Why burden the decision?

I know everyone is probably sick to death by now of hearing stories about Kermit Gosnell's atrocities. For those who are reading this years from now (I flatter myself) and don't recall the story, Kermit Gosnell, MD is (or was) an abortionist in Pennsylvania who was recently arrested for, among other things, the murder of eight children who had been born alive during a late term abortion. The eight children are representative. It is believed he killed hundred of children that way, but these eight represent the "strongest case" for prosecutors to pursue.

There have been a virtual treasure trove of pro-lifers blogging on this incident. Some have focused on the fact that the main stream media almost completely suppressed the story, or how president Obama ignored this mass murderer while providing a dog and pony show over the killings by Jared Lee Loughner. We've heard how the DA virtually apologized for having to prosecute this man, and how state agencies and pro-abortion groups knew about the conditions and practices and ignored them.

I'd like to make two points. First off, these "horrible crimes" that Dr. Gosnell is being prosecuted for occur routinely in abortion clinic around the world, and in fact are legal as long as the baby is killed before it has completely emerged from the womb. In fact, in Virginia, what Dr. Gosnell did would be completely legal as long as he killed the child before cutting the umbilical cord. Here's an article on some of the finer points:

Yet the procedure that Gosnell is alleged to have preferred to implement in his practice is one that bears a strong resemblance to something several public officials have voted in support of as a U.S. Senators of "late term abortions." These procedures are more commonly referred to as "partial-birth abortions."

Both procedures begin by inducing early labor. Depending on how early, this alone will claim the life of roughly 76% of the pre-born children involved. Therefore in both cases roughly 25% of the pre-born children survive and a dilemma exists.

For parents who went seeking an abortion, a living child is exactly the opposite of what they wished.

In Gosnell's case he carried the delivery through to completion, it is alleged that he would then end the child's life by using a pair of scissors to snip the spinal cord.

With the majority of "partial-birth abortions" the medical practitioner would deliver the child to within two inches of being completely out of the birth canal, then using a pair of scissors, or a scalpel, would puncture the base of the head, and snip the spinal cord.

I bring this up specifically because partial birth abortion is a practice that is defended by none other than President Obama. He doesn't find anything wrong with partial birth abortion, and has voted against bills to ban the practice. His defense of his vote is that the bill did not have an exception for partial birth abortion to protect the life of the mother. This is despite testimony from multiple doctors and other experts that partial birth abortion is never required to save the life of the mother. And anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that's clearly true.

In a partial birth abortion the baby is delivered and is killed as the last of its body leaves the mother. All one has to do is not insert the scissor into the brain and it's a live birth. It seems ludicrous to claim that inserting a pair of scissors into a baby's skull when the baby is already outside (except for part of the head) is required to save the mother's life. She has already delivered it.

The second point I'd like to make is that, not only does Obama not think partial birth abortion should be legal, he thinks what Kermit Gosnell did should be legal. In Illinois he several times voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. His claim was that the act was secretly a wedge to allow people to attack Roe v. Wade down the line (why he thinks a state law would be allowed to overturn a supreme court ruling I can't imagine, but he is supposed to be some legal genius so perhaps there would be a way). But what's telling is that he was the only person to give a speech bashing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. What he said reveals his position. In his own words, the bill

...is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

If you think this is just something out of context, go read the entire transcript. It is a succint summation of his argument. Now you can weasel word this and try to explain what he really meant, but don't tell me that Obama doesn't know enough about law to see that putting the decision of whether to save the life of an already born infant solely in the hands of the abortionist and mother effectively permits legal infanticide, just as Doe v. Bolton, by putting the decision of when an abortion was necessary solely in the hands of the abortionist and mother effectively permitted legal abortion up to birth.

Under the law President Obama has stated he thinks it should be, the decision as to whether to save those babies that Gosnell killed would have been solely in the hands of Gosnell. We have seen what Gosnell's decision was.

Read More

It's not over yet

Hopefully by now you have heard the news about Kermit Gosnell. He has been found guilty of first degree murder of three newborn infants, and third degree manslaughter in the death of a mother, and guilty on racketeering charges and over 200 counts of violating Pennsylvania abortion laws.

I know many of you have, like me, been hoping that Gosnell would not be acquitted, so that there would be some justice for the murders of those babies. Allegedly there are over 100 more babies who got the same treatment, but he hasn't been charged in those deaths.

