-year-old Williams, of Wilmington, never saw movement, breathing or any other signs of life in the 30 or so other fetuses that she said she saw Gosnell cut the spinal cords of to ensure “fetal demise.”

But Williams ultimately stuck to her testimony that she saw independent movement in a child that she said she cut the neck of on Gosnell’s orders and that what was going on at Gosnell’s clinic was wrong.

I understand that Gosnell’s attorney has a duty to present a robust defense of his client, and that there isn’t any rational defense to be found. However, this is sophistry at its worst. If the babies were dead, Gosnell wouldn’t have directed his staff to chop their spinal columns at the neck, would he? The direction to do so shows that Gosnell’s state of mind was concern that the babies would survive, and his response to ensure they didn’t demonstrates his intent to kill.

These are the kinds of details, though, that most media would find fascinating in any other criminal trial.  Kirsten Powers makes the same point in a column at USA Today this morning, wondering why national media outlets can’t find room to discuss a butcher who maimed women and the government agencies that looked the other way:

Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A childscreaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven’t heard about these sickening accusations?

It’s not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnell’s former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart. …

A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segmenton Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.

The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial andThe New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial’s first day. They’ve been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony.

Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News’ Brian Williams intoned, “A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh,” as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed — a major human rights story if there ever was one — doesn’t make the cut.

You don’t have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” It’s about basic human rights.

Indeed.  Powers calls the silence “a disgrace,” but it’s a revealing disgrace.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Yep. SWalker 2 days ago.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Not soulless just spiritually dead.

chemman on April 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Progressivism is the cover for sexual depravity.

No surprise really that NAMBLA, the LGBT freaks, and flamboyant gays are wedded to leftist ideology.

Nemesis of Jihad on April 11, 2013 at 10:05 AM

wow, um ok.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 9:59 AM

I wish you the worst life… I wish you misery… I wish you extreme suffering and pain… A subhuman like you deserve all ills and suffering…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I wish him/her/it karma.

HiJack on April 11, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Might wanna chill, dude. I understand where you’re coming from and I don’t even necessarily disagree, but I would hate to see you get banned here for lashing out. I’ve seen it happen before with others.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM

So let me get straight… It is OK for a subhuman to come here and tell us that exposing the killing of babies is senstionalism and this guy is not going to be banned but insulting this subhuman is ground for banning…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Not soulless just spiritually dead.

chemman on April 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to, To-may-to, To-mah-to…

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:05 AM

If the babies were dead, Gosnell wouldn’t have directed his staff to chop their spinal columns at the neck, would he?

Woe woe woe. Ed, I’m sorry you had to wake up, type that logical question, and actually discuss this topic. Alas, here we are liberals—HERE WE ARE! This is where you’ve brought us to…..to the point of debating whether a baby is ‘dead enough’ yet.

Congratulations, liberals. Enjoy your time in hell over this.

For the mother…./

ted c on April 11, 2013 at 10:06 AM

So let me get straight… It is OK for a subhuman to come here and tell us that exposing the killing of babies is senstionalism and this guy is not going to be banned but insulting this subhuman is ground for banning…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:05 AM

That’s not what I said and you know better. You lash out at your own risk.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM

pretty sure such laws already exist

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Connecticut had an AWB and a whole slate of other laws in place when Lanza shot up Newtown.

The Feds had laws in place on 14 December 2012.

Did any of that stop Adam Lanza?

No.

Laws do not stop criminals, but trials are where society goes to get justice and to impose punishment on them.

The Court will not rule on SSM until the third week of June.

There should be no ‘debate’ on the Second Amendment.

Obama’s budget came over 2 months late and ‘negotiations’ haven’t started.

The immigration reform legislation – all 1,000-plus pages of it – was just released.

Poor Ashley Judd gets front-page coverage at the WaPo, LAT, etc, but murdered babies – and, yes, we are talking about ‘murdered babies’ – get nothing.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Murdered babies are the price we all have to pay so that Progs can maintain their sexual depravity.

Nemesis of Jihad on April 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM

I do think this is an important story. But with gun control legislation, immigration reform, gay marriage rulings, budget negotiatons oh…and a country threatening nuclear war on us, I’m not sure where this story can fit in

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Curiously funny that you left out what 99% of the polls are listing as the largest concerns for Americans, THE ECONOMY AND JOBS. (budget negotiations?) This story doesn’t “fit in” because it hits people right in the face about the reality of a national policy that allows the unborn virtually zero rights to survival. Killing/murdering live babies—-for profit—is just not important. Got it!

