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.
Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
