Gosnell Guilty: Justice Remains in America

Just has to note this because it is a good thing – Gosnell, of course, is just typical of what happened to the ‘back alley abortionist’ after Roe – he hung out a shingle, listed his number and took out an ad in the Yellow Pages.  But he was still the same back alley abortionist..and those who continue to do abortions are of the same species of person.  Not doctors (I don’t care what their degree says), but people who are paid to kill.  Small wonder that the Gosnell horrors came about – and I don’t doubt for a minute that similar stories can be told of most abortion mills, especially those who do late-term abortions.  Decent medical people don’t do that – decent people who go in to medicine do it to help people, not kill babies…not to provide a Final Solution to a temporary problem.

Since we cannot ban the savage practice of elective abortion at the moment, the lesson here is to start strictly regulating the abortion industry.  Time to start applying a little bit of liberalism’s onerous regulations to this one area of the economy liberals have demanded a free market in (except for they also demand that the taxpayer’s subsidize it).  Independent inspections must be part of this – at least quarterly all records of an abortuary must be examined by competent, outside medical, legal and accounting experts who are not in any way connected to the abortion industry.  This will at least reduce the number of Gosnell-like horrors…and it will be firmly pro-life in effect because I’ll bet money that strict supervision will drive a significant number of abortionists out of business.

Aside from that, we have to make sure that “pro-choice” owns this.  This is what pro-choice, in practice, leads to.  You want to say that no one can in any way, shape or form interfere with the ability of a woman to kill her unborn child?  Then this is what you get – because under the cover of “pro-choice” the abortion industry has ensured that Gosnell can happen.  Pro-choice now equals Kermit Gosnell.

61 thoughts on “Gosnell Guilty: Justice Remains in America

  1. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 14, 2013 / 1:58 pm

    Gosnell is not an anomaly in the death trade; he and his clinic are the real face of the abortion industry. The disregard for human life, the cavalier attitude toward procedure, controls and life in the single-minded pursuit of killing children, regardless of the toll, is exactly what the leftists want to achieve.

    The feign astonishment that the life of inconvenient children are treated without regard. They’re shocked shocked to find abortions going on in a house of abortion. They claim that should we decide that abortion is murder and want to regulate its application there will be more, not less killing houses cropping up forcing women to go to Dr. Gosnell’s filthy house of horror to kill their bad choices and inconvenient families. As if the current laws and regulations have prevented the wholesale slaughter that is the abortion industry.

    Gosnell is their hero; everybody does it they believe, Gosnell just got caught.

    • neocon01 May 14, 2013 / 4:47 pm

      Gosnell is their hero; everybody does it they believe, Gosnell just got caught.

      like KILLER tiller?…..didn’t he get a late term abortion??

    • meursault1942 May 20, 2013 / 1:32 am

      Boy, that’s quite a condemnation. Now all you have to do is find somebody to whom it could actually apply.

  2. GMB May 14, 2013 / 4:43 pm

    Legalized murder could be reduced greatly in this country. If only the so called republicans who control the HoR would just cut the money off to the murderers.

    That would mean taking a stand on the issue. Can’t have that now can we. A mannish looking female on msnbc might call them a bad name. Might also get kicked of a few spots in the cocktail party list. Might even get kicked out of the country club.

    Heaven forfend!

    • neocon01 May 14, 2013 / 4:45 pm

      OUT of the country club?????????
      GOD forbid!!

    • percybeezer May 14, 2013 / 5:49 pm


      The Hyde Amendment prevents federal funds from being used by Medicare to pay for abortions. Other executive orders and similar legislation also restricts allocations for abortion.

      Congress does not have the authority to cut off spending on provisions of the health care bill, so called ObamaCare. There had been a theory floated that ObamaCare could be “starved” by the HoR refusing to fund its provisions; that is not an option.

      regardless of which country club the republicans decide to play, they cannot “cut off money” to abortion providers since they cannot allocate money to abortion providers.

