“The question for Furedi, Berer, Yanow, Herold, and anyone else who asserts an indefinite right to choose is whether this part of the indictment should be dropped. You can argue that what Gosnell did wasn’t conventional abortion—he routinely delivered the babies before slitting their necks—but the 33 proposed charges involving the Abortion Control Act have nothing to do with that. Those charges pertain strictly to a time limit: performing abortions beyond 24 weeks. Should Gosnell be prosecuted for violating that limit? Is it OK to outlaw abortions at 28, 30, or 32 weeks? Or is drawing such a line an unacceptable breach of women’s autonomy?
“Throwing Gosnell in jail won’t solve the problem. The women who came to him at 26, 28, or 30 weeks will show up somewhere else. And if you won’t say no to them, you will have to say yes.”
“Already, left-wing journalists and activists have rushed to explain that these abortion atrocities ignored for four decades by abortion radicals and rationalizers are not really about abortion. A Time magazine writer argued that the Philadelphia Horror was ‘about poverty, not Roe v. Wade.’ A University of Minnesota professor declared: ‘This is not about abortion.’
“But the grand jury itself pointed out that loosened oversight of abortion clinics enacted under pro-choice former GOP Gov. Tom Ridge enabled Gosnell’s criminal enterprise — and led to the heartless execution of hundreds of babies. Mass murder got a pass in the name of expanding ‘access’ and appeasing abortion lobbyists…
“Deadly indifference to protecting life isn’t tangential to the abortion industry’s existence — it’s at the core of it. The Philadelphia Horror is no anomaly. It’s the logical, bloodcurdling consequence of an evil, eugenics-rooted enterprise wrapped in feminist clothing.”
“Since we’re talking about how absolutist, hard-edged rhetoric can encourage murder, and suggest to the infirm or ruthless that their evils are permissible and even laudatory: Was Kermitt Gosnell encouraged by a ‘climate of hate’ regarding unwanted babies?
“Seems like if the media wants to talk about rhetorical incitements to murder, they have a pretty good reason to do so here…
“A shooting isn’t a shooting, it’s about right-wing rhetoric, but a story about a gonzo abortion murderer aided and abetted by pro-abortion state officials turns out to not be a story about either abortion or murder or the high government officials the grand jury says aided and abetted the crimes, but about… access to quality health care for the poor.”
“But it’s rude to mention that. It is also rude (and ‘shrill’) to mention in polite company that the method of killing the new life involves reaching deep within a woman’s body with unnatural instrumentation and either sucking the baby, bit-by-bit, through a vacuum tube into a jar, or scraping it out of her, limb-by-limb.
“And it is beyond rude to suggest to true-believers (many of whom are enthusiastic students of social and psychological theory) that the violent death-and-dismemberment being performed within a woman’s womb — deep inside her body — may produce both physical repercussions on her body, and psychological repercussions within society.
“Intelligent people — people who pride themselves on having curious minds, who have studied philosophy and arcana, and who often allow for notions of karmic energies while rejecting the idea of a sin — would prefer to keep to their euphemisms and change the subject rather than consider what affect it may have on a nation, when so many of its women are walking around carrying all of that unanswered negativity and violence within their bodies.”