Judge drops three out of eight murder charges against Gosnell

posted at 4:01 pm on April 23, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

After more than a month of prosecution testimony on the eight counts of murder and other charges against Kermit Gosnell, the judge in the case — at the request of the defense — decided to throw out three of those murder charges on Tuesday, concurring that there wasn’t enough evidence to conclude that those babies were born alive. Fox reports:

Three of eight murder charges were thrown out Tuesday against a Philadelphia abortion provider whose clinic was called a “house of horrors,” apparently because the judge had not heard sufficient evidence from prosecutors that the three babies were viable, born alive and then killed.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, still faces the death penalty if convicted of first-degree murder in four remaining infant deaths. Prosecutors have argued that the babies were viable and that Gosnell and his staff cut the back of their necks to kill them. The judge also upheld murder charges in a patient’s overdose death. …

The jury will also ponder third-degree murder charges against Gosnell for the 2009 overdose death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, a recent refugee to the U.S. who died after an abortion at hiss Women’s Medical Society.

McMahon argued that third-degree requires malice, or “conscious disregard” for her life.

Here are some of the gory specifics on just what the defense sounded like via CNS News:

“If we are going in this room to say a baby is born alive because it moves one time without any other movement, that is ludicrous,” defense attorney Jack McMahon said. …

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart granted judgment of acquittal for the first-degree murder charges of three babies in the case, identified as “Baby B,” “Baby C,” and “Baby G.”

According to the grand jury report, Baby C was “moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.” …

Gosnell’s defense lawyer Jack McMahon argued that Williams “only saw one arm, one movement, one spasm.”  “This wasn’t a baby moving!” he said, when arguing that all counts against his client should be dropped.

…Shudder. The defense only started on Monday and that’s three murder charges dropped, but Gosnell still faces five other counts of murder, four for infant deaths and one against an adult woman, and if found guilty he may face the death penalty.


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

Unexpectedly expected.

docflash on April 23, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Listen, the mother who killed 3 of her kids in Texas, the prosecuting attorney only went for one at a time, correctly stating that one was all it would take to get her on death row.

Marcus on April 23, 2013 at 4:04 PM

We are so broken.

Limerick on April 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

he will be found guilty for the women, the others…….

rob verdi on April 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Jesus, you can come back any time now.

portlandon on April 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Isn’t the determination of evidence to be left to the jury? Just what kind of court system are they running in PA?

nobar on April 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

According to the grand jury report, Baby C was “moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.”

That’s not “alive”?! By that rationale, someone could walk into a bedroom where someone’s moving and breathing, cut their spinal cord, and get the murder charge thrown out.

Doughboy on April 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

This is considered “progressive” in this country.

Sickening.

Red Cloud on April 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Amen portlandon

cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM

“If we are going in this room to say a baby is born alive because it moves one time without any other movement, that is ludicrous,” defense attorney Jack McMahon said. …

According to most laws, if the baby takes ONE BREATH outside the womb, he/she is considered to have been born alive.

I’m sure the baby-killers feel all kinds of vindicated now, despite five more charges still pending verdict. Victory is at hand against those evil Conservatives who hate women so mucking futch!

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Jesus, you can come back any time now.

portlandon on April 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Amen portlandon

cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Amen again.

fourdeucer on April 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Isn’t the determination of evidence to be left to the jury? Just what kind of court system are they running in PA?

nobar on April 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

We unfortunately have an elected judiciary. Anyone running for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has to pass the loyalty test for the Democratic Party of Philadelphia of stuffing ballot boxes for their local ward leader before they can be elected?

As far as McMahon, the guy is an absolute scumbag for an attorney. I attended an earlier, high profile case he defended in a neighboring county. The man tries to bust up even the most obvious of logical inferences with Chewbacca defenses and charges of every -ism known to mankind.

blammm on April 23, 2013 at 4:19 PM

This is considered “progressive” in this country.

Sickening.