Rovin on April 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM

I do think this is an important story. But with gun control legislation, immigration reform, gay marriage rulings, budget negotiatons oh…and a country threatening nuclear war on us, I’m not sure where this story can fit in

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 9:34 AM

We’ll just slip it in the same file as Benghazi and Rapido y Furiouso.

Yeah, how could we ever cover it with 24 hour news networks, mainstream media showing news at least 4 times a day, numerous newspapers, radio shows and internet blogs. How will we ever fit it in?

Thank you for the shining example of true media bias – “we simply don’t cover what we don’t agree with. And if we don’t mention it, it doesn’t exist.”

Saltyron on April 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Does anyone know when the Dear Leader will travel to Philly and use the family members of Gosnell’s victims to push for laws that will ensure this will never happen again? Soon, right?

KGB on April 11, 2013 at 9:40 AM

pretty sure such laws already exist

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Thank you for proving KGB’s point so perfectly.

GWB on April 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Like Jesus said “How can they escape damnation?”

kemojr on April 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM

covering this story could be construed as sensationalistic more so than anything else

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 9:27 AM

The place where your soul is supposed to be: is it just empty space, or is it filled with dog excrement or something like it..?

affenhauer on April 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Little harsh?… The subhuman does not care about babies being killed and you think that insulting him is harsh?…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I have my own opinions about people but believe that inside every liberal is a conservative clawing to get out. NonP knows this sad tragedy is awful but she’s stuck in her political mindset and is blindly defending her Party because of it. It’s awful that she thinks this way, yes.

When you start talking “subhumans” and death I get a little squeamish, your mileage may differ, no offense meant.

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:11 AM

That’s not what I said and you know better. You lash out at your own risk.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM

If I am going to get banned for insulting a subhuman who thinks that killing babies is not worth media exposure then let it be.

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Saw an amazing History Channel DVD last week with footage of U.S. troops forcing local German citizens to go to liberated concentration camps to carry bodies to mass graves. There were women in dresses and feathered hats, who I can only assume must have thought they were being rounded up for a USO show or something, being forced to move the naked, emaciated bodies of the people they ignored or pretended they knew nothing about. By the same token, I think it is only fair and just that area pro-abortion advocates be the ones required to go in and hose out these slaughterhouses.

JeremiahJohnson on April 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM

If I am going to get banned for insulting a subhuman who thinks that killing babies is not worth media exposure then let it be.

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM

No. Again, not what I said. You might get banned for lashing out. I’ve seen it happen. Do so at your own risk. I simply hope you don’t go that bridge too far. All it takes is one person to complain to the wrong person…

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM

So let me get straight… It is OK for a subhuman to come here and tell us that exposing the killing of babies is senstionalism and this guy is not going to be banned but insulting this subhuman is ground for banning…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:05 AM

I concur. We are actually discussing if a newborn baby is “baby” enough for the purposes of killing it. I called this 10 years ago and people thought I was nuts. Now here we are. Like that Planned Parenthood looney that says murdering a newborn is between the mother and doctor. There was a time when nice gentleman would have politely walked into the room and fitted her for a white coat and involuntary civil commitment. Now we ‘entertain” the murderous, dangerous ramblings of soulless sociopaths for fear of “offending them”, and lack the spine/brain/balls to call them out FOR WHAT THEY CLEARLY ARE.

Call a spade a spade - you advocate or try to spin for what is clearly, legally, murder or a BABY, then YOU are the problem.

Hotair long ago lost clarity of morality/legality/reality in the quest for blog hits.

Saltyron on April 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM

I have my own opinions about people but believe that inside every liberal is a conservative clawing to get out. NonP knows this sad tragedy is awful but she’s stuck in her political mindset and is blindly defending her Party because of it. It’s awful that she thinks this way, yes.

When you start talking “subhumans” and death I get a little squeamish, your mileage may differ, no offense meant.

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Some mild liberals may become conservatives with age but when we are talking about extreme liberal lunatics like non partisan then their conversion to conservatism is extremely rare…

I call them as I see them… People who celebrate the death of babies are subhumans…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Hotair long ago lost clarity of morality/legality/reality in the quest for blog hits.