      Planned Parenthood is a good example; they receive funding for womans’ health services not abortion. As long as that distinction is allowed, they can divert their own funds to abortion and use federal funds for everything else. Your next comment will be to cut off funding for womans’ health and starve Planned Parenthood, but that’s problematic because that funding is part of legislation passed in the 1970s and therefore the HoR has no choice but to fund or re-write the legislation.

      Any attempt to re-write will result in a worse bill or one that could never pass both houses much less gets a president’s signature.

      So, unless you’re proposing a very public exhibition of legislative masturbation, you’re suggestion to cut off funding is as useless as teats on a boar.

      • GMB May 14, 2013 / 8:33 pm

        “Planned Parenthood is a good example; they receive funding for womans’ health services not abortion.”

        Every tax dollar spent by pp is nothing more than a subsidy of legalized murder.

        The publicly provided money to an organization that provides legalized murders needs to be stopped. That is within the power of the HoR, where I do believe all spending bills originate.

        Of course it takes a spine to do something like that. Something the repub party has shown a lack of in recent years.

        This is not the hill to die on, this is not the right fight, this is not the right time. We only control one half of one third, yada yada yada yada.

        Time to go again. See ya all in a couple/three weeks.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 15, 2013 / 10:55 am

        I do believe all spending bills originate (in the House of Representatives)

        Since I know something of the government budget process allow me to explain.

        Yes, spending bills do originate in the House; current appropriations for these types originated a long time ago and are under a category called Temporary Continuing Appropriations, which are predicated on a PERM Budget Entry made as a result of a “spending bill”.

        Appropriations for Women’s’ Health is not part of a current spending bill and hasn’t been for thirty years; the ongoing appropriation is reviewed each year for adjustments based on increases or new applications for grants or contracts. Existing recipients that qualify cannot have their appropriations “cut off” because the spending bill has already been approved some thirty years ago.

        The House does not have the ability to stop funding once the PERM component (Temporary Continuing) is put in place. No matter how much you want to blame the Republicans that don’t support the abortion industry, and have tried everything legally possible to do so, the simple fact is unless and until Planned Parenthood or any other organization using the law as written to circumvent the intent, unless and until they violate the terms of the spending bill (LAW) as written, funding cannot be “cut off”.

  3. tiredoflibbs May 15, 2013 / 7:22 pm

    crusty: ” I clearly explained why the Spanish study was inferior to the MO study in my last post”

    You offered your OPINION with little scientific basis for it – other than the number of participating women. I equate most of your opinion on the matter with the forker that wanted to dismiss my whole post because I did not live in Spain.

    You gave the New Hampshire example and simply dismiss that as an anomaly. Then I coupled it with studies that show increased use of contraceptive increases abortion rates – one backs up the other and you continue with your “anomaly” BS. There is a reason for the increase and you just don’t want to see it.

    If I cherry pick data as you do, I could prove conception without sex.

  4. tiredoflibbs May 15, 2013 / 7:28 pm

    crusty in your comparison to the Spanish study and MO study, you left out one important little detail.

    The SPANISH study was over a period of TEN YEARS.
    The Missouri study was over a period of less that HALF that.

    So, your personal “scientific analysis” and critique is more bogus than before.

  5. tiredoflibbs May 18, 2013 / 10:49 am

    crusty: “You characterize an objective science journal as a “left wing website” – that speaks volumes about your worldview.”

    It’s funny that you characterize a carefully controlled study as “objective science” – just like AGW. You and your ilk bring new meaning to “POLITICAL SCIENCE”.

    I notice you can’t post anything without some sort of insult and attack – and yet you continue to whine about your posts being deleted because of your true weakness.

  6. tiredoflibbs May 18, 2013 / 11:07 am

    crusty: “The women were merely given effective birth control and told how to use it and that reduced abortions – very easy to do in the real world”

    And yet, I have shown studies proving this to be false. Your study of comparing sex-ed and contraception in New Hampshire and Alabama where New Hampshire has higher abortion rates also shows your “conclusions” (really regurgitated dumbed down talking points) to be false. We deal in the real world.

    Now for some real objective science with dozens of links:

    some of the highlights:
    “According to the Guttmacher Institute, 40% of unintended pregnancies are aborted.10 Do we