Red Cloud on April 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Progress back to the Stone Age, maybe. We’re skirting on the edge of legalizing outright infanticide here with this case. I’m becoming concerned this guy is going to be allowed to walk to “protect women’s rights.”

Doomberg on April 23, 2013 at 4:20 PM

If this guy walks, it will be a gross miscarriage abortion of justice. Pun intended, but I’m not laughing.

I haven’t seen the details. Giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe there wasn’t enough evidence for those particular charges. If that’s the case, then it that is the way the system is designed to work. I really hope they get something to stick. Death penalty would be just, but I don’t know if people care enough about babies anymore.

Othniel on April 23, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Is there any way to appeal a judge’s decision not to send a question to the jury, in a jury trial? I know you can’t normally appeal a verdict of acquittal, but it seems like there should be an exception when the judge makes a decision like this.

FlareCorran on April 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM

How long before 0bama awards him the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

Ward Cleaver on April 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Is there any way to appeal a judge’s decision not to send a question to the jury, in a jury trial? I know you can’t normally appeal a verdict of acquittal, but it seems like there should be an exception when the judge makes a decision like this.

FlareCorran on April 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Because the prosecution has rested, it obviously hadn’t presented the evidence to sustain the particular counts. Fair enough; the sytem is supposed to work that way.

But Gosnell still has five more counts to defend, now that it’s his turn.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 4:26 PM

He’s going to get off because that’s the age we live in.

JellyToast on April 23, 2013 at 4:27 PM

“Baby B,” “Baby C,” and “Baby G.”

At a minimum, there is a recognition of the human beings being aborted, but the gravity of those babies being killed will probably never be used to stop the practice of infanticide.

fourdeucer on April 23, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Title 1, United States Code Section 8(b) provides:

As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

I don’t know the specifics of Pennsylvania law, but most homicide statutes include “born alive” language very similar to this, requiring independence from the mother and evidence of independent vitality, most easily proven by breathing. For the trial judge to decide that the testimony concerning Baby C, which included both breathing and movement, is legally insufficient to present to a jury, there is only one possibility, and that is the witness was considered by the court to be an accomplice of Dr. Gosnell, thereby requiring independent corroborating evidence of her testimony. My guess is this is the basis for all three dismissals, that the testimony was sufficient for probable cause, but not sufficiently corroborated for conviction.

Ironically, in every state before Roe, the testimony of a pregnant woman who sought out and consented to the abortion could convict the defendant, by itself, without corroboration, because every state considered the woman to be a victim of the abortion and, therefore, not an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration.

Mongo Mere Pawn on April 23, 2013 at 4:29 PM

He’s going to get off because that’s the age we live in.

JellyToast on April 23, 2013 at 4:27 PM

“Ya gotta have a little faith, baby.”
–Oddball
Kelly’s Heroes

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM

So does the court reporter now have to go back and redact every mention of “Baby C” to “Lump of Cells C”?

JeremiahJohnson on April 23, 2013 at 4:34 PM

There is no legal reason for ANY Judge to decide that a witness was not credible enough.

Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart is trying to bias the jury by diminishing the witnesses in the eyes of the jury.

Freddy on April 23, 2013 at 4:40 PM

So… all the defense attorney has to say is, “nuh-uh!”, and charges get dropped.

Makes sense. Given the current state of what passes for morality, ethics, sanity and rational thought in this country, not unexpected, I guess.

Midas on April 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Jesus, you can come back any time now.

portlandon on April 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Amen portlandon

cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Amen again.

fourdeucer on April 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM

The sooner the better. Stop the infanticide, please God.

Naturally Curly on April 23, 2013 at 4:44 PM

According to the grand jury report, Baby C was “moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.”

That’s not “alive”?! By that rationale, someone could walk into a bedroom where someone’s moving and breathing, cut their spinal cord, and get the murder charge thrown out.

