Obama: I can’t comment on Gosnell, but obviously lawbreakers should be prosecuted

posted at 6:01 pm on April 17, 2013 by Allahpundit

The Gosnell bit starts at 3:00 but you should watch from the beginning or else you’ll miss him saying how he felt “personally responsible” to demand more gun regulation after the Newtown shooting. Does he feel personally responsible to demand tighter regulations of late-term abortions, too? (“If it saves just one life…”) That question never gets asked, despite the grand jury’s conclusion that pro-choice political priorities led Pennsylvania regulators to stop inspecting clinics. He mutters a few platitudes about following the law and abortion being “safe, legal, and rare,” which no hardline pro-choice advocate like him takes seriously, but beyond that he can’t comment because there’s a trial ongoing — as if he would have kept quiet about gun control until now if Adam Lanza had been captured and indicted. Via Tim Carney, here’s a follow-up for the next journalist who gets to interview O: What’s the difference between what Gosnell’s accused of doing and what pro-choice hero Leroy Carhart typically does? (The answer: About a foot or so in location.) And if O’s opposed to what Carhart does too, then, per Carney, why did his 2004 campaign once send out a mailing describing partial-birth abortion as a “legitimate medical procedure”?

I’m seeing people on Twitter say that it’s time to move past covering reactions to Gosnell’s trial and start covering the trial itself. Fair enough, but this is a special case. Which reporter’s going to press Obama after the trial, when he can’t use the “pending case” dodge, to explain the difference between his position now and his position a decade ago?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2

What’s the difference between what Gosnell’s accused of doing and what pro-choice hero Leroy Carhart typically does? (The answer: About a foot or so in location.

Looking at the provided link, you can see just how thin the difference is.

I think it’s important to recognize that this particular procedure is nowhere in the medical literature. When a procedure that usually involves the collapsing of the skull is done, it’s usually done when the fetus is still in the uterus, not when the fetus has been delivered.

Doing it while the baby is still in the womb avoids the legal complication of killing a baby that’s already been delivered and is therefore legally no longer eligible for abortion. So in a legal sense, it’s an important distinction.

But in a moral sense, there is no difference in the baby being killed just before delivery or just after. It’s staggering to read just how casually they defend themselves by saying, in effect, “But we abort the fetus kill the baby BEFORE it’s delivered.”

It takes a depraved individual to be able to do this. I remember someone interviewing Ann Coulter found her to be a surprisingly pleasant person, and asked her why she couldn’t be nicer to liberals. And she answered that liberals are people who believe that sticking a pair of scissors in the back of a baby in the womb and sucking out its brains is morally OK.

By God’s grace, this Gosnell trial will remind a few more people of the depravity of abortion.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2