Saltyron on April 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Hotair is publicizing the Gosnell story. What aren’t they doing that you think they should be doing? Really?

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Gosnell’s actions were nothing short of infanticide and these ghouls look the other way. War on women, indeed. How many of those murdered infants were female, you withered crones from NOW? And, I ask this as a female. I’m ashamed of my gender that they, who are responsible for bringing forth life can ignore this genocidal behavior. It’s sickening.

totherightofthem on April 11, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Another angle, while we have the books open, would be to see the reasons these women sought such late abortions. The abortion industry has folks believing these babies were almost all horribly defective. As I recall early reports, there were a lot of patients who had much less emergent reasons, like changing her mind (getting sick of baby daddy this late in the process) or teens caught hiding the pregnancy and frog-marched to the clinic. If you want to make the case for banning or restricting late-term abortions, bust the myth of the hopeful mommy with a broken heart and an unviable baby.

Sekhmet on April 11, 2013 at 10:18 AM

I do think this is an important story. But with gun control legislation

Gun control legislation is a direct result of the massive manipulation and reporting of the Newton incident – an incident which involved a lot less murders than this incident does.

tommyboy on April 11, 2013 at 10:19 AM

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to, To-may-to, To-mah-to…

chemman on April 11, 2013 at 10:19 AM

This is one of those contentious threads where I look at the headline and I think to myself right away in that first split-second, Someone’s going to end up getting banned before this thread runs out of steam.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Saw an amazing History Channel DVD last week with footage of U.S. troops forcing local German citizens to go to liberated concentration camps to carry bodies to mass graves. There were women in dresses and feathered hats, who I can only assume must have thought they were being rounded up for a USO show or something, being forced to move the naked, emaciated bodies of the people they ignored or pretended they knew nothing about. By the same token, I think it is only fair and just that area pro-abortion advocates be the ones required to go in and hose out these slaughterhouses.

JeremiahJohnson on April 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Excellent idea.

changer1701 on April 11, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Yep. SWalker 2 days ago.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Whoah. Really?

GWB on April 11, 2013 at 10:20 AM

The place where your soul is supposed to be: is it just empty space, or is it filled with dog excrement or something like it..?

affenhauer on April 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Crude, but this hits the nail on the head – this terrible situation causes people to do some soul searching, and some discover they don’t have one. The moral compass is broken, if it’s even there at all. And rather than be shocked at the finding, they just deny and dismiss it.

Saltyron on April 11, 2013 at 10:21 AM

I concur. We are actually discussing if a newborn baby is “baby” enough for the purposes of killing it. I called this 10 years ago and people thought I was nuts. Now here we are. Like that Planned Parenthood looney that says murdering a newborn is between the mother and doctor. There was a time when nice gentleman would have politely walked into the room and fitted her for a white coat and involuntary civil commitment. Now we ‘entertain” the murderous, dangerous ramblings of soulless sociopaths for fear of “offending them”, and lack the spine/brain/balls to call them out FOR WHAT THEY CLEARLY ARE.

Call a spade a spade – you advocate or try to spin for what is clearly, legally, murder or a BABY, then YOU are the problem.

Hotair long ago lost clarity of morality/legality/reality in the quest for blog hits.

Saltyron on April 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM

When dealing with the Left wing nuts we have to be merciless… Being polite with them is not the way to go… Look what they say about us everyday… Obama called asked his parasite voters to get in our faces with guns if we show up with knives… He called on his parasite voters to vote for revenge… That is their top leader… And they want us to be polite with them? Polite when they tell us that killing babies in abortion clinics is not worth news covering?…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:22 AM

JeremiahJohnson on April 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Excellent idea.

changer1701 on April 11, 2013 at 10:20 AM

I think it’s an excellent idea too. We don’t have the stomach as a nation, though. We’re too wrapped up in notions of “fairness” and “humanity.”

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:22 AM

GWB on April 11, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Yeah. Check the QOTD Thread for further info.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 10:22 AM

When dealing with the Left wing nuts we have to be merciless… Being polite with them is not the way to go… Look what they say about us everyday… Obama called asked his parasite voters to get in our faces with guns if we show up with knives… He called on his parasite voters to vote for revenge… That is their top leader… And they want us to be polite with them? Polite when they tell us that killing babies in abortion clinics is not worth news covering?…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:22 AM

I said nothing about being polite or nice. I’d just rather not see you get banned. That being the case, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I should stop caring since you don’t.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:24 AM

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM

There are nuggets where we agree. How about this, I don’t want to see you get vaporized by a Virtual Predator Drone here because we need strong voices.