So we can all relax now, right? Not quite. The three first degree murders could get him the death penalty. As the trial enters the sentencing phase, I'm praying, and ask you to pray too, that Gosnell's life is spared. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

In other words, the death penalty isn't supposed to be a "revenge" of society for crimes, but a means to protect society when a criminal could be a danger. I don't think there's any danger of Gosnell practicing "medicine" (abortion is not medicine, but that's what it's called) ever again, and a life sentence (or three consecutive ones) would be a clear deterrent to others. Furthermore, a long prison sentence is conducive to repentance.

And so if I may paraphrase two common prayers:

Jesus, I beg you to spare the life of Kermit Gosnell, who is in danger of execution. Lead him to heaven, who is in need of your mercy. Amen.

Read More

Now it's over

Just read this here:

Philadelphia, Pa., May 14, 2013 / 03:41 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Following his conviction for the murder of three babies born alive, abortionist Kermit Gosnell was sentenced Tuesday to two life sentences without parole for two of those murder charges.

By agreeing not to appeal his conviction, Gosnell was able to avoid the death penalty for two of the convictions of first-degree murder.

 Thank God. From ABC News:

the grand jury report in the case said there had been hundreds of "snippings," in which live babies were born and then killed.

"Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered. ... The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that 'snipping,'" the report alleged.

The report also said that many of the women patients were infected with sexually transmitted diseases from contaminated instruments, had suffered from botched procedures or had been given overdoses of dangerous drugs.

Already pro-aborts are spinning this, saying that this shows what will happen if we put legal restrictions on abortions. But of course, that's nonsense. The existing situation is a result of the lack of restrictions or oversight on abortuaries, because any restrictions on abortion are seen as "harmful to women". President Obama has stated that he would not endorse any restrictions on abortion. And because of positions like this, Gosnell is not alone, or even rare.

The other thing that remains ignored by pro-aborts is that this kind of thing was not the "norm" even when abortion was illegal. They still quote numbers by Bernard Nathanson [emphasis mine].

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a  liberal  enlightened, sophisticated one.  Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls.  We announced  to the media  that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion.  This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie.  Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy  to sell our program  of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure  we gave  to the media  repeatedly was 1,000,000.  Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public.  The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250  annually.  The figure  we constantly fed  to the media  was 10,000.  These false figures  took root  in the consciousness  of Americans  convincing many that we needed to crack  the  abortion law.  Another myth  we fed  to the public through the media was that legalising abortion  would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally.  In fact,  of course,  abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalisation.

Read More

12 angry men?

A while ago I watched the movie 12 Angry Men, which I hadn't seen since high school (when we had to watch it). It got better with age (either that or I matured, and we know that couldn't happen). If you haven't seen it, give it a try. Henry Fonda was wonderful in it. Without spoilers, the movie covers the jury deliberation in a murder trial. We don't get to see the trial, just the deliberation, and facts emerge as the jury discusses them. The case seems like a slam dunk guilty verdict until Henry Fonda's character starts calling things into doubt.

There are two jury deliberations that have been in the news day after day, the Jodie Arias trial and the Kermit Gosnell tria. The Jodie Arias trial has been the topic of water cooler discussions, while I have followed the Gosnell trial with interest, as it exposes truths to the public about the abortion industry that they'd rather think about.

From the evidence I've read about and heard about it seemed to me like a guilty verdict for Gosnell would be a slam dunk. Eight of his assistants have already plead guilty to related charges, and there is forensic evidence galore. In fact, it came a surprise when the judge dismissed four of the charges against him. The reasoning was that the bodies of the babies had been frozen for so long that the coroner could not determine if they had breathed on their own before being killed.

Think about that a minute. We have babies who were delivered and then had their necks cut with scissors. The staff who were present testified that the babies were moving, breathing, alive. But because the coroner can't confirm definitively the testimony is disregarded. Because it's OK to kill those same, viable babies, as long as they are a few inches away, in the womb. The baby herself has no protection from being dismembered, mutilated, poisoned, starved or burned (to list a few of the ways abortions commonly kill children). Her only hope it to make it those last few inches to freedom (kind of like a bizarre version of Hunger Games).

So what's going on in that jury room? I think of 12 Angry Men and I wonder if the deliberations will end in conviction, acquittal or mistrial. And if convicted will the death penalty be applied? While I think a verdict of guilty if just, I do not think the death penalty is just in this case. While Gosnell is a menace to society, he is not likely to be so once he is behind bars. So, I think however it goes, it is unlikely that justice will be done.

