Gosnell trial revealed horrors of abortion, media silence

• 

Mengele. Kevorkian. Now Gosnell can be added to that awful list. Men who perverted the idea that medicine should indeed “first do no harm.”

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was on trial for his life for the first degree murder of four babies born as a result of a failed late-term abortion. The American media that had resisted covering the gruesome case were also on trial.

Both were found guilty.

Followers of the Philadelphia case weren’t surprised with either result. 

The facts in the Gosnell case read more like a demon’s resume than a description of a man sworn to heal.

Gosnell is a monster. He was initially charged “with killing seven babies born alive," along with Karnamaya Mongar a newly-arrived, 41-year-old refugee from Bhutan. 

Prosecutors say Gosnell's staff gave the 90-pound woman a lethal dose of anesthesia and painkillers during a 2009 abortion,” according to the Associated Press. Some charges were dropped and he was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of third-degree murder, as well as “211 counts of failing to comply with a state law that requires a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion is performed.”

The facts read more like a demon’s resume than a description of a man sworn to heal. One former worker testified that she saw “a late-term baby who survived an abortion ‘swimming’ in a toilet and ‘trying to get out.’” 

Another child reportedly was big enough “that Gosnell joked it could have walked to the bus.” Child after child had life ended as scissors snipped spinal cords, decapitating them.

Yet this “house of horrors” would never have seen the light of day if the American media had their way. 

Major outlets ignored the story until conservative anger called them out. The Media Research Center (where I work), Kirsten Powers, Fox News Channel, some in Congress and an army of conservatives on Twitter provided part of the pressure.

Even then, news coverage was paltry – far less than outlets would devote to any story du jour from Manti Te’o and his invisible girlfriend to endless accounts of the Jodi Arias trial.

ABC was the worst. It took that network a couple years after the arrest and 56 straight days of trial to acknowledge Gosnell existed. ABC found more than three hours of air time for other court cases during that time, but waited until Gosnell was convicted before it ever admitted he was even on trial.

“Nightline” co-anchor Terry Moran inadvertently admitted the network’s failure during the May 13 “World News with Diane Sawyer” segment. “For two months, jurors heard often shocking, grisly testimony.” Yes, two months of “shocking, grisly testimony” and only one minute and 51 seconds of news coverage at the very end.

In short, if you rely on ABC for your news coverage, you are out of luck. It’s that kind of timely newsgathering that would have viewers expecting to see reports on the end of WWII or the sinking of the Titanic later this week.

The other two members of the Big Three didn’t impress either. NBC was bad and CBS only a little better. NBC’s Savannah Guthrie asked Obama a question about Gosnell but didn’t even bother to follow it up. And when NBC finally gave an actual report on the case on May 1, it hid the awful nature of the case. The network that had reported on the smell of a decomposing body in the Casey Anthony trial called Gosnell’s crimes “too gruesome” to tell viewers.

Other outlets were just as averse to reporting the awful story of baby murder. The Washington Post committed to the story after health reporter Sarah Kliff defended her own failure to cover Gosnell because it was a “local crime” story.

But it wasn’t a local crime story. It was part of a national belief in infanticide coming directly from the pro-abortion movement. Just in the time of the Gosnell trial, we’ve seen a Planned Parenthood lobbyist and an abortion doctor both show support for baby murder after the child is born.

Abortion lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow told an astonished hearing that the life of a baby born after a botched abortion should be “left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

The pro-life group Live Action caught a D.C. abortion doctor in an embarrassing admission of, you know, supporting baby murder. “One video features a D.C. doctor, Cesare Santangelo, who said that in the unlikely event that an abortion resulted in a live birth, ‘we would not help it,’” reported the Post. For that reveal, he said he considers the heroes of Live Action to be “terrorists.”

That is the world that Kermit Gosnell introduced to America. It’s a world where the liberal fantasies of “safe, available and rare” abortions have been twisted into a convenient rationale for taxpayer-funded baby murder, even after a child is born. It’s an image the abortion community won’t be able to erase.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.

