# Serial killer abortionist...coverage on Fox...



## billc (Apr 25, 2013)

This trial should be the trial of the century...it should be covered by all the networks and the coverage should go over all the horrible, tragic details of these crimes against living, breathing, children...and yet it receives little coverage because the killer is an abortion doctor who killed infants outside the womb...who were breating on their own...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...gosnell-documentary-report-new-poll-gosnell-b



> Fox News will air a one-hour documentary on Sunday night, May 5 titled "See No Evil &#8211; The Kermit Gosnell Murders.&#8221; The scheduled documentary will be the most in-depth coverage the "house of horrors" murder trial has yet to receive on a major news network.
> 
> The latest Fox News poll asked voters why they thought the Gosnell case received relatively little attention from the national press. The most common answer: Liberal media bias. Forty-one percent of voters think the lack of coverage is because there&#8217;s a pro-abortion rights bias in the news media.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2013)

against my better judgement, I'll comment here...

so I looked at your link.  That entire story was simply a discussion of why this isn't getting more media attention.  And certain elements of the population want to blame it on the liberal media, yadda yadda yadda.  Wow, am I not surprised.  It didn't say a word about the actual story itself.  What a waste, and a waste of potential discussion.

I am not familiar with this guy and what he is accused of doing.  Abortion remains legal in this nation, and is an important component of women's health.  IF IF IF, as your comments suggest, this doctor was actually taking live-born children and killing them on the table, that's a different story.  Somehow, given the history of how you post and initiate discussion, how you like to present a topic in a way to slant it in favor of your personal political biases, how you like to demonize those who do not share your political biases, I suspect there is more to the story than that.  

care to share a link to an actual story, from a reputable source (i.e., not Foxnews or that other nonsense you like to link to, what's the name...breitbart) about this guy?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 26, 2013)

Since when is an abortion doctor NOT a serial killer*? *

(And to the person(s) who comments against my statement, please punch yourself real hard in the nuts for me since you're out of reach ~ thank you  )


----------



## Tgace (Apr 26, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> against my better judgement, I'll comment here...
> 
> so I looked at your link.  That entire story was simply a discussion of why this isn't getting more media attention.  And certain elements of the population want to blame it on the liberal media, yadda yadda yadda.  Wow, am I not surprised.  It didn't say a word about the actual story itself.  What a waste, and a waste of potential discussion.
> 
> ...




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...15/why-kermit-gosnell-hasnt-been-on-page-one/



> &#8220;The ultimate non-partisan body &#8211; a criminal grand jury &#8211; has supplied us with the graphic, 261-page horror story of Kermit Gosnell, M.D., who stands accused of butchering seven babies &#8211; yes, after they were born alive &#8212; and fatally doping a refugee from Nepal with Demerol in a clinic that smelled of cat urine, where the furniture was stained with blood and the doctor kept a collection of severed baby feet. As often as possible, the report says, Gosnell induced labor for women so pregnant that, as he joked on one occasion, the baby was so big he could &#8220;walk me to the bus stop.&#8221; Then, hundreds of times over the years, he slit their little necks, according to the grand jury report:[He] regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy &#8211; and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels &#8211; and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.
> ​And the kicker? This nightmare facility had not been inspected in 17 years &#8211; other than by someone from the National Abortion Federation, whom he actually invited there. For whatever reason, Gosnell applied for NAF membership two days after the death of the 41-year-old Nepalese woman, Karnamaya Mongar. Even on a day when the place had been scrubbed and spiffed up for the visit, the NAF investigator found it disgusting and rejected Gosnell&#8217;s application for membership. But despite noting many outright illegalities, including a padlocked emergency exit in a part of the clinic where women were left alone overnight, the grand jury report notes that the NAF inspector did not report any of these violations to authorities.&#8221;


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 26, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> against my better judgement, I'll comment here...
> 
> so I looked at your link. That entire story was simply a discussion of why this isn't getting more media attention. And certain elements of the population want to blame it on the liberal media, yadda yadda yadda. Wow, am I not surprised. It didn't say a word about the actual story itself. What a waste, and a waste of potential discussion.
> 
> ...


 
wow. 

Allow me to hold your hand and guide you through the wonderful world of the Interwebz. 

