I guess we should give Kermit Gosnell’s lawyer, Jack McMahon, a bit of leeway. It can’t be easy having to defend the man responsible for such atrocities. The defense strategy that McMahon has chosen to play, however, is not only laughable, but also insulting. Gosnell and his defense team have chosen to play the race card.
According to McMahon, however, there simply was no “house of horrors,” as alleged in the grand jury report and media; the defending attorney spat out that phrase with theatrical disgust. Rather, McMahon — a distinct-looking character with a jaw set like a bulldog and a bald freckled head that works up to a shade of crimson while passionately making his case — tried to recast the alleged murderer as an imperfect doctor dedicated to serving poor people in his “urban” community.
After reminding jurors about the legal presumption of innocence, McMahon revealed his main theme: Gosnell, he said, a black man, is a victim of an “elitist, racist prosecution.”
The majority of the jurors are black.
… He said: “[This is a] elitist, racist prosecution! That’s what it is! This black man is being [tried] because of who he is and where he works!”
It’s interesting, considering that McMahon himself has apparently dabbled in some racism himself:
In 1997, McMahon — then a prosecutor — unsuccessfully challenged former D.A. Lynne Abraham for District Attorney. Shortly after he announced his candidacy, a controversial video surfaced wherein he was seen teaching lawyers questionable techniques for gaming the jury-selection process by using race as a criterion.
“The blacks from the low-income areas are less likely to convict,” McMahon said in the video. “I understand it. It’s an understandable proposition. There’s a resentment for law enforcement. There’s a resentment for authority. And as a result, you don’t want those people on your jury.”
Of course, the claims of racism towards the prosecution are ridiculous. Denying the truth of the horrors that took place under Kermit Gosnell’s “care” is unbelievable. Gosnell has documented violations going as far back as 1989. Patients of Gosnell’s were injured, infected with STDs, and, tragically, even killed. He was found to have performed illegal late-term abortions, and his clinic was found by investigators to be decrepit and disgusting, with blood and feces on the floors, and blood-stained blankets. One of the most grisly discoveries by authorities was the rows of jars filled with the feet of babies. There were even more jars, frozen, filled with decapitated babies. Worst of all were the babies, at least seven, who were born alive and then murdered according to staff witnesses.
These are all facts. It’s not a conspiracy theory born of a racist prosecution.
In fact, the real racists in this case were the ones working in Gosnell’s clinic, including Gosnell himself. Gosnell’s employees have said themselves that white women received far better care than women who were minorities, or poor. And disgustingly, that’s exactly the excuse Gosnell’s defense attorney is using for his appallingly poor level of care: the clinic was in a poor neighborhood, servicing mostly minorities, so he shouldn’t be expected to give quality medical care.
This lawyer is accusing the prosecution of racism, going so far as to call it a “lynching,” yet is claiming that Gosnell’s terrible clinic – the blood on the floors, the STDs, the women who had their cervices torn, who had to have their intestines removed and go through hysterectomies, the women killed – all of that is acceptable, because he was practicing in a poor, minority neighborhood, where people apparently shouldn’t expect stellar care.
So, who exactly is it that’s the real racist here?