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:24 AM

The next time a liberal brings up an abortionist being shot, and thus blaming all of us for the killing, we can counter with Gosnell. I wish this weren’t the case, but shutting up smug sanctimonious liberals is always enjoyable.

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 10:25 AM

I’m surprised USA Today even printed Powers’ column. USA Today recently jumped aboard the left’s “we won’t use the word illegal immigrants anymore” bandwagon.

We certainly don’t want to use words that accurately describe deliberately lawless behavior, especially if those words might draw attention to the deliberate lawbreaking, eh USA Today? Violating laws at will is socially beneficial behavior, and we want to do everything we can to encourage more of it, including using idiotic euphemisms to try and disguise what we’re really talking about!

AZCoyote on April 11, 2013 at 10:26 AM

If I am going to get banned for insulting a subhuman who thinks that killing babies is not worth media exposure then let it be.

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM

I concur. I think that actually having empathy for a newborn child is a standard human trait (as opposed to say, snipping it’s spine since it is “inconvenient” or a “punishment”), and if you don’t have that empathy, then you’re lacking. Me pointing it out isn’t the problem – you not having it is.

At least these empathy-deficients are nice enough to take off the mask of sanity and normalcy and let us know how many are out there, who are more than proud to defend this practice.

Saltyron on April 11, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Again, this is infanticide.

When a parent wants the child, even if it is born early whether naturally, by induction or Casearian – and often far earlier than these so-called ‘late-term abortions’, this child is rapidly moved to the intensive care of the neonatal unit in a hospital.

When a parent does not want the child, and it is induced, then the child is killed by drugs or having its neck snipped, as in a hanging execution.

This is infanticide. There is no other legal or moral definition. It violates not merely our Constitution but also Natural Law.

The USA is permitting infanticide and trying to ignore it by calling it ‘abortion’. In the Holocaust, the German people looked the other way and called the camps ‘work camps’ rather than execution camps. What are we doing here in the US?

ETAB on April 11, 2013 at 10:27 AM

There are nuggets where we agree. How about this, I don’t want to see you get vaporized by a Virtual Predator Drone here because we need strong voices.

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:24 AM

“Virtual Predator Drone”… That is a good one :)…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:27 AM

And like you sometimes I get so angry at the pathetic nature of lefties that I want to say something similar to your words. I’m saving it for the inevitable crunch-time when ALL the bills come due, I’ll do my “talking” then.

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Saw an amazing History Channel DVD last week with footage of U.S. troops forcing local German citizens to go to liberated concentration camps to carry bodies to mass graves. There were women in dresses and feathered hats, who I can only assume must have thought they were being rounded up for a USO show or something, being forced to move the naked, emaciated bodies of the people they ignored or pretended they knew nothing about. By the same token, I think it is only fair and just that area pro-abortion advocates be the ones required to go in and hose out these slaughterhouses.

JeremiahJohnson on April 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Saw the same show. Before they revealed it, I thought “I’d make those Germans move/bury the corpses, to show them what they approved of or abided”. And the Allies did just that. Brilliant.

Saltyron on April 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM

As I recall earlier reports, many of the women who sought abortions this late were not PPs mythical heartbroken mom expecting a deformed, non-viable baby. If you want to ban or restrict late abortions, have people understand that the argument for keeping late abortions legal has no merit. The public has less patience for someone who took six months to be sick of the baby daddy or a parent who finds out late that their daughter was hiding a pregnancy.

Sekhmet on April 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM

I think it’s an excellent idea too. We don’t have the stomach as a nation, though. We’re too wrapped up in notions of “fairness” and “humanity.”

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Indeed. Plus, they’re just “fetuses”, right, so who cares? We can’t be bothered with silly things like that when there is an American Idol winner to be crowned and all…/

changer1701 on April 11, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Wow, that gal in the thread pic is kinda cute..

..in a Charlie Manson sort of way….

ToddPA on April 11, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Yep. SWalker 2 days ago.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM

That’s a shame.

DarkCurrent on April 11, 2013 at 10:30 AM

The Libs seem to think it’s all or nothing; black or white. Someone should tell them they can be pro-abortion, yet STILL be against things like this.