Related Stories

Dr. Manny: Let the Gosnell verdict be a warning to others

Related Opinion

Inside the mind of Dr. Kermit Gosnell

Abortion doctor guilty verdict hardly a victory

View the original article here

Abortion doctor guilty verdict hardly a victory

The Kermitt Gosnell verdict is hardly a victory. Out of 6 charges of first degree murder to unborn babies, Gosnell was only found guilty of three. Of one charge of third degree murder to an abortion patient, Gosnell was found guilty of a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. A 42 percent (3/7) is a failing grade.

The Pennsylvania doctor’s West-Philadelphia practice was prominently located on a busy street corner, smack-dab in the middle of town. Even though he presumably ran an illegal operation for decades, it was not until February of 2010 that law enforcement finally discovered Gosnell's constantly-eroding crime scene.

The raid was not related to the investigation of murder, infanticide, or illegal abortions.

Nor was it related to an investigation of Gosnell’s patients’ dying of pain-killer overdoses prescribed by him after he performed an abortion.

The raid was not related to the 46 lawsuits that were filed against him by his victims, or to the numerous complaints that people had made to state officials for years. It not related to the spread of STD’s due to Gosnell’s use of contaminated instruments or that women.

No, the raid was actually related to a prescription drug dealing operation.

The grand jury transcript stated that hundreds of babies and fetuses were discovered frozen in bags, and that one of Gosnell’s employees assisted him in performing 13 of 31 charges.  But investigators were unable to determine if every single one of the frozen babies and fetuses were illegally aborted. And prosecutors did not have enough evidence to charge Gosnell with 31 counts of murder.

Instead, the prosecution only ended up with seven counts of first-degree murder in that he “regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy -- and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors.”

Then, during the jury trial, the judge dismissed 2 counts of first degree murder to unborn babies. The judge did not give his reason for the dismissals; however, it is most likely because the prosecution did not show enough evidence that the three babies were viable, born alive, and then killed by Gosnell and his staff.

Gosnell also charged with one count of third degree murder of Kamamaya who received an abortion at the clinic in 2009 and died shortly thereafter of a pain-killer overdose prescribed to her by the clinic.

The prosecution presented its case over a period of five weeks, calling former staff members to the stand, in addition to showing graphic photos of babies recovered during a search of Gosnell’s clinic. The staff members testified that they saw the babies move and/or breathe; however, Gosnell’s defense attorney argued that these observations, although disturbing and heart-wrenching, were not scientific proof that the babies were born alive. Additionally, Gosnell called no witnesses to testify in his defense.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, primarily in response to back-alley abortions. Women were finally able to terminate a pregnancy though safe and sanitary procedures administered by a legitimate doctor. They no longer had to risk their lives by terminating a pregnancy in the bathroom with a coat hanger or visiting scam artists who used painful and risky techniques.

Pro-life or pro-choice, today women can legally obtain an abortion. Pro-life or pro-choice, today doctors can legally perform an abortion so long as it is within the state’s legal term limit.

The case against Gosnell is grotesque but the prosecution had a major hurdle because only the staff, non-medical experts, testified that they observed the late-term babies breathing and moving. The non-medical evidence and testimony was so weak that the judged dismissed three murder charges:

1. Baby B: Baby B’s remains were discovered with 46 other fetuses, frozen in bags inside of Gosnell’s office. The medical examiner concluded that the baby’s gestational age was at least 28 weeks and it was viable except for a “surgical defect at the base of its neck.”
2. Baby F: Gosnell’s non-licensed medical student Massof testified that he saw the aborted baby’s leg “jerk and move.” A medical expert also testified that babies 25, 26, 27 weeks old. But, unfortunately this expert did not specifically examine Baby F so Baby F’s exact length of gestation could not be determined with medical certainty.
3. Baby G: Massof also testified that after Gosnell performed the abortion of Baby G, the baby was breathing and Gosnell “snipped the cervical part of the vertebra.” The judge found that this evidence alone was not enough to support the murder charge. Certainly, this sounds like cold-blooded murder but our judicial system allows judges to dismiss charges if the prosecution does not present enough evidence to show that the charge must proceed.