Here is a link to a host of article provided by the Huffington Post on the matter. Im pretty sure youll be fine with that source.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/kermit-gosnell-trial


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...15/why-kermit-gosnell-hasnt-been-on-page-one/



thanks, that's actually useful information.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> &#8230;wow.
> 
> Allow me to hold your hand and guide you through the wonderful world of the Interwebz.
> 
> ...



oh yeah, Tgace was kind enough to point it out to me.

hey, if someone wants to initiate a discussion, it's up to him to supply some relevant information on the topic, at least to start it off.  It's not up to me to go out looking for it, so that I can have the priviledge of joining in.  But hey, whatever.


----------



## billc (Apr 26, 2013)

Thank you Tgace and Celtic_Crippler...Flying Crane proved the point of this thread and the few others on the topic of this killer....this story has been out there for a few weeks now and he has no clue about it...thanks for proving the point of the lack of coverage of this story...


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Since when is an abortion doctor NOT a serial killer*? *



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  

delusional.


----------



## billc (Apr 26, 2013)

The fact that you had to "go out looking for it," is the problem with the democrat media and this story...


----------



## billc (Apr 26, 2013)

If one abortion doctor had been killed the coverage would have been 24/7...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 26, 2013)

Because the narrative is that abortion is supposed to simply be a "medical procedure"...

IMO it's "evil". Perhaps a "necessary evil" at times when it comes to a choice between a womans life or that of the unborn child. I'm not a 100% never anti-abortion advocate. But it's my sincere opinion that the loss of respect for human life in our culture can be found in our attitude towards abortion and the mental lengths people will go through to get their heads around the ugly facts that this case brings to light. 

There are quite a few abortion advocates who would say that this doctor was simply too late in his application. If he could have completed the procedure more efficiently while it was still in the womb that somehow would have not been murder. If it's still in the womb its somehow still "part of the womans body".....


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2013)

billc said:


> Thank you Tgace and Celtic_Crippler...Flying Crane proved the point of this thread and the few others on the topic of this killer....this story has been out there for a few weeks now and he has no clue about it...thanks for proving the point of the lack of coverage of this story...



there may be a lack of coverage of the story and I certainly don't know what the reason for that is.  But to blame it on "liberal media", well that's silly.  But as I've noticed with you bill, you like to place blame for just about everything that you perceive as a problem onto the liberal flavor-of-the-moment.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Perhaps a "necessary evil" at times when it comes to a choice between a womans life or that of the unborn child.



I agree, tho I give it more latitude and feel the woman should have more control over her reproductive health than simply if it comes to a choice between the life/health of the mother, and that of the fetus.  Meaning, I don't agree that that is the only time an abortion is acceptable.  But that's just my opinion, and we are simply people on the internet sharing our opinions.  



> There are quite a few abortion advocates who would say that this doctor was simply too late in his application. If he could have completed the procedure more efficiently while it was still in the womb that somehow would have not been murder. If it's still in the womb its somehow still "part of the womans body".....



Point out one who says that.  That's a hefty accusation, based on sheer emotion and speculation that probably cannot be supported.  I'd suspect that most everyone, whether pro-choice or not, would say that a doctor killing babies after they are born, is a sick killer and needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  Based on the info in the Washington Post article that you linked, If true and he is found guilty in trial, this guy had no business practicing any kind of medicine, and is a criminal, plain and simple.  Those who advocate pro-choice do not adovcate killing babies.  There's a huge difference there.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 26, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> Point out one who says that.  That's a hefty accusation, based on sheer emotion and speculation that probably cannot be supported.  I'd suspect that most everyone, whether pro-choice or not, would say that a* doctor killing babies after they are born*, is a sick killer and needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  Based on the info in the Washington Post article that you linked, If true and he is found guilty in trial, this guy had no business practicing any kind of medicine, and is a criminal, plain and simple.  Those who advocate pro-choice do not adovcate killing babies.  There's a huge difference there.



And I said that there are pro-abortion supporters who would have had no problem with killing those same babies as long as they were still in the womb when it happened. As long as it's "still inside" it's at risk of abortion in their opinion. All this doctor was guilty of in their opinion was being "too late". If he had been better at his craft and killed it before it was out all would have been well for some abortion activists.