Doughboy on April 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

This is a bit misleading. The “20 minutes” testimony was before the grand jury. The decision of the judge was based on the evidence presented by the State to the jury at trial, which often differs substantially from the testimony that was given to the grand jury.

cam2 on April 23, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I am with the rest of ya, come quick Lord, the darkness needs your light and your justice…..make them stop killing the little ones…

crosshugger on April 23, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Gosnell’s defense lawyer Jack McMahon argued that Williams “only saw one arm, one movement, one spasm.” “This wasn’t a baby moving!” he said, when arguing that all counts against his client should be dropped.

Umm, that’s because your client yanked them out of the womb and they probably died before their spinal cords were cut. In other words, he’s still responsible. Murder is murder, doesn’t matter how it’s accomplished.

These people are disgusting.

Erich66 on April 23, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Why did he train his staff to snip the necks of the babies if they weren’t alive?

Is there a law against mutiliation or perhaps against unnecessary medical procedures?

weaselyone on April 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM

All of a sudden the media do cover.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM

I agree with some of the other commentators. The babies will not convict him. The woman will.

That way they can save Planned Parenthood et. al. and still serve justice.

Win-win as far as they see it.

Jabez01 on April 23, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Question: Is there a law against mutilating corpses? Could these “dead” babies be considered corpses?

Jabez01 on April 23, 2013 at 4:57 PM

According to the grand jury report, Baby C was “moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.”

That’s not “alive”?! By that rationale, someone could walk into a bedroom where someone’s moving and breathing, cut their spinal cord, and get the murder charge thrown out.

Doughboy on April 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Apparently whatever they presented in court was not as strong as what was presented to the grand jury. Sounds like they only had testimony in court that one arm moved. I believe I read earlier that there was testimony some of the movements could have been involuntary spasms that occurred after death, and did not necessarily indicate life. Man, I want to cry just typing that. You have to wonder why the testimony at trial was different from what was presented to the grand jury, though.

mbs on April 23, 2013 at 5:03 PM

I have a reasonable tolerance for stories about violence, but this one makes my stomach turn. It’s just so, so terrible.

Tzetzes on April 23, 2013 at 5:04 PM

All of a sudden the media do cover.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM

As I said the other day, the LSM will be all over Gosnell’s defense assertions against the right-wing political persecution of him. The prosecution’s points will be given passing mention, only to highlight how the defense ‘destroys’ those ‘lies’.

The LSM knew what they intended all along.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 5:04 PM

All of a sudden the media do cover.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM

I only read the part in the article where they said the judge threw out 3 of the charges because the babies weren’t alive.

I wonder why they didn’t mention anything about the arm moving. Strange. \s

weaselyone on April 23, 2013 at 5:09 PM

i’m confused. the defense argues that it’s okay to cut the babies’ necks open because they already died during the abortion.

…uh. what?

1. so wait, they ARE “babies” now? i thought abortion supporters disliked the term “babies” to describe those who have been aborted.

2. if the babies were already dead, why cut the neck? to make sure they are dead? why make sure, if you know they are dead? so i guess you actually didn’t know, huh?

3. if the babies were already dead before they were born, how did they die? obvious answer, gosnell killed them. but why is that okay? i thought these are late-term abortions, too late to be legal. and even if they were not late-term, how come it’s supposedly okay to kill a baby right before birth, but not right after?

pro-abortion logic is so confusing. they twist themselves into knots trying to explain things.

Sachiko on April 23, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Why did he train his staff to snip the necks of the babies if they weren’t alive?

Is there a law against mutiliation or perhaps against unnecessary medical procedures?

weaselyone on April 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM

. . . let me grab a megaphone.

WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO KILL A DEAD BABY?

Axe on April 23, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Jesus, you can come back any time now.

portlandon on April 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Amen portlandon

cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Amen again.

fourdeucer on April 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM

The sooner the better. Stop the infanticide, please God.

Naturally Curly on April 23, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I don’t want to start Religion Debate #824, but would just like to say that some of us atheists, like Christopher Hitchens and me (and the Allahpundit?), are also opposed to abortion. I don’t mean that as a jab, but on the contrary to say that this revulsion at infanticide – perhaps the ultimate affront against human dignity – is something where most of you and at least some of us are in agreement.