NotEasilyFooled on April 11, 2013 at 10:30 AM

covering this story could be construed as sensationalistic more so than anything else

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 9:27 AM

IOW it would make you run screaming for mommy.

dmacleo on April 11, 2013 at 10:30 AM

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:27 AM

You know what, you’re right and I’m wrong on this one. I just got another feed blurb fed to my slate about Gosnell from a leftie site, and skimming the comments made my hair stand on end.

They are subhumans and aren’t fit to be in our society. Anyone who would say what these people are saying are savages.

Keep commenting, brother, you set my mind right.

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Not sure why SWalker is a topic of conversation here, but he was banned for a comment that fortunately didn’t make it out of the mod queue, so none of you saw it, which advocated the lynching of public officials. He was warned more than once about his comments, and I had at first just placed his account in the full mod-queue status, but he chose not to abide by the ToS.

We will not tolerate calls for violence against public officials. Period. End of story. There is no “right to comment,” and people who can’t abide by the ToS won’t be allowed to comment for very long. It’s really that simple.

Ed Morrissey on April 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Hotair is publicizing the Gosnell story. What aren’t they doing that you think they should be doing? Really?

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Quick – do a Hotair posting count on this story v. gay marriage stories. There you see the disparency in priority.

Do what liberals do, what this site does for topics like gay marriage – beat the HELL out of it. Everyday, constant headline leads, constant discussion. Over and over and over. Link it to other blogs, Facebook, etc. It’s how libs get what they want popularized and approved of.

This story is avoided and downplayed BECAUSE it has the power to sway people away from abortion. This reality is apparently an “undue burden” on the “right to choose”.

Saltyron on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Someone should tell them they can be pro-abortion, yet STILL be against things like this.

NotEasilyFooled on April 11, 2013 at 10:30 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

The Libs seem to think it’s all or nothing; black or white. Someone should tell them they can be pro-abortion, yet STILL be against things like this.

NotEasilyFooled on April 11, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Except that I am convinced that this is the rule rather than the exception. Outrage about Kermit Gosnell will spill over into the abortion industry at-large, as well it should. Gosnell was just the first to get caught.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:34 AM

covering this story could be construed as sensationalistic more so than anything else

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Yeah, because once a story reaches a certain level of gruesomeness, it’s best if the media doesn’t report on it. No respectable journalistic organization ever mentions dismemberment, and as far as responsible people are concerned, dismemberment of babies and children simply never happens in the real world, and we’re happy to leave discussion of such ludicrously sensationalistic topics to the supermarket tabloids that cater to the uneducated, the credulous, and the emotionally stunted by carrying regular stories about undead celebrities, batboys, and aliens. (*sniff*)

/sarc

Aitch748 on April 11, 2013 at 10:34 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Gosnell’s defense team…

……….

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:34 AM

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

But, of course, it does not need to be reported on, does it?

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 10:35 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Alisa LaPolt Snow.

(Bonus: Barack Obama.)

steebo77 on April 11, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Aitch748 on April 11, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Brilliant post.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:35 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Alisa LaPolt Snow, Planned Parenthood’s lobbyist in Florida.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Well, this is starting to make a little more sense…

Fallon on April 11, 2013 at 9:59 AM

I was thinking of that and looking for the link

dmacleo on April 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Keep commenting, brother, you set my mind right.

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Will do… :)…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Alisa LaPolt Snow.

(Bonus: Barack Obama.)

steebo77 on April 11, 2013 at 10:35 AM

what did Alisa say or do that indicated she wasn’t against what Gosnell did?

Also, saying obama makes you lose any shred of credibility you may have had.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Alisa LaPolt Snow, Planned Parenthood’s lobbyist in Florida.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Steebo beat you to it upthread. But don’t forget about Barack Obama, who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act after voting “present” on scores of bills previously.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Sekhmet on April 11, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Sekhmet on April 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Very true.

GWB on April 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Ed Morrissey on April 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM

O/T: Hey Ed, can we get a thread on Bioshock Infinite?

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Another: Hot Air poster, Armin Tazmanian (sp?).