Im not saying all abortion supporters "support" post birth killing. But some wont stand against it either.

[video=youtube_share;QkSaypnvvqY]http://youtu.be/QkSaypnvvqY[/video]

So the same "baby" separated by say two days time could be a fetus of no human value or a baby it would be murder to kill.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2013)

Tgace said:


> And I said that there are pro-abortion supporters who would have had no problem with killing those same babies as long as they were still in the womb when it happened. As long as it's "still inside" it's at risk of abortion in their opinion. All this doctor was guilty of in their opinion was being "too late". If he had been better at his craft and killed it before it was out all would have been well for some abortion activists.
> 
> Im not saying all abortion supporters "support" post birth killing. But some wont stand against it either.
> 
> ...



um, but I suspect that doesn't typically happen.  Any idea on how often that might happen?  I honestly don't know but I suspect it's very rare.  If you have any stats on it, I'd be interested in seeing them, tho it wouldn't change my position on abortion as a necessary option in women's reproductive health.  Horrible but rare things happen in any medical procedure, that's part of life.  Medicine is not perfect, sometimes procedures go sideways.  I believe that the vast vast majority of abortions are done much earlier in the pregnancy, before the fetus would be viable.  Be that as it may, it's a legitimate topic for discussion, but not the same thing here.

You are making a comparison between a legal abortion, and what this particular doctor did.  They are not the same thing.  You are attempting to make a comparison between the intention of a legal and careful abortion, and the deliberate killing of live-born babies.  You are attempting to equate a legal and careful abortion, with what this particular monster did.  Definitely not the same thing.

As far as the video goes, I don't know who this woman is or in what capacity she represents Planned Parenthood.  That discussion, as it unfolds in the video, is far from laying out a clear position.  It looked to me like a mostly un-resolved discussion.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 26, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Since when is an abortion doctor NOT a serial killer*? *
> 
> (And to the person(s) who comments against my statement, please punch yourself real hard in the nuts for me since you're out of reach ~ thank you  )



Well, youre a murderer as well. Have you ever stepped on an ant? It wont be going home to its family, at the end of the day.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 26, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Well, youre a murderer as well. Have you ever stepped on an ant? It wont be going home to its family, at the end of the day.



Equating human life with that of an ant isn't too far over the horizon I guess....


----------



## Tgace (Apr 26, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> um, but I suspect that doesn't typically happen.  Any idea on how often that might happen?  I honestly don't know but I suspect it's very rare.  If you have any stats on it, I'd be interested in seeing them, tho it wouldn't change my position on abortion as a necessary option in women's reproductive health.  Horrible but rare things happen in any medical procedure, that's part of life.  Medicine is not perfect, sometimes procedures go sideways.  I believe that the vast vast majority of abortions are done much earlier in the pregnancy, before the fetus would be viable.  Be that as it may, it's a legitimate topic for discussion, but not the same thing here.
> 
> You are making a comparison between a legal abortion, and what this particular doctor did.  They are not the same thing.  You are attempting to make a comparison between the intention of a legal and careful abortion, and the deliberate killing of live-born babies.  You are attempting to equate a legal and careful abortion, with what this particular monster did.  Definitely not the same thing.
> 
> As far as the video goes, I don't know who this woman is or in what capacity she represents Planned Parenthood.  That discussion, as it unfolds in the video, is far from laying out a clear position.  It looked to me like a mostly un-resolved discussion.



As long as it's "legal and careful" it's Ok. As long as you don't wait too long and it gets out.....there are many late term abortion supporters. The philosophy is "its not a baby till its out". Whats the big deal over a couple of minutes? 

It's an unresolved discussion because if she admits that a baby who survives an abortion attempt is now a life worth saving her entire schema starts to unravel.


----------



## billc (Apr 26, 2013)

Well, here is Kirsten Powers, a liberal commentator on the shame of the democrat media not covering the story...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/



> Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable _NBC Nightly News'_ Brian Williams intoned, "A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh," as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed  a major human rights story if there ever was one  doesn't make the cut.
> You don't have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being "pro-choice" or "pro-life." It's about basic human rights.
> The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.