Tzetzes on April 23, 2013 at 5:11 PM

. . . let me grab a megaphone.

WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO KILL A DEAD BABY?

Axe on April 23, 2013 at 5:10 PM

You wouldn’t.

weaselyone on April 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Question: Is there a law against mutilating corpses? Could these “dead” babies be considered corpses?

Jabez01 on April 23, 2013 at 4:57 PM

i was wondering that too. there has to be some law against mutilating corpses, right?

1. either gosnell was 100% sure the babies were already dead and he just cut their necks for the lulz, and therefore he mutilated corpses and should be punished,

2. or he knew the babies were not dead, or he wasn’t sure, and he cut their necks in order for them to be dead- therefore, he killed people and should be punished.

i mean we all know #2 is probably correct but still, he can’t win either way.

although i’m sure abortion supporters will find a way.

Sachiko on April 23, 2013 at 5:15 PM

There is no legal reason for ANY Judge to decide that a witness was not credible enough.

Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart is trying to bias the jury by diminishing the witnesses in the eyes of the jury.

Freddy on April 23, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Actually, there a several legal reasons. The witness’ statement might indicate that they are lying, mentally challenged, are not qualified to render an expert opinion (which counts in a case like this), were under the influence of alcohol, narcotics, or prescription drugs at the time, they may have been injured and semiconscious, and of course there’s always deliberate perjury, voluntary or suborned (which is not exactly the same thing as lying in the legal sense).

The judge is the only officer of the court with the authority to make this call.

Having testified in court (for the prosecution), I’ve seen it first hand. And if the judge determines that the witness is not credible due to their own deliberate falsification of their testimony, the witness is in for a very bad time, probably including jail time.

What is more likely here is that the witness(es) testifying to the state of these babies have been shown to lack the medical qualifications to judge whether or not the babies “passed” the test of being alive on their own. Which reduces their judgement of the situation from a qualified professional opinion to simply a personal opinion. Another term for that is “hearsay”.

You don’t convict on hearsay in any felony case, let alone a potential capital case.

Example; I can testify as to the fact that a given 9mm bullet came from a given Glock 17 9mm pistol before it hit Decedent X in the head, thereby making him decedent. That is, if I’ve actually done the comparison tests which I am qualified to do. If I have not done those tests, but have just examined the bullet through a microscope, all I can say is that the markings on the bullet are consistent with the rifling characteristics of a Glock pistol chambered for the 9 x 19 Parabellum cartridge.

If I go into court and try to testify that Defendant Y’s Glock 17 was used to shoot Decedent X in the head, without doing those tests, the judge will not be happy with me. And that’s part of his job.

Another part is him encouraging my boss to treat himself to a light lunch of my butt on rye.

cheers

eon

eon on April 23, 2013 at 5:17 PM

I don’t want to start Religion Debate #824, but would just like to say that some of us atheists, like Christopher Hitchens and me (and the Allahpundit?), are also opposed to abortion. I don’t mean that as a jab, but on the contrary to say that this revulsion at infanticide – perhaps the ultimate affront against human dignity – is something where most of you and at least some of us are in agreement.

Tzetzes on April 23, 2013 at 5:11 PM

yeah it’s stupid that people think pro-lifers are only pro-life because of religion. (and, hatred of women or something) i and many others would still be pro-life even if not religious. glad you pointed that out!

Sachiko on April 23, 2013 at 5:19 PM

eon on April 23, 2013 at 5:17 PM

so we need to have an “expert opinion” on whether a baby who is moving and breathing for 20 mins is alive or not??

Sachiko on April 23, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Leftists support infanticide, along with Obama, as it is sactioned in China and India today.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 5:28 PM

I believe a number of the counts for mutilating a corpse were dropped here too, and all that remains are the 5 murder charges. It seems to me, that the judge dropped the 3 most clear cases of murder against the infants. Gosnell may well get convicted of murder, but it may only be for the woman from Nepal. If that happens, then it’s “hear no evil, see no evil” as far as the pro-abortion people go.