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

You… It is very clear when you rush here to tell us that reporting on the killing of babies in abortion clinics is sensationalism is that you agree with this…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Barack Obama (twice)
Andrew Cuomo
Majority of the NY State Legislature
Gosnell
Gosnell’s staff
Every other abortionist who does these
The staffs of every other abortionist who does these
The media hacks who are ignoring this story
Liberal editors at major news outlets who have decided to ignore this story

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Who’s up for a nonpartisan boycott?

BobMbx on April 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I am not… I want to insult this subhuman piece of shit in a way he was never insulted before because he deserves it… The world would be a better place when subhumans like nonpartisan are dead…

mnjg on April 11, 2013 at 9:57 AM

We’ve never been able to agree on how to handle the worst of these trolls, so they end up owning the thread. I see no way out.

slickwillie2001 on April 11, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Another: Hot Air poster, Armin Tazmanian (sp?).

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Armin Tamzarian, as in Principal Skinner from the Simpsons.

steebo77 on April 11, 2013 at 10:40 AM

The severed baby feet in jars is NOT an accusation. It is an indisputable FACT.

Go read the Grand Jury testimony and report. If it makes you ‘uncomfortable,’ good.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 9:55 AM


link to the report
if anyone has not seen it and has the strength. its sickening.

dmacleo on April 11, 2013 at 10:41 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Preznit Bark.

You really should brush up a bit on his days as an Illinois senator, what he voted for and against during the few times he didn’t vote “present”.

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:41 AM

We will not tolerate calls for violence against public officials. Period. End of story. There is no “right to comment,” and people who can’t abide by the ToS won’t be allowed to comment for very long. It’s really that simple.

Ed Morrissey on April 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM

That’s a shame, Ed. I always thought his comments were insightful.

I think we’ve seen this movie a dozen times, when we strip the veneer of our civilization and take up the arms of our enemies, and become them.

Sorry to go off topic….maybe not. I think this thread is about the future of civilization.

itsspideyman on April 11, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Commenter Keepthechange wouldn’t be against this either.

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:42 AM

what did Alisa say or do that indicated she wasn’t against what Gosnell did?

Also, saying obama makes you lose any shred of credibility you may have had.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Really? Do you think Obama voted AGAINST the born alive infant protection act because he thought that the infants born alive were entitled to due medical care?

I’d love to look in your skull and see how you have to twist your brain around to justify your beliefs. You’re a mental contortionist of the highest order.

And as for LaPolt-Snow, she absolutely refused to even testify that she believed born-alive infants are entitled to that same due medical care. To use a baseball metaphor, she was given a hanging slow pitch right over the plate, and she refused to swing, even as she was testifying to the legislature for more taxpayer money.

So until you can find me a quote from either of those two in-duh-viduals expressing horror at what Gosnell did to those babies and women, I’m going to go with the available facts instead of taking your beliefs at face-value.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Nor thuja.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Gosh, the ever silent GOP has a free one handed to them and an opportunity to grab the momentum and start restoring sanity to America here, but they seem only concerned with money issues… sigh!

Don L on April 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM

covering this story could be construed as sensationalistic more so than anything else

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Behold the perfected liberal.

It took them a long time, and a lot of work, but the results are stunning, and ghastly.

Now, if somebody had snipped it’s neck…

Yoop on April 11, 2013 at 10:44 AM

That’s a shame.

DarkCurrent on April 11, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Not so much, no. If you read what RWM linked, he certainly doesn’t appear to be claiming that he was banned for being a reasonable, engaging fellow who just believes the wrong things. I might disagree with Ed’s particular bias in this case, but SWalker is not an agreeable sort, no matter how right he may be in a lot of cases. I will agree that some of the trolls here should probably receive the same treatment based on their “trollness”.

GWB on April 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Don L on April 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Because, of course, as we are seeing, moarilty and ethics are just sooo passe./

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

You won’t ever see this reported by the in-the-bag media, because brutally butchering infants will make the liberals’ most favorite “medical procedure” look bad.

And we can’t have that.

JackM on April 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Cue up the liberal idiots to tell us how there’s no media bias.

WisCon on April 11, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Nor thuja.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I think Thuja somehow rationalized in another thread that it’s the pro-lifers who are making the pro-choicers so paranoid that they ignore the horrors of abortionists like Gosnell. Or something.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:47 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

kermit gosnell

dmacleo on April 11, 2013 at 10:47 AM

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:47 AM

I had him cornereed one day, and he brought up the barbarians in the Old Testament smashing babies onto rocks, as a defense. Unbelievable.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Swalker banned himself, he was given a chance and made his choice like any person should be able to do. There are things I would like to say here that would get me vaporized, and I came close once, but this isn’t my site so I work with the proscribed confines.