So, out of all of the grotesquely disturbing information listed in the 241 page indictment, the jury was only asked to determine Gosnell (and his assistant’s) guilt on three murder charges to babies. Just three. (And this was after 10 days of deliberation that even included a period when the jury was deadlocked on two charges. He was found not guilty in the murder of Baby E.)

This case is definitely about the murder to the three unborn children murdered at the hands of Gosnell but it is just as importantly about the health and safety of women, and the public’s needed demand that regardless of one’s moral belief’s about abortion, the government does not continue to fail us by turning a blind eye to mass murders who operate in plain view.

Tamara Holder is an attorney and Fox News legal analyst. 

View the original article here

I worked at an abortion clinic like Dr. Gosnell's 'house of horrors'

• 

• • 

    Will Gosnell murder charges stick?

  • 

    BIAS BASH:Responsibility of the media to cover Gosnell case?

  • 

    GOSNELL TRIAL: House of horrors

I looked in the paper and saw a doctor’s office in need of a bilingual receptionist, someone who could schedule appointments for patients – it was perfect for me. I didn’t realize it was an abortion clinic. 

I was a Christian but abortion was not at the top of my list of concerns. I thought it was not a great option but really depended upon the woman’s situation. In my desperation, I put my beliefs aside, only worrying about putting food on the table for my three children and one on the way.

As happens with a lot of abortion clinic employees who are hired to do one thing but are recruited into another, my scheduling position evolved into doing work in the lab.  “Lab” is where we sorted through the parts of the aborted child to make sure they were all accounted for and nothing was left inside the patient.

I also did counseling and somehow stomached the excuses women had to abort – for many it was because the baby was a girl and they wanted a boy while others it was because of a fetal defect and others because they didn’t want another child.  

I tried to soothe my soul by comforting these women during their abortions.

My conscience bothered me at times and I would secretly try to change the patient's mind during counseling. 

One woman came in who was pregnant with twins and already had another child. I just couldn’t counsel her to choose abortion and told her that there are other options. She chose to keep the twins and saw me a couple years later and told me how grateful she was for my advice and that her children were her joy.

As time went by I learned every position in the clinic and the doctor trusted me. However, he was always in a bad mood and rude to patients and employees. He referred to the larger women as cows or whales. I hated how he treated everyone and left but went back because I needed the money.

Although one might say I was used to this type of work, my heart now felt heavier as I watched woman after woman have an abortion. 

Looking back, I believe God was working through my conscience, trying to get my attention and wake me up to the horror of what I was doing. 

I tried to soothe my soul by comforting these women during their abortions or helping them with rides to the airport or bus and even had a few stay at my home because they had no extra money for hotels.

But I saw more things that made me question why I was working there. I saw the doctor increasing prices for no reason, making pregnancies look larger on the ultra sound to charge more. I saw him charge women for being overweight, on medication by a primary doctor, for having had previous C-sections, for having a tilted uterus, and many other reasons he just made up.

But even worse than lying to the women or dealing with a cranky boss was what I saw during the abortions. I was the doctor’s right hand person in the operating room and just like those employees of Dr. Gosnell, I saw the abortionist puncture the soft spot in the baby’s head or snip its neck if it was delivered alive. 

What in the world was I doing there? Where was the teenager who used to take a Bible everywhere she went?

One day a flier was sent to the clinic asking for people to contact a certain pro-life group if they suspected illegal activity at the clinic. I secretly took it home with me, not sure if I would need it at a later date. I considered leaving several times but I had my children and their livelihood to think about.

Eventually, I made a decision to leave and called the number on the flier. That group put me in touch with Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director who now runs And Then There Were None, a ministry that helps abortion workers leave their jobs.

