Why the shock, Why the outrage, Why now?

Kevin McCullough

1/23/2011 12:00:00 AM - Kevin McCullough

The grand jury's indictment read as one of the most disgusting litanies of murder we've seen in all of western culture.

For over two decades Kermitt Gosnell illegally sold prescriptions by day, and on the side, induced early delivery in expectant, indigent, and immigrant mothers. When those induced deliveries did not kill the child off, Gosnell would then either snip the spinal cord with a pair of scissors, slit the throat of the child, or have an assistant (usually unlicensed) do the same.

The women who survived these procedures on at least two occasions fared no better, and now the nation knows that this serial killer will, with any justice at all, go away for the rest of his life. At least he should.

As news of Gosnell's West Philadelphia "practice" made headlines this week you could not help but be moved by the torture, pain, and death this person caused.

The outrage was justifiable.

The discussions of how he was allowed to operate under the radar screen for so long were more than valid. Legitimate questions that were raised by the grand jury deserve answers, and the tax-payers of Pennsylvania need to know that such animals will be dealt with harshly, efficiently, and my preference woul d be--permanently.

Gosnell's last state inspection, according to public records, was in 1993. The general state of things at his clinic location seemed to verify this as human remains and medical waste were stored in boxes in the basement dating from that time. The stories of how he had allowed women to bleed out in the same facilities where his cats would urinate and defecate have been confirmed by multiple women.

He was a monster. He was out of control. He deserves justice to the fullest measure--even if that were to mean the state took his life as a result.

It was as I was reading the details of the procedures he seemed to prefer to perform that I was suddenly struck by an overwhelming question that has not yet gone from my mind.

Why are we so outraged now?

The truth is, the procedure Gosnell preferred is not new. Third term, especially "late term," abortions are performed the same way in overwhelming numbers.

Commonly referred to as "partial birth abortions" the procedure begins the same was as the "Gosnell abortion." Inducing labor and beginning the delivery of the child is where most of the children are lost in both procedures. As many as 75% of the children lose their lives in the process of early induced labor. Leaving roughly 25% of the children involved to have their lives terminated through an additional step.

In partial birth abortion, the child is delivered to within two inches of being free of the birth canal. In the "Gosnell" he delivered the child completely.

But from that point on, little difference between the procedures existed.

Scissors would be used to puncture the base of the skull and to snip the spinal cord. On some occasions then the brains would be crushed and suctioned.

In other words, while Gosnell was collecting jars of tiny feet, severed from the babies he ended the lives of, abortion practitioners from coast to coast were performing the eerily similar procedures. And 100% of them done with the backing of the National Organization for Women, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and a long list of U.S. Senators, including then Senator Barack Obama.

It was State Senator Obama just a few years previous who had also called for votes on three occasions, in a committee that he chaired, in meetings that he had called, in which the life of a born child was in equal jeopardy to the ones Gosnell delivered.

The issue was a debate over whether or not Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois (a hospital operated by the denomination of Obama's church) could continue a practice in which a woman's labor could be induced weeks ahead of delivery. Roughly 75% of the children would die in the process, leaving roughly 25% who survived.

Instead of snipping spinal cords, the hospital would leave the children in the now infamous "soiled utility closet" to perish from exposure and neglect. Sometimes these children would expire in 45 minutes. Many times the children would struggle for life for the full 8 hours of a nurse's shift. And on multiple occasions the children would live for nearly a day.

Jill Stanek, one of the pediatric nurses who worked in the department while this practice was on going later testified before Obama's committee.

Obama's response? (According to Stanek?)

Roughly paraphrased: If a woman entered the hospital with the intent of seeking an abortion, then it was the woman's choice to allow that child to live or die. (Should it survive the induced labor.)

To be clear President Obama is the one and only ever elected federal office holder that has voted in favor of such procedures, and he did so three times, on the record.

All of which leaves me puzzled.

Why is Gosnell a monster, if so many people, including our own president believe it to be the fullest expression of "women's rights" to simply do what he was doing?

Any ideas?