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

O/T: Hey Ed, can we get a thread on Bioshock Infinite?

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Let’s hope, if we get it, that he doesn’t sensationalize anything about it…

changer1701 on April 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

Another: Hot Air poster, Armin Tazmanian (sp?).

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM

…and his devil-bride thuja.

slickwillie2001 on April 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

kermit gosnell

dmacleo on April 11, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Oh, snay-ap!

I just love it when libs pull out the “We all agree…” card. Bullshit, libwits. We do not all agree. Start out your argument like that and you lose me before you even start.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Bishop on April 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Yep. I had every right to go off on the gilled one this morning, and I chose not to. Choices.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Also, saying obama makes you lose any shred of credibility you may have had.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Okay. If you say so.

Too bad you can’t be bothered to look into his “no” votes as a Illinois State Senator (actual “no” votes – not just the times he voted “present”).

steebo77 on April 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Ed Morrissey on April 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Just as long as you let every despicable deuce dropping leftist say whatever they want.

tom daschle concerned on April 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Also, saying obama makes you lose any shred of credibility you may have had.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Why? He said:

‘That if that fetus, or child, however you want to describe it, is now outside of the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s non viable but there’s lets say movement or some indidcation that they’re not just coming out limp and dead that in fact they would then have to call in a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved?’

A live baby outside of the womb is a full citizen, has full constitutional rights and protections, and is entitled to the exact same privileges and immunities that you enjoy.

‘Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think, as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, lets say for the purposes of the mother’s health, is being — that — that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, if — if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense

No, doctors would NEVER do that. NEVER, you hear me!

‘but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

The woman wanted a dead baby and, goddamnit, she’s gonna get one…even if it has to be killed on a table far away from her womb!!!

Now, if that’s the case – and –and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue – that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after. Thank you, Mr. President.”

No, it is ultimately about infanticide, which is just a dressed up word for MURDER and, obviously, Dr Gosnell doesn’t appear to have made an effort ‘to make sure that they’re looked after.’

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 10:51 AM

name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

the barbarians in the Old Testament smashing babies onto rocks

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

steebo77 on April 11, 2013 at 10:52 AM

If a child is murdered by a gun in a school, that makes for good sound bytes and serves the liberals’ politcal agenda.

The 500 plus people murdered by guns in Chicago in 2012 are useless to liberals.

Infants dismembered alive by monsters, are shunned by these despicable liberal fiends.

JackM on April 11, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Oh, snay-ap!

I just love it when libs pull out the “We all agree…” card. Bullshit, libwits. We do not all agree. Start out your argument like that and you lose me before you even start.

gryphon202 on April 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM

sadly, for gosnell and the BABIES that were born (despite his best work) it was SNIP not snap. :(
I hope that didn’t sensationalize it and cause some pus*y to run screaming in fear of his/her (??) life.

ok you got me, I lied.
I hope it did.

dmacleo on April 11, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Okay. If you say so.

Too bad you can’t be bothered to look into his “no” votes as a Illinois State Senator (actual “no” votes – not just the times he voted “present”).

steebo77 on April 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM

link of that here

dmacleo on April 11, 2013 at 10:54 AM

that’s a strawman. name me one person who is NOT against things like this.

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013

Liberals did this.

JackM on April 11, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Hey, partisan, who’s lost “any shred of credibility [he or she] may have had”?

steebo77 on April 11, 2013 at 10:56 AM

what did Alisa say or do that indicated she wasn’t against what Gosnell did?

nonpartisan on April 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM

She said that the decision of what to do with or to a LIVE CHILD born of a botched abortion was to be made by the mum and the doctor.

NO. They have no say anymore. You cannot let the child die without having given it medical assistance. You cannot kill the child because the mum wanted a dead foetus.

A live child is NOT a foetus. A live child cannot be left to die on a table or have its spinal column snipped to insure its demise.

The whole 45 minutes and rural excuses were canards. If the child is 5 years old, can the mum allow the child to die? No. Can a doctor refuse treatment? No. In fact, because the child is a minor, many jurisdictions require a court order before he can be put into hospice or denied life-sustaining treatment when suffering from a terminal illness.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4