What Gave Us Gosnell

The surest way for sin to prosper is for a culture to stop calling it sin. Given the rapidly decaying culture in the U.S., I could proceed in a myriad of directions following such a conclusion. However, in America the foremost example of the rotten fruit born of neglected sin is Kermit Gosnell.

In case you missed it—which is very likely, given the way the mainstream media had to be dragged kicking and screaming into covering Gosnell’s trial (after Gosnell’s guilt was pronounced, 56 days since the trial began, ABC News finally broke its silence!)—Gosnell was found guilty of, among hundreds of other things, first degree murder in the cases of three babies born alive after botched abortions.

If you’ve paid any attention at all, you know the gruesome details: “snipped” necks, frozen body parts, tiny arms and legs stored in jars, and so on. For decades, while earning millions of dollars, Gosnell and his associates butchered women and children alike.

No one should be surprised that the culture in America produced a Kermit Gosnell. After decades of lies from the abortion industry and its willing cohorts within the liberal media and Democrat party (along with “pro-choice” Republicans like Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania—where Gosnell performed his butchery), millions of Americans were led to believe that, after sperm fertilizes egg, what grows inside a woman’s body was not a life, but a “choice.” Such blatant disregard for sound morality, sound science, and plain common sense produced Gosnell’s “House of Horrors.”

After weeks of a trial that revealed a shocking callousness for both the born and the unborn and after 10 days of jury deliberations, during which speculation of the verdict abounded, there was plenty of time for all of America to see the truth when it comes to abortion and the ghastly practices that occur in abortion clinics. Yet following the announcement of Gosnell’s guilt, like a toddler with his fingers in his ears, abortion apologists such as The New York Times continued with their propaganda.

Before being caught, called out, and subsequently editing its online article, six times The Times referred to Gosnell’s young victims as “fetuses.” Early in the article The Times noted, “The verdict came after a five-week trial in which the prosecution and the defense battled over whether the fetuses Dr. Gosnell was charged with killing were alive when they were removed from their mothers.”

In March of this year, a representative from Planned Parenthood (PP) Florida testified before the Florida legislature. The legislators were considering a bill that would require abortionists to provide medical care to a child born alive as a result of an abortion attempt. In a rare moment of candor from the culture of death (to borrow from Al Mohler), the PP representative endorsed the position under which Gosnell himself operated: the “right” to kill a baby born alive.

Stunned, Rep. Jim Boyd wanted clarification. “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” PP lobbyist Alisa Snow replied, “We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

Writing for Salon.com early this year, pro-abortionist Mary Elizabeth Williams declared that it is time for the abortion industry and its supporters to stop playing games when it comes to life. “So what if abortion ends a life,” she concludes. She explains: “All life is not equal…a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

Given such a climate, it is unsurprising that Gosnell’s attorney blamed the verdict on the “baby factor.” He did not elaborate as to his meaning, but given the perverted sense of life that many in our culture have developed, there is little surprise that the lawyer for an abortionist would choose to slander the use of the word “baby” when it comes not only to describing the unborn, but even children outside the womb.

Words matter. In a recent interview for The Atlantic, psychotherapist Gary Greenberg notes the many problems with modern psychiatry. Mostly he points out how, through the very political and subjective Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, modern psychiatry has attempted to gain medical relevance. In this process, Greenberg notes we have eliminated the moral aspect behind certain behaviors. He rightly concludes, “This society is very wary of using the term ‘evil.’” Not being able to call evil “evil” is how we end up with Kermit Gosnell.

Also, in this case (as with every such abortion) distance (mere inches) matters. As pointed out on The Hill, “The murder case against Gosnell rests entirely on the location of the victim (in inches, mind you) at the time of death, not in the fact that the victim was killed. The main difference between Gosnell and other abortion doctors is that he couldn’t get the job done before the baby came out. He tried doing it like his peers at Planned Parenthood—the industry leader which is worthy of half a billion dollars annually in tax-payer funds.”

Further illustrating America’s moral decay, when it comes to protecting children who survive an abortion, no less than the man most recently elected (twice!) President of the U.S., Barack Hussein Obama himself, advocated a position that differs little from Gosnell’s. As World Net Daily put it, “Fundamental to Gosnell’s argument was that severing the spinal cord of a baby who survived an abortion was not infanticide.”

In 2001, the Illinois legislature took up a bill that was patterned after the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). Then state senator Obama voted against the bill in committee. On the floor of the Illinois Senate, he later gave the only speech against the bill, saying, “I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

In 2003, even after a “neutrality clause” was added to the Illinois bill that made it virtually identical to the federal BAIPA that unanimously passed both houses of the U.S. Congress and was signed into law by President Bush, Obama chaired an Illinois Senate committee and led the Democrats on that committee to kill the amended bill.

What can one conclude about a nation that elects such a man its leader? For one thing, as I already noted, the fact that a Kermit Gosnell exists should come as no surprise to any American. Secondly, until this nation sees abortion for what it really is, the next Kermit Gosnell is just around the corner.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com