Pro-choice blogger admits why the Gosnell trial was buried: to protect abortion


The next time women hear pro-aborts blather on about how they’re “pro-women,” they should remember this.

There’s been a lot of condemnation among conservatives and pro-lifers towards the mainstream media for ignoring the trial of Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell ran a disgusting house of horrors in Philadelphia, where he preyed on low-income and minority women. His clinic was filthy – investigators found cat feces and blood on the floors, and more blood smeared on the the equipment. At least one patient has said that she was forced into her abortion after changing her mind. Other patients were injured or infected with STDs. Gosnell killed at least two women and God knows how many infants. He kept their tiny feet in jars on shelves. Other bodies were left to rot in rooms around the clinic.

As the trial has progressed, more and more lurid details have come to light. Clinic workers have testified about how the babies screamed before being killed, or about how they would play with the babies before snipping their little necks. There should be constant media coverage – yet for some reason, the media has been nearly silent. Even a group of politicians spoke out about the media’s burial of this story.

There’s been a lot of speculation about why the media would try to hide this story from the American public, and now, one pro-choice blogger and journalist has admitted what we’ve all suspected: it’s simply to protect abortion. Pro-choicers can’t have people seeing the ugly truth of this case and all of the potentially anti-abortion questions it brings up, and so the story gets buried.

Megan McArdle at The Daily Beast explains why she’s chosen to keep quiet until now:

But I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective—of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories—if the sick-making was done by “our side.”

Of course, I’m not saying that I identify with criminal abortionists who kill infants and grievously wound their patients. But I am pro-choice.

What Gosnell did was not some inevitable result of legal abortion. But while legal abortion was not sufficient to create the horrors in Philadelphia, it was necessary. Gosnell was able to harm so many women and babies because he operated in the open.

… If I think about it for a moment, there are obviously lots of policy implications of Gosnell’s baby charnel house. How the hell did this clinic operate for seventeen years without health inspectors discovering his brutal crimes? Are there major holes in our medical regulatory system? More to the point, are those holes created, in part, by the pressure to go easy on abortion clinics, or more charitably, the fear of getting tangled in a hot-button political issue? These have clear implications for abortion access, and abortion politics.

… Moreover, surely those of us who are pro-choice must worry that this will restrict access to abortion: that a crackdown on abortion clinics will follow, with onerous white-glove inspections; that a revolted public will demand more restrictions on late-term abortions; or that women will be too afraid of Gosnell-style crimes to seek a medically necessary abortion.

They don’t want people to associate abortion with such barbarities. They don’t want people to know that it’s not unusual at all for babies to be born alive after an abortion – and then summarily killed. They don’t want to cover horrific stories that portray abortion negatively.

And while it’s obvious that the lack of regulations and inspections of Gosnell’s clinic played a major role in the horrors he perpetuated on women and babies, McArdle still points out the truth: that pro-choicers oppose restrictions and regulations because it might restrict abortion. It’s better for women to quietly suffer under the Kermit Gosnells of the country than have life-saving regulations in place, and inspections to ensure that abortions are being performed safely. Stories like this one must be buried, or women might not get abortions anymore. More pro-life legislation might be passed. And they just can’t have that.

Basically, it’s more important to protect abortion than the lives of women and children. And that’s why the media has kept quiet about this trial. It’s despicable, and the next time women hear pro-aborts blather on about how they’re “pro-women,” they should remember this. If it comes down to protecting women or hiding a monster like Kermit Gosnell for the good of abortion, they’ll choose Gosnell.

To Top

Send this to friend