Read More

Meet the Staff

If you follow this blog you've heard about Kermit Gosnell, the PA abortionist who's now serving time for murder. I think most people have the impression that Gosnell is an aberration, and that most abortion workers are actually professional, kind people. Certainly that is how they are portrayed in the media - "saints in surgical garb" who are beleaguered by the evil anti-choice criminals.

As you may know I go to pray once a week in front of an abortion clinic. I think it's time to introduce you to the staff at a "good" abortion clinic (as opposed to Gosnell's house of horrors). Here's a link to the web page for the clinic, showing it's impressive list of credentials. Must be a great place! [throughout this post, emphasis mine].

Our mission is to provide safe medical care in a kind, caring, compassionate atmosphere, while fully complying with all applicable standards, guidelines, statutes, and regulations. 

Our physicians are experienced Healthcare Providers who are devoted to providing quality reproductive health care services for women.

So let's meet this wonderful staff! The clinic is owned by abortionist Steven Brigham. Brigham had his NJ license suspended in 2010 as he faced murder charges in MD. As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer:

TRENTON – The New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners on Wednesday temporarily suspended the license of abortion doctor Steven Chase Brigham, ruling that the Voorhees-based entrepreneur is “a clear and imminent danger to the public health and safety.”

The issue was that Brigham would start late term abortions in NJ, then drive the women down to MD to finish them, exploiting disparities between the two states' laws to kill viable babies. You see, he could practice in NJ, but could not kill late term babies here. In MD he had no license to practice. So the solution was to start a medical procedure, then load the women in a van and drive them 4 hours with the dead babies inside them, where another doctor's name and license would be used to remove the bodies.

Some of the legal wrangling hinged upon whether the abortion consisted of injecting the babies and killing them (which happened in NJ), or the removal of the dead corpses (which happened in MD). Ultimately Brigham was arrested in NJ and extradited to MD where he faced charges - five counts each of first and second degree murder. As Reuters reported:

A series of earlier investigations by state medical boards revealed that Brigham illegally initiated abortions at a clinic he owns in Voorhees, New Jersey, and then allegedly completed the procedures at a clinic in Maryland, where he was not licensed.

The scheme was only discovered when one of the abortions was botched and a woman was abandoned in critical condition. According to ABC News:

The investigation began in August 2010 after a botched procedure at Brigham's Elkton clinic. An 18-year-old woman who was 21 weeks pregnant had her uterus ruptured and her bowel injured, and rather than call 911, Brigham and Riley drove her to a nearby hospital, where both were uncooperative and Brigham refused to give his name, authorities said.

A search of the clinic after the botched abortion revealed a freezer with 35 late-term fetuses inside, including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks, authorities said.

Charges against Brigham were dropped after a witness for the prosecution refused to testify, allegedly under pressure from the abortion lobby. Likewise, his NJ medical license was restored under pressure.

But that's not the only trouble Brigham has been in. According to National Right to Life news, Brigham has lost his license to practice medicine in five states. In fact, the PA Board of Health has ruled that Brigham may not operate or own abortion facilities in PA, a rule that he evades by having corporations in others' names.

In future posts I'll introduce some of the other staff members at the clinic. I hope this gives you some insight into the operation of a "good" abortion clinic.

[BTW the image above is the clinic walkway as seen from the curb. My friend Connie used to like to stand there to pray because she said it was like looking down from the cross.]

Read More

I'm outraged. Are you?

Via Operation Rescue:

Philadelphia, PA - Judge Jeffery P. Minehart dismissed three of the eight murder charges against Kermit Gosnell this morning, leaving five counts that will eventually go to the jury. The three dismissed first degree murder counts dismissed today relate to the accused murder of three newborn babies, birthed during late-term abortions only to have their spinal cords severed.

Testimony from the medical examiner and toxicologist has indicated that there was no evidence the babies were injected with Digoxin to ensure the babies were dead prior to the abortion, as the defense has claimed.

The medical examiner testified that tests were inconclusive as proof that the babies were born alive. However, the tests also did not prove the babies were dead prior to birth. Those inconclusive test results were overshadowed by the weight of testimony from witness after witness, who detailed how the babies were in fact living prior to being murdered through what one witness described as a "virtual beheading."

