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

The truth about the Sanford victory

• 

Mark Sanford won the special election in South Carolina’s first congressional district last night. Democrats really thought they could win this seat, going so far as to outspend Sanford.  

But it was not in the cards.  

Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, their preferred candidate, was a terrible candidate in a heavily Republican district.

In 2009 and early 2010, the Democrats won a series of special elections and trumpeted that voters were embracing Barack Obama. They went on to get spanked by the voters in the 2010 general election. Neither side should read more into this special election than there is.

Neither side should read more into this special election than there is.

What is there is the simple fact that, despite what the national media would have voters believe, there are still many parts of the country that do not like liberals.  

Just as a Republican could never win Nancy Pelosi’s district, Nancy Pelosi helped Mark Sanford rally conservatives to his side in a very Republican district.

Elizabeth Colbert-Busch showed her shallowness on a number of issues, including not recognizing what “Toomey-Manchin” is in a very second amendment state.  (If Ms. Colbert-Busch is reading this, that would be the gun control measure that failed in the United States Senate)  

Consequently, she opted out of most debate opportunities.  Instead of debating her, Mark Sanford toured the district with a life sized cut out of Nancy Pelosi.  It worked.

Sanford, for all his personal faults, is a master of retail politics.  He opted for large, wooden, spray painted campaign signs put in the front windows of local shops and the side of roads.  

He toured the district aggressively while the Democrat held meet and greets with rich donors.  

He ate a lot of barbecue.  

He shook a lot of hands.  

He spent time one on one with voters at their doorsteps.  

He let those who had issues with him address them on their front porch to his face.

On election day, Mark Sanford voted and make almost a dozen campaign stops.  Elizabeth Colbert-Busch voted and disappeared.  

The pace was consistent throughout the special election. Even with news about Mark Sanford getting in trouble with his ex-wife, Colbert-Busch did not hustle on the ground, just expecting voters to embrace her.  

In the end, Republicans found a mug shot of her arrest during a messy divorce. The Democrats were caught off guard and did not respond.

The irony now is that Democrats are left to say Mark Sanford’s victory is a loss for women.  These very same Democrats are putting up a man, Chuck Sheheen, to run against South Carolina’s female Governor, Nikki Haley.  

Democrats can claim the GOP is hypocritical voting for a guy like Mark Sanford while claiming to be for family values.  

Between Bill Clinton and Kermit Gosnell, no one would ever accuse the Democrats of being for family values.  They will also accuse the GOP of selling out its fiscal values by supporting a guy like Sanford who, while being paid by taxpayers, went to Argentina to see his mistress.

But the lesson of South Carolina’s special election last night is actually simpler than all that — some areas of the country just hate liberals. 

The Democrats may have yellow dog Democrats who’d rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican, but the Republicans have Sanford Republicans.  They’d rather Mark Sanford, warts and all, than an elitist liberal whose greatest claim to fame is her brother Stephen.

Now the real fun begins.  

Mark Sanford is no fan of Republican leaders in Congress. They yanked their money from his race, choosing to let him fend for himself. 

On election night, the National Republican Congressional Committee, in charge of helping Republican candidates, mentioned Mark Sanford once and Nancy Pelosi twice in its press release on the race.

They opposed Sanford, a strident fiscal conservative, in the primary and did not help him against the Democrats.  

This should be fun to watch.

Erick Erickson is a Fox News contributor and editor of RedState.com.  Follow him on Twitter @EWErickson.

Erick Erickson

View the original article here

Sen. Paul declares victory after Holder offers assurance on drones

It's one of the few remaining issues that can bring Democrats and Republicans together -- fear of unchecked government drones. 

Sen. Rand Paul's historic 13-hour filibuster has drawn renewed attention to a technological expansion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago, and new legislation that's meant to rein it in. 

While the Obama administration increasingly employs armed drones as a pivotal counterterrorism tool overseas, domestic law enforcement agencies are also moving to broaden the use of surveillance mini-drones over the next several years. The Federal Aviation Administration projects as many as 10,000 licensed systems by 2017. 

The lethal drones used in Pakistan are a far cry from the unarmed eyes in the sky used in America. But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and a host of other lawmakers see constitutional pitfalls across the board -- namely focusing on how armed, and unarmed, drones might someday be used against American citizens. 

Paul and the senators from both sides of the aisle who joined him on the floor Wednesday described a bleak future where an unscrupulous government might use drones against its own population if left unchecked. 

"Your notification is the buzz of propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you're killed. Is that what we really want from our government?" Paul asked. 

Despite the filibuster, a vote on the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director -- whom Paul was technically holding up with his speech -- is expected to proceed as early as Thursday. 

But lawmakers have already started pushing legislation to rein in the drone program -- legislation that might get a second look after Paul's dramatic performance Wednesday, and into early Thursday morning. 

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Ted Poe, R-Texas, last month introduced a bill to regulate domestic drones much like the government regulates wiretaps. 

It would require officials to obtain a warrant in order to perform many kinds of surveillance with those drones. Further, it would prohibit law enforcement drones from being equipped with firearms or explosives in U.S. airspace. 

"As we enter this uncharted world of drone technology, Congress must be proactive and establish boundaries for drone use that safeguard the constitutional rights of Americans," Poe said in a statement last month. 

The use of armed drones in U.S. airspace fueled Paul's lengthy filibuster Wednesday. Before he took the floor, Paul announced that he had received a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder which opened the door, in extremely rare circumstances, to using a drone to kill someone within U.S. territory. Holder said "catastrophic" attacks such as the Sept. 11 attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor are examples of circumstances where the president could conceivably feel such an action is necessary. 

Testifying on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Holder agreed that it would be unconstitutional to use a drone on American soil against a U.S. citizen and suspected terrorist who did not pose an imminent threat. 

Paul, during his filibuster, said he wanted a formal assurance from the administration that it would not use drones to kill noncombatant Americans. 

Aside from the legislation in the House, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have floated the idea of establishing a sort of drone court to screen potential targets -- much like a court screens surveillance of foreign targets in the U.S.

View the original article here