I do not know where I would be now without Abby’s help. Her organization has kept me financially stable, helped me spiritually and she has personally been a mentor to me.

My days are brighter knowing that I no longer have to witness abortion and the abuse done to the mothers, not to mention all of the illegal activities done in the clinic.

I am now pro-life without exception and have rediscovered my faith since I left. I go to church every week and take my children with me. I have found the grace of forgiveness and healing. I still cannot believe I worked in the abortion industry for so long. I wish I would have left sooner.

It is my hope that abortion workers will see that there are other options besides working in a job that takes lives or helping in a house of horrors, like that of Dr. Gosnell’s. ATTWN and Abby Johnson can help, just like they did for me. My faith was always there, even in the midst of the horrible things I was doing, and I am so glad that God never gave up on me.  

Deborah Edge worked in the abortion industry for 17 years in the Houston area.

Related Stories

Jury begins deliberating in murder trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor

Babies treated worse than sick dogs, prosecutor alleges at abortion doc murder trial

Dr. Manny: Where is the outrage in the medical community over the Gosnell case?

Related Opinion

America must see Gosnell evil, so that we may rid ourselves of it

Gosnell had an accomplice in murders -- the liberal media

View the original article here

Obama tells Planned Parenthood: Abortion foes want return to 1950s

Published April 26, 2013

Associated Press

President Obama vowed Friday to fight with Planned Parenthood against what he said were efforts across the country to turn women's health back to the 1950s.

Obama's comments were the first to be delivered by a sitting president before the abortion-rights group. He lauded the group's nearly 100 years of service to women, providing cancer screenings, contraceptives and other health services.

"When politicians try to turn Planned Parenthood into a punching bag, they're not just talking about you," he said. "They're talking about the millions of women who you serve."

Obama asserted that "an assault on women's rights" is underway across the country, with bills being introduced in nearly every state legislature to limit or ban abortion or restrict access to birth control.

"The fact is, after decades of progress, there's still those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st Century," Obama said. "And they've been involved in an orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women's health."

Obama says he fought for his health care law to ensure individuals have the right to make their own medical choices. He's asking medical providers and abortion rights supporters to "get the word out" about the law's benefits.

He encouraged those gathered to continue fighting for abortion rights. "You've also got a president who is going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way," Obama said.

View the original article here

Virginia lawmakers approve measure to bar abortion coverage

RICHMOND, Va. –  By a single Senate vote, Virginia's General Assembly on Wednesday prohibited abortion coverage from being offered in insurance policies that would be sold through a federally funded health insurance exchange in the state.

Capping a day of passionate rhetoric and dramatic delays over the emotional issue, the Senate voted 20-19 to accept Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell's amendment to legislation defining how health exchanges -- forums through which people who don't qualify for Medicaid can purchase low-cost coverage -- would function.

Earlier in the day, the House, by a 55-37 vote, approved the amendment. Its real test was destined to be the Senate where Democrats and Republicans each control 20 seats.

Opponents -- including the lone Republican to oppose the amendment, Sen. John Watkins -- said McDonnell's measure was so extreme that it will not only interfere with a woman's reproductive rights decisions, it takes the unusual step of dictating to private insurers' policies what they can't cover.

Federal law for more than 35 years has prohibited the use of taxpayer funds for abortion services. But, Democrats noted, McDonnell's amendment even denies firms selling policies through the exchange the opportunity to sell separate riders to cover abortions to customers who don't use government subsidies.

"We've told insurance companies what kind of mandates you have to cover, but we've never told an insurance company that you can't cover something even if you want to cover it," an incredulous Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, a Democrat from Fairfax County, said.

Debate was visceral and sometimes explosive in both chambers.

In the House, the General Assembly's most ardent abortion opponent, Republican Del. Robert G. Marshall, provoked gasps and grimaces within the House chamber when he said the amendment didn't go far enough because it allows what he considers an overly broad exception allowing abortions when a pregnant woman's life is in peril.