----------



## billc (Apr 26, 2013)

Here is one journalist pointing out 14 potential reasons this story wasn't covered...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-case-didnt-get-more-media-attention/274966/



> *7) Journalists Live in a Pro-Choice Bubble*
> 
> As articulated by Dave Weigel of _Slate_, political journalists "are, generally, pro-choice. Twice, in D.C., I've caused a friend to literally leave a conversation and freeze me out for a day or so because I suggested that the Stupak Amendment and the Hyde Amendment made sense. There _is_ a bubble. Horror stories of abortionists are less likely to permeate that bubble than, say, a story about a right-wing pundit attacking an abortionist who then claims to have gotten death threats ... a reporter in the bubble is less likely to be compelled by the news of an arrested abortionist."
> 
> Says Erick Erickson, "networks focus on the things people along the coast are interested in and not what people along the American river valleys are talking about. In churches, local restaurants, and small town hair salons a lot of people across the country are talking about the terrible trial of Kermit Gosnell in Pennsylvania. It's just not the people who interact with those who produce the news in New York City."





> *9) Pro-Choice Journalists Are Willfully Ignoring the Story to Avoid Giving an Advantage to Pro-Lifers
> 
> *Folksin the pro-life community earnestly believe this theory. My interactions with journalists have never given me reason to think that any significant number would ignore _what they knew to be a newsworthy story_ for blatantly political reasons. Admittedly, I've interacted with a small subset of all journalists, and the very nature of this theory is that it cannot be definitively proven or disproved. But it seems to me that, for example, David Shaw's "Abortion Bias Seeps Into The News" offers a much more plausible account of how ideological bias might creep into newsroom behavior. I do not know if his account was correct in 1990 when published or if it is correct now


.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2013)

Tgace said:


> As long as it's "legal and careful" it's Ok. As long as you don't wait too long and it gets out.....there are many late term abortion supporters. The philosophy is "its not a baby till its out". Whats the big deal over a couple of minutes?
> 
> It's an unresolved discussion because if she admits that a baby who survives an abortion attempt is now a life worth saving her entire schema starts to unravel.



well, I'd say just about every issue has elements that we could find disagreeable.  Perhaps there is room to improve those elements.  But for me, it doesn't change my position that the option of abortion is important.  Yes, it should be a rare thing, and the decision should not be made lightly and it certainly should not be used as a first line of birth control.  But the option should still remain.

hey, plenty of people abuse guns.  But I know a whole lot of people don't see that as a good enough reason to place controls or limits on them.  That's yet another issue that doesn't really belong in this thread.  But we've all got our causes that we support.


----------



## billc (Apr 26, 2013)

And another look at why democrat journalists have ignored this story...

http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-me-shaw01jul01,0,5601598.story



> A comprehensive Times study of major newspaper, television and newsmagazine coverage over the last 18 months, including more than 100 interviews with journalists and with activists on both sides of the abortion debate, confirms that this bias often exists.
> 
> Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play:
> 
> ...


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2013)

so...has the "conservative" media overwhelmingly covered this story?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 26, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> well, I'd say just about every issue has elements that we could find disagreeable.  Perhaps there is room to improve those elements.  But for me, it doesn't change my position that the option of abortion is important.  Yes, it should be a rare thing, and the decision should not be made lightly and it certainly should not be used as a first line of birth control.  But the option should still remain.
> 
> hey, plenty of people abuse guns.  But I know a whole lot of people don't see that as a good enough reason to place controls or limits on them.  That's yet another issue that doesn't really belong in this thread.  But we've all got our causes that we support.



Now now, there are plenty of controls on guns. A teenage girl cant legally buy a gun at a gun store w/o parental permission...but she can get an abortion and the parents can't be told.

The fact is we wont place a definite point on when our lives have value.


----------



## billc (Apr 26, 2013)

Here are some numbers on how often babies are killed at the three and a half month mark...

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact8.html



> There are at least 164,000 abortions a year after the first three months of pregnancy, and 13,000 abortions annually after 4 1/2 months, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (_New York Times_, July 5 and November 6, 1995), which is an arm of Planned Parenthood. These numbers should be regarded as _minimums_, since they are based on _voluntary reporting _to the AGI. (The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 1993, over _17,000 abortions_ were performed at 21 weeks and later-- and the CDC acknowledges that the reports that it receives are incomplete.)