[UPDATE] For those claiming that the charges were dismissed only on babies were there was no testimony about whether they were alive or not, see the stories at Life Site News about a 28 week old baby, Baby "B", and Baby "G":

LifeNews has identified that another charge involved “Baby B,” about whom a Gosnell staffer testified was a newborn child who survived a failed abortion and was still breathing into a shoe box.

Kareema Cross told the jury she saw at least 10 children who were breathing after botched abortions but killed afterwards. What happened shocked her so badly she took photographs to document what happened. Cross took pictures to document filth in the abortion clinic and a picture of a huge baby boy tossed in shoe box breathing, moving, and too big for the box. Cross testified of large babies birthed, moving, and moaning some for 20 min before their necks were snipped.

Read More

Is the Pain Capable Act a Good Thing? [Updated]

Perhaps you read this story yesterday: Breaking: U S House Passes 10 Week Abortion Ban on Anniversary of Gosnell Conviction.

According to OpenCongress, the vote was 242-184 in favor, mostly along party lines, with 4 Democrats voting "yes" and 4 Republicans voting "no".

I remains to be seen whether the senate will pass this bill with enough votes to withstand the pretty much guaranteed veto of our extreme pro-abortion president. If the vote goes along party lines, it will fail (55-45 if the independents split their vote).

I have mixed feelings about this bill. I applaud any legislation that protects the right to life, but there are a number of problems...

1) The bill makes avoiding pain the criteria for protecting the right to life. This is dangerous in many ways. First off, if an abortionist were to inject the baby with an anesthetic before, or at the same time as, the digoxin, then the abortion would be (presumably) OK. Second, if we make pain the criteria for preserving life, what about people with chronic pain? Do they become eligible for euthanasia? We have established a principle that pain is so important avoid it is worth taking away a woman's "rights"? Could it be used to take away a senior or disabled persons's right to life?

2) The bill brings the US into line with other "civilized" nations. The political will to move beyond this point will be lessened. This may be a moot point, since we don't seem to have the political will to go even this far, judging by the "controversy" and expected lackluster performance in the senate.

3) The percentage of abortions performed after 20 weeks is small, about 1.4 percent. So this bill does not save many lives. Not that the 16,800 lives it would save are not significant, but if we're going to go through the process, it would be nice to have a bill that addressed a larger percentage of abortions.

On the plus side, when (nearly) every Democrat votes against for abortion up to birth, and the president vetoes the bill, it does point out just how extreme the party's views on abortion are. Perhaps that will get people thinking and acting to defend life...

[UPDATE] It seems others find even less good about this bill. The exceptions in it are pretty much the reasons given for most late term abortions today, so the number of lives saved will be even tinier. Sounds like more "feel good" legislation. If you want to feel good for real, contact your legislator and ask them to support HR 816.

Read More

Judgement day

So today at the abortion clinic a woman pulled her car over to tell us we were bad people. Our crimes were judging people, wasting time instead of getting a job, judging people, not doing something useful like stopping war or poverty and not caring about women. I explained that we are not judging people, I have a job, we are not judging people, and I do oppose war and help the poor, and I do care about women.

She said we block women from going into the clinic. I told her we did not - that would be illegal. She said we yell hateful things and tell women they are damned to hell. I told her our "standard" speech - "You don't have to go in there, there's plenty of help available (we then name several crisis pregnancy centers they could go to)." We then typically tell them where to get free medical care, an allowance to care for their baby for several years after it's born, a place to stay, job training if they need it. We offer them a brochure on pregnancy health and fetal development, with phone numbers on it where they can get help. If there is a friend with them we ask the friend to please talk her out of it.

Sometimes we get "the finger". Often we get ignored. On very rare occasions we get threats. But at least a few times a day we have someone who will take the brochure and talk to us. Last week a woman didn't want to have an abortion but felt she couldn't afford a baby. She said she didn't even have a car to get to work. The gentleman I was with that day gave her his car (an old clunker, but it runs), and his phone number so she could call him if she had any more questions or needed help. She said she would call him later about the car, which she never did, but she didn't have the abortion either.

The woman continued to claim that we were haters who blew up and murdered doctors. I asked her to give an example. The only actual "pro-life violence" she could think of was the killing of George Tiller. I explained that the killer was not a member of any pro-life group, just a nut who killed for his own reasons. She did not believe me. I told her about pro-abortion violence, like the crimes Kermit Gosnell is being tried for (I forgot to mention James Pouillon, but I doubt she would have believed me anyway).