Marshall said he would abstain to voice his displeasure, and a fellow anti-abortion legislator, Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, sought to change Marshall's mind by arguing that McDonnell's amendment does more harm than good.

"If he truly believes this amendment would not save one life, then I certainly understand that that is a valid argument, but if he believes it will save any lives, why then would he not attempt to do that?" Gilbert asked.

"Mr. Speaker, anybody here could go out in front of an abortion clinic and blow it up and probably slow down the number of abortions for a week. I'm not willing to use any means to achieve even a good end," Marshall shot back.

In the Senate, Republican Thomas A. Garrett of Louisa rebutted the Democrats' claim that McDonnell -- a social conservative -- and the GOP were restricting private individuals from using their own money.

"We talk about private contracts, but these private contracts, by the language of the bill, are administered with public funds, therefore it's not a private transaction," he reasoned. "And we talk about this bill as if it's demeaning. It is hard for me to conceive of something more demeaning than a human life tossed into a refuse bin, a garbage can."

The amendment was identical to a provision passed two years ago as part of a law that would have governed the operation of a state-run and state-funded insurance exchange as required under the Affordable Care Act that Congress enacted in 2010.

But McDonnell decided against a state-run exchange, leaving the federal government to operate and fund the exchange in Virginia.

View the original article here

North Dakota looks at more abortion restrictions

• 

  March 18, 2013: Dr. Stephanie Dahl, a Fargo infertility specialist, speaks out against two anti-abortion bills in the North Dakota Legislature during a news conference in Fargo, N.D.AP

FARGO, N.D. –  North Dakota lawmakers who approved what would be some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the U.S. are now considering outlawing all abortions.

The "personhood" measures would ban abortions by defining human life as beginning with conception. It's drawing opposition from some doctors who say it could cause problems for infertile couples seeking to use in vitro fertilization to conceive, but supporters insist that's addressed in the legislation.

The state Senate passed two personhood measures last month, and the House could vote as soon as Tuesday. One of the bills would make the proposal a state law and another is a resolution that would put the definition into the state constitution, if passed by voters.

North Dakota is one of several states with Republican-controlled Legislatures and GOP governors that is looking at abortion restrictions, but the state is could go further than any other in challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

Last week, the Legislature sent Gov. Jack Dalrymple what would be two of the most restrictive abortion laws in the U.S., banning abortions as early as six weeks in a pregnancy and on the basis of genetic defects such as Down syndrome. North Dakota also would be the first to adopt a personhood law if that measure passes. Abortion-rights activists have vowed to fight the measures in court.

Dr. Stephanie Dahl, a Fargo infertility specialist, said Monday that the personhood measures could ban in vitro fertilization and force doctors to leave the state rather than face health care restrictions or possible criminal penalties. In vitro fertilization, or IVF, involves mixing egg and sperm in a laboratory dish and transferring resulting embryos into the womb.

"This is something that would affect the patient and doctor relationship," Dahl said at a news conference with a group of doctors who oppose the measures. "That's somewhere we want to keep the government out of."

One of the key players in the anti-abortion campaign, state Sen. Margaret Sitte, a Republican from Bismarck, said she was "floored" by the assertions about limitations on in vitro fertilization. She said the proposals allow exceptions for the "screening, collecting, preparing, transferring, or cryopreserving a human being created through in vitro fertilization for the purpose of being transferred to a human uterus." Sitte said that clause was crafted with Dahl's help.

But Dr. Steffen Christensen, who founded an in vitro fertilization clinic in Fargo 19 years ago, said he can't put himself or his workers at risk of legal action.

"The concern is that this is criminal negligence if anything should happen to an embryo," he said.

Gualberto Garcia Jones, an attorney for Personhood USA, noted that two doctors in the Senate -- Fargo Republican Spencer Berry and Bismarck Republican Ralph Kilzer -- voted for the proposals. "Clearly they would not vote to criminalize themselves," Jones said in a phone interview.

Opponents also noted that the North Dakota Medical Association is against the bill and a group of 26 students from the University of North Dakota medical school signed a letter to the state Senate against it.