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 26, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Equating human life with that of an ant isn't too far over the horizon I guess....



That isnt exactly what i was doing - I was referring to how we place such a high value on human life, then go off killing things.
I could have been a bit more cruel, and asked what would happen if the child grew up being a resented accident instead of being aborted, and what the hazards are of backyard abortions.


----------



## billc (Apr 26, 2013)

Hmmm...at kermit's clinic the risks are pretty grave...and he was a legal abortionist who was consistently ignored by the people who were supposed to be monitoring those clinics...

Human life is not animal life...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 26, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> That isnt exactly what i was doing - I was referring to how w*e place such a high value on human life, then go off killing things*.
> I could have been a bit more cruel, and asked what would happen if the child grew up being a resented accident instead of being aborted, and what the hazards are of backyard abortions.



Because human life is of more value.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 26, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Because human life is of more value.



Yes, it is. I didnt say otherwise.
And yet, we deliberately kill each other (see how ive changed the subject of the topic, now that weve established how valuable human life is?). The value of the life of an ant is your choice to make. Same goes for people, really. I.e. tell what you just said to a serial killer. Now tell it to an abortionist. Now tell it to a soldier. And so forth. Apparently killing humans is quite alright, when we feel all justified in doing it. No matter how valuable human life is.


----------



## billc (Apr 26, 2013)

A serial killer and an abortionist kill an innocent human being, which is murder...a soldier of a democratic nation may end up killing an innocent but they are not the intended targets and I know our soldiers go to great lengths to spare innocent non-combatants.  To compare serial killers and abortionists to soldiers, at least of western democracies, is just silly.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 26, 2013)

billc said:


> A serial killer and an abortionist kill an innocent human being, which is murder...a soldier of a democratic nation may end up killing an innocent but they are not the intended targets and I know our soldiers go to great lengths to spare innocent non-combatants.  To compare serial killers and abortionists to soldiers, at least of western democracies, is just silly.



But human life is valuable. Or so im told.

Thats sorta my point. A soldier can justify it - But what about all the people who think that soldiers are murderers? I guess theyre just wrong, because *we* can justify the killing they do. Its comparable to determining whether or not abortion is murder. Its about how *you* define murder, and how you feel about what theyre doing. You dont have to like what theyre doing, you dont have to accept it, but i for one would (knowing full well how irrelevant my opinion is) prefer it if people objected based on that, rather than trying to turn it into the same thing as murder. Thatd be like calling homosexuals wrong, because you dont approve of homosexuality. Along with all the people calling homosexuality acceptable, because they either approve or dont really care. Right and wrong is very opinionated. (To clarify, such a statement would be 'homosexuality = sodomy'. Abortion = murder. Soldiers = murderers. Murder = killing people when we dont say its ok)


----------



## billc (Apr 26, 2013)

Serial killer...takes the life of an innocent human being for personal satisfaction.

Abortionist...takes the life of an innocent human being...murder when the reason is not to save the life of the mother.

Soldier...takes the life of an innocent human being as a consequence of combat but without the intent to intentioally end the life of an innocent.

Big differences in how a life is ended and how murder is taking the life of an innocent...


----------



## Drasken (Apr 27, 2013)

I think at the earliest terms, abortion is not murder because the cells haven't formed into a child. It is aborting a process. However late term abortions I definitely view as murder. Especially when the child is capable of living, even with assistance, without the mother.

That being said, I think the problem is we don't take responsibility for our own actions. Birth control, including the morning after pill which is just secondary birth control, should be readily available. Then people can and should take all precautions and abortion wouldn't be needed. At that point, if you didn't take precautions then deal with the consequences.

Back to the OP however. I personally read and watch all news I can. Liberal, Conservative. I watch both because the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. And I have to say, the conservative media has reported more on this than the liberal media. But both are guilty of not covering it as much as they should.
I think that the fact that this doctor was licensed, is being used as a broad attack on all abortion doctors. Now I don't mean you have to agree with them, or condone what they do. But this makes more of a statement about this ONE immoral waste of life doctor than the practice as a whole.
Also, it says a lot about the regulations and the departments charged with reinforcing those regulations. So my question is this....