I explained to her that I am there on my lunch hour because more human beings are killed in that building alone every year than the total US casualties in Iraq. That I see women abused, going in and coming out crying. Women forced to go in by their boy friends. And I also see women changing their minds and thanking us. Sometimes they return later with their babies to show us.

I then thanked her for the conversation, and for her concern, and she drove away. I hope I gave her something to think about. I know I got a lot to think about from the conversation with her.

One of the things I've been thinking about is what did she mean by judging people? Because judging people means making a determination about their guilt or innocence, which necessitates assigning a motive. We realize that these women are all going in to do something which is objectively evil - the killing of an innocent human being. But we don't question their culpability or their motives. We assume that each woman, if she realized what abortion was and had an alternative, would choose it. We try to give her that alternative.

On the other hand, the woman who stopped actually was judging people. She assumed we hated women and didn't care and were trying to make people feel bad. She told us that outright. She assumes that pro-life people are criminals, who have no regard for human life, but are pushing some agenda (I don't know what she thinks the motive for it is - I wish I could ask her, but I didn't at the time).

Read More

Baby Feet

I have nothing to say that could possibly add anything to the post The Anchoress wrote on the Gosnell case. Please read. I'd say "enjoy" but it's not something you should enjoy - just something you need to know.

Read More

The victims

After the 9-11 attacks we heard at memorial ceremonies, the names of the victims read aloud. Likewise after the Newtown shootings. So please take a minute, one short minute, as we await the jury's verdict, and read aloud with me these names of the 45 children murdered at the "house of horrors" abortuary of Kermit Gosnell. At right is a picture of some of them. Their last names will likely never be known, but I hope their parents remember them and love them.

• Adam 

• Michael 

• Alex 

• Chris 

• Andy 

• Lou 

• Pat 

• Joshua 

• David 

• Ashley 

• Sal 

• Terry 

• Sam 

• Val 

• Tony 

• Ronnie 

• Sarah 

• Melanie 

• Sandy 

• Corey 

• Drew 

• Ryan 

• Toby 

• Sean 

• Kelly 

• Carroll 

• Joseph 

• Benjamin 

• Stacey 

• Gabriel 

• Brett 

• Julian 

• Taylor 

• Courtney 

• Danny 

• Kim 

• Mandy 

• Robin 

• Austin 

• Abel 

• Michelle 

• Lisa 

• Shannon 

• Nevin 

• Connor

and when you are done, please read this story and pray for those involved.

Read More

What Works - Graphic Images

Over the years I have been involved in several discussions of whether to use graphic images in battling abortion. The poster child for this is the Center for Bioethical Reform. Even their home page has a graphic video (with a 7 second warning so you can stop it if you want, but you actually have to take action not to see the video). Their GAP (Genocide Awareness Program) brings a large display with graphic images to college campuses.

Operation Rescue has buses and trucks plastered with graphic abortion images. This makes it harder to avoid seeing them, for better or worse. On the other end of the spectrum are sites like Priests for Life, which have graphic abortion photos on the site but you have to look for them. Or the eponymous 100 Abortion Pictures, whose name indicates what you will see if you visit it.

I know different people have different tolerances for them, as shown in these videos.





But do they work? I have heard people say that at functions like Planned Parenthood fund raisers they are very effective at dissuading donations. In the news media, I don't think any main stream media showed pictures of the horrors of the Kermit Gosnell abortion clinic, even though they were available to the public.

The GAP claims to be effective on campuses, but I know I for one will not support the Center for Bioethical Reform because last year they picketed 49 Catholic churches with graphic abortion images because the bishop of the diocese had been critical of Fr. Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life. While I want to see abortion end, and I am not personally against the use of graphic images, disrupting masses to "punish" Catholics who live in a diocese whose bishop you don't like is neither useful nor an appropriate use of the images.

The fact is, for all the rhetoric on both sides, nobody to my knowledge has numbers to say how effective is the use of graphic images outside abortion clinics. I have only my own anecdotes to add to the confusion. At the clinic where I go each week, one of the gentlemen recently acquired a grisly image of part of a baby's head being held with forceps. The pictures is approximately five feet square, and he holds it on the side of sidewalk facing the clinic, so it is really only visible to people going in and out of the clinic. One day a woman came up to him and repeatedly kicked at the picture until she broke the foam panel that holds it. Another time a man came up and argued with us about it for several minutes, before agreeing that it was a free speech issue and he was in the wrong. But several women have come out of the clinic, walked up to him as he held this image, and thanked him for it, saying they changed their minds because of it.

Read More