I also kind of wonder if all the press now has hurt the case – after all, if there is national press, the judge doesn’t want it to look like he’s hurting Gosnell’s chances of getting off.

Katja on April 23, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Some Natal chick on tingles show

There was a legitimate medical reason why these women wanted a late term abortion
Trying to get away from gosnell as far as possible

Idiots

cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 5:43 PM

so we need to have an “expert opinion” on whether a baby who is moving and breathing for 20 mins is alive or not??

Sachiko on April 23, 2013 at 5:24 PM

We need confirmation that the witness saw it, and has corroboration. That’s just one example. If only one witness saw it, that’s a very hard row for the prosecution to hoe. And always remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense, no matter how big a slimeball the defendant and/or his counsel might be.

Or in legal language, the prosecution has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. All the defense has to do is introduce a reasonable doubt. In a case like this, most judges I’ve known would have done what this one did, on the principle of giving the prosecution a chance to save the bulk of their case, and avoid a probable reversal on appeal. The alternative being the appeals court either (a) setting aside at least those three if convicted, (b) ordering those three retried by a different bench, or (c) throwing out all the convictions on grounds of tainted evidenciary procedure (not exactly the same as tainted evidence), and ordering a new trial, period.

The unwritten rule of criminal prosecution is “never let your reach exceed your grasp”. Unlike Man as a whole, no prosecutor ever gets to Heaven that way.

cheers

eon

eon on April 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

It’s Tuesday…time for another Gosnell thread!

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

After more than a month of prosecution testimony on the eight counts of murder and other charges against Kermit Gosnell, the judge in the case — at the request of the defense — decided to throw out three of those murder charges on Tuesday, concurring that there wasn’t enough evidence to conclude that those babies were born alive.

Last I checked, the guilt or lack thereof is supposedly determined by the jury.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2013 at 5:46 PM

It’s Tuesday…time for another Gosnell thread!

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Does that make you feel threatened?

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 5:50 PM

It’s Tuesday…time for another Gosnell thread!

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

and another nonpartisan inane post. Like clockwork.

CW on April 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM

, concurring that there wasn’t enough evidence to conclude that those babies were born alive.

Kill them inside the womb you’re okay but outside it’s murder.

America’s lost.

CW on April 23, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Does that make you feel threatened?

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 5:50 PM

I just find it amusing that conservative blogs are slowly milking this story for all its worth to fan the outrage of their readers

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 5:54 PM

if found guilty he may face the death penalty.

May? MAY? Lord God, please save a corner of Hell for this person.

The State will do everything it can to make this go away as quickly as possible, to me, that means avoiding all the additional publicity from asking for the death penalty and just agreeing to lock him up for the rest of his life.

If he doesn’t deserve the death sentence then no one does.

E9RET on April 23, 2013 at 5:54 PM

and another nonpartisan inane post. Like clockwork.

CW on April 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM

He has become extremely bossy lately, forgetting he’s a guest here like all the rest of us.

It’s the newest tack by trolls: Trying to dictate a blog site’s content to their liking.

That smacks of feelings of much neediness on the part of liberals.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 5:55 PM

I just find it amusing that conservative blogs are slowly milking this story for all its worth to fan the outrage of their readers

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 5:54 PM

To quote a popular liberal bumper sticker during Bush’s presidency: “If you aren’t completely outraged, you havent been paying attention.”

Erich66 on April 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM

I just find it amusing that conservative blogs are slowly milking this story for all its worth to fan the outrage of their readers

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 5:54 PM

I find it amusing that you show up EVERY time.

Say teach us about skeet shooting. It’s so safe…here take this trash can lid and stand over there…..
/

CW on April 23, 2013 at 5:58 PM

I just find it amusing that conservative blogs are slowly milking this story for all its worth to fan the outrage of their readers

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 5:54 PM

We have been outraged about abortion for forty years. You really need to catch up!