WHY are we not charging the people tasked with monitoring these clinics!? This should have been stopped long ago. This guy should be behind bars. And the negligent idiots that should have caught the illegal activity during the supposed regular inspections should be fired and possibly brought up on charges as well. The whole thing is insane.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 27, 2013)

billc said:


> Serial killer...takes the life of an innocent human being for personal satisfaction.
> 
> Abortionist...takes the life of an innocent human being...murder when the reason is not to save the life of the mother.
> 
> ...



And its all killing. What you just listed is how we judge these people, either in their favor or against them. For a long time, homosexuality was unspeakable. The fact that we find it acceptable now is proof of, if nothing else, the fact that its about how we look at it. And some people still oppose it.


----------



## billc (Apr 27, 2013)

> WHY are we not charging the people tasked with monitoring these clinics!? This should have been stopped long ago. This guy should be behind bars. And the negligent idiots that should have caught the illegal activity during the supposed regular inspections should be fired and possibly brought up on charges as well. The whole thing is insane.



Because he was providing abortions...it's that simple.  The abortion lobby is very powerful and they intimidate politicians and pencil pushers at all levels of government...this isn't the only problem clinic out there...look through the web and you'll see some others getting closed down...


----------



## billc (Apr 27, 2013)




----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 27, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Now now, there are plenty of controls on guns. A teenage girl cant legally buy a gun at a gun store w/o parental permission...but she can get an abortion and the parents can't be told.
> 
> The fact is we wont place a definite point on when our lives have value.



ok, but I still support a woman's right to choose an abortion, including the teenage girl's.  for what it's worth.


----------



## Drasken (Apr 27, 2013)

billc said:


> Because he was providing abortions...it's that simple.  The abortion lobby is very powerful and they intimidate politicians and pencil pushers at all levels of government...this isn't the only problem clinic out there...look through the web and you'll see some others getting closed down...



But that's the thing. He was performing ILLEGAL abortions. Once a child is at the late stages and can survive on its own, or could be put on a ventilator until able to breathe on their own, it is illegal to abort that child. At that point it is murder. So while I support early term abortions as a possible choice. While I don't see that as murder. I do see murdering children who could survive without the mother's womb as murder. And so esdoes the law. At least on paper.
Meaning the officials sent to do inspections didn't do their job properly. And all, including the doctor, should be held responsible.


----------



## billc (Apr 28, 2013)

There may have to be an extensive examination of the abortion providing industry...an undercover video camera interview with abortion providers...and what they say to these women...

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/28/video-was-gosnell-an-aberration-in-late-term-abortions/



> What happens, the young woman asks, if the baby is moving and breathing when it comes out?  _No worries_, says the abortion-clinic saleswoman &#8212; the toxic solution will make it &#8220;automatically stop.&#8221;  If the baby spontaneously delivers, she advises the mother to &#8220;Flush it!&#8221; Or, failing that, stick the baby in a plastic bag and bring him or her to the clinic for the toxic solution.  Don&#8217;t go to the hospital, she warns, because the hospital might actually _try to save the baby_.





> The employee assigned to take note of medical history reassured the woman, &#8220;We never had that for ages&#8221; (a seeming admission that a baby did survive abortion at the clinic at least once) but that should &#8220;it&#8221; &#8220;survive this,&#8221; &#8220;They would still have to put it in like a jar, a container, with solution, and send it to the lab. . . . We don&#8217;t just throw it out in the garbage.&#8221;
> Oh, and this innocuous-sounding &#8220;solution&#8221; was, of course, a toxic substance suitable for killing an infant.
> &#8220;Like, what if it was twitching?&#8221; asked the pregnant woman.
> &#8220;The solution will make it stop,&#8221; said the clinic employee. &#8220;That&#8217;s the whole purpose of the solution . . . It will automatically stop. It won&#8217;t be able to breathe anymore.&#8221;
> ...


----------



## billc (May 3, 2013)

This is a video by Stephen Crowder taking a look at the lack of coverage of the serial killer abortionist...and how few people have actually heard about this trial...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/05/03/GOSNELL-WHO-It-Aint-Easy-Being-a-Babykiller


----------