Dr. Ted Kleiman, a Fargo pediatrician, said the law would set North Dakota back to "the stone age" of medicine.

"This is abhorrent in the highest degree," he said.

Efforts to pass personhood legislation in other states have failed. In Oklahoma, a measure this year that would have granted human embryos "all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons," was not given a hearing in a House committee and appears to be shelved for the legislative session.

North Dakota lawmakers are considering several bills this session that would restrict abortion. Dahl said that the legislation would ultimately impact medical care to women and families and allow no exceptions for rape or incest.

"A woman who has been sexually assaulted will be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of the nature of her assault," she said.

Sitte said she doesn't think women should abort pregnancies resulting from rape.

"Rape is a horrible crime. It is absolutely devastating," Sitte said. "But do we believe in capital punishment for those children?"

View the original article here

North Dakota passes most restrictive abortion bills in nation

North Dakota’s Senate passed a pair of anti-abortion measures Friday that are considered to be the most restrictive in the nation, including one that would prevent women from having an abortion based on a genetic defect. 

The measures now to go to Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple who has indicated he will sign them.

The new state laws are even more strict than one finalized last week in Arkansas that would make the procedure illegal after 12 weeks of pregnancy. One North Dakota measure would prevent women from having abortions based on a genetic defect, like Down syndrome. The other would ban doctors from performing an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected -- as early as five or six weeks. 

Republican state Rep. Bette Grande of Fargo sponsored both bills. Grande, a ninth-term legislator, is one of the more conservative lawmakers in the state. She’s pushed for controversial right-to-life issues and has been vocal about the issues.

Grande recently said she had relatives who had children born with genetic abnormalities and has been surprised at the discrimination she’s seen.

“It takes you back to Hitler, and we know where that went,” she has said. “He started going after those with abnormalities, and I think it’s an absurdity we would go back to that kind of thing."

Bette has said she doesn’t understand why there is such an uproar over banning abortions in the fifth or sixth week. According to National Right to Life, a fetus’ heartbeat begins at the 22nd day.

“Why would a heartbeat not be considered life?” she said. “It makes so much sense; we all relate life to a heartbeat, and here we have a heartbeat, so isn’t it life?”

Not everyone agrees.

“I recognize that we don't all feel the same way about abortion, but we should be able to agree that this personal decision is best made by a woman and her family, not politicians,” Elissa Berger of the ACLU wrote in a statement Thursday. “First, in Arkansas, now in North Dakota, politicians seem to have completely lost sight of this.”

Battles over abortion in the United States have seen a shift from the federal courts to statehouses in recent years.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, states in 2011 passed a record-breaking 92 new abortion restrictions. In 2012, 43 were passed – the second highest number of abortion laws.

Last week, the Arkansas legislature passed a ban on abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, which some have called a bold challenge to the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion. 

The Arkansas ban, which would make exceptions in cases of rape, incest and certain medical contingencies, is scheduled to go into effect 90 days after the current legislative session adjourns. Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe had vetoed the measure, but the legislature overrode the veto Wednesday.

Abortion rights groups have vowed to challenge the laws in court.

An Ohio bill, similar to the North Dakota and Arkansas “heartbeat” bills, was debated and defeated last year in the state Senate. The measure, which could be revived this year, fractured Ohio’s anti-abortion movement in a debate over its tactical effectiveness.

In Oklahoma, a “personhood” bill has been introduced that would ban abortions by defining human life as beginning with conception.

“When you pass a law, the end goal is surviving in court,” said Michael Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, told The Associated Press.  He predicted the Arkansas law would be struck down because it contradicted Supreme Court rulings allowing abortions prior to viability — the stage at about 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy when a fetus could survive outside the womb.

“It’s easy to say, ‘Let’s save all the babies,’” Gonidakis, an attorney, said. “But you could pass 100 bills a day, and they’ll never go into effect and save one baby’s life.”

View the original article here