Now that the prosecution has rested, you get your turn. Any future Gosnell threads detailing his defense will bring you right back. Except in those, you’ll be seeking to destroy the case against him that has been made. And gleefully bragging about it!

YOU won’t be calling those threads ‘pointless’ once you get YOUR turn.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 5:59 PM

I just find it amusing that conservative blogs are slowly milking this story for all its worth to fan the outrage of their readers

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 5:54 PM

You should be delighted. It the conservatives secret plan to talk themselves into a furor that will lose elections in 2014 and 2016.

thuja on April 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM

You should be delighted. It the conservatives secret plan to talk themselves into a furor that will lose elections in 2014 and 2016.

thuja on April 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Shitski!

You broke our ‘code’!

(do I really need a sarc tag here?)

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:05 PM

I like the vengeful little wish that Erika ends with: the idea that Gosnell may get the death penalty. I mean rationally we all know that he will not get the death penalty in Pennsylvania which requires an atrocity for even a death penalty to be thought about. In no way do Gosnell crimes rise to the level of the death penalty potential to me or to any elected Democratic judge in Philadelphia. The jury would probably find him innocent if they thought the death penalty were likely.

thuja on April 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM

thuja on April 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM

What crime, to YOU, warrants the death penalty?

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:09 PM

What crime, to YOU, warrants the death penalty?

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Treason, murder of real people under some circumstances, torture, and excessively violent behavior in prison. I strongly support the death penalty.

thuja on April 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM

You should be delighted. It the conservatives secret plan to talk themselves into a furor that will lose elections in 2014 and 2016.

thuja on April 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM

no, I’m not delighted. I don’t delight in democrats dominating elections.

I would prefer more conservatives in government as I think the deficit/debt is the single biggest issue facing this nation…not abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM

In no way do Gosnell crimes rise to the level of the death penalty potential to me or to any elected Democratic judge in Philadelphia. The jury would probably find him innocent if they thought the death penalty were likely.

thuja on April 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Intentional or not, you just explained the Democrat view of abortion: Anything goes even if the intentionally-aborted baby is born alive.

The death of him/her comes first, in all things.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:15 PM

I like the vengeful little wish that Erika ends with: the idea that Gosnell may get the death penalty. I mean rationally we all know that he will not get the death penalty in Pennsylvania which requires an atrocity for even a death penalty to be thought about. In no way do Gosnell crimes rise to the level of the death penalty potential to me or to any elected Democratic judge in Philadelphia. The jury would probably find him innocent if they thought the death penalty were likely.

thuja on April 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Killing babies usually tops the atrocity pyramid, and then everything else follows. At least that’s how the sane operate.

Erich66 on April 23, 2013 at 6:19 PM

I started having what I call daytime, awake “nightmares” after I read the grand jury report, and I still get them as I read about Gosnell…

OmahaConservative on April 23, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Treason, murder of real people under some circumstances, torture, and excessively violent behavior in prison. I strongly support the death penalty.

thuja on April 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Define ‘real people’. That’s too subjective for my comfort, even though I don’t consider liberals to be ‘real people’. They’re caricatures to me, like something drawn in a comic book.

Torture? How many husbands would end up under penalty of death under that heading?

‘Excessively violent behavior in prison’. The way to stop that is to keep cons locked in their cells 23/24. And even then, that won’t be stopped. Liberals have made sure, in any case.

You really know nothing at all about we Conservatives, do you? All you have is personal conjecture, built on liberal propaganda. Doesn’t really stand. You really do believe we Conservatives want the death penalty used even for jaywalking, don’t you?

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:22 PM

I would prefer more conservatives in government as I think the deficit/debt is the single biggest issue facing this nation…not abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM

ONLY because your precious Obama didn’t spare liberals, either, with his plans. Libs were all for Obamacare, just for one. Until it started dipping into their own wallets. Only THEN did it become a problem.

There are two notions in life: The way things ought to be, and the way things are.

The way things are is what got liberal panties in a twist. And I love it! We warned you, but you did not listen. I love that liberals now and for once have to finally pay for their endless demands.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:27 PM

why are you linking me with liberals lol…I would’ve preferred romney as president

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 6:31 PM

why are you linking me with liberals lol…I would’ve preferred romney as president

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Your own posts for a very long time tell all about you.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Your own posts for a very long time tell all about you.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:32 PM

and I’ve always said I would’ve liked romney for president.

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

why are you linking me with liberals lol…I would’ve preferred romney as president

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Until recently, you have been staunch in Obama’s corner. Still, to this day, you defend him to all get-out.

You have defined yourself and staked your own ground, over and over for a long time.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:36 PM

and I’ve always said I would’ve liked romney for president.

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Refer to my post at 6:36.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:37 PM

and I’ve always said I would’ve liked romney for president.

nonpartisan on April 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

I’ll be more than happy to add more, if you like.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:39 PM

rob verdi on April 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

The woman wasn’t murdered. Why do I say that? I say that because she entered Gosnell’s ‘clinic’ in order to have her unborn child murdered. She could’ve made a choice not to commit infanticide. she did otherwise. SHE had a choice-unlike her unborn child. No sympathy for her-only sympathy for the babies.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 23, 2013 at 6:42 PM

thuja on April 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM

I was born at around 35 weeks, at a time when 35 weeks was considered to be VERY premature.
You and your ilk make me want to hurl.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 23, 2013 at 6:44 PM

The woman wasn’t murdered.
annoyinglittletwerp on April 23, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I must disagree. She was led to believe that because abortion is legal, it’s safe. Gosnell was not inspected for 17 years, let alone regulated. And liberals do their damned best to make sure the murder factories are not looked into.

She was murdered, under the heading of willful negligence.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:47 PM

You and your ilk make me want to hurl.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 23, 2013 at 6:44 PM

I’m five miles from Niagara Falls. How about we hurl a few liberals instead?

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Thuja, here’s a hint : quit dehumanizing yourself in your sex life and you will quit dehumanizing the unborn.

CW on April 23, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:50 PM

She went in there to have her child ripped from her womb. I couldn’t care less weather infanticide is safe for the woman-because it’s NEVER safe for the baby.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 23, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 6:50 PM

She went in there to have her child ripped from her womb. I couldn’t care less weather infanticide is safe for the woman-because it’s NEVER safe for the baby.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 23, 2013 at 7:07 PM

I know from where you proceed. But the woman should not have to die, too, because of liberalism and its sacrament of abortion.

I condemn the abortionists — first, always, and foremost. They kill women as well as babies.

Liam on April 23, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Why did he train his staff to snip the necks of the babies if they weren’t alive?

Is there a law against mutiliation or perhaps against unnecessary medical procedures?

weaselyone on April 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM

. . . let me grab a megaphone.

WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO KILL A DEAD BABY?

Axe on April 23, 2013 at 5:10 PM

…that’s powerful Axe !

KOOLAID2 on April 23, 2013 at 8:17 PM

It’s Tuesday…time for another Gosnell thread!

noforeskin on April 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

…and your continuous masturbation!

KOOLAID2 on April 23, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Sickening..That shame on that judge..and seriously, how could anyone try to defend Gosnell? That attorney doesn’t have a soul, just like Gosnell

sadsushi on April 23, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Why did he train his staff to snip the necks of the babies if they weren’t alive?

Is there a law against mutiliation or perhaps against unnecessary medical procedures?

weaselyone on April 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Very good eye. Gosnell was also charged with five counts of mutilating a corpse.

The judge threw those out too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/us/judge-throws-out-some-charges-against-dr-kermit-gosnell.html?_r=0

unclesmrgol on April 24, 2013 at 12:54 AM

What if the judge throws out all the charges since none of the helpers were really medical professionals, could he end up going back to his ‘practice’? Since he did a lot of his work being paid in cash, I think the IRS should crawl up his butt for a couple of years to see if he paid taxes on that blood money.

Kissmygrits on April 24, 2013 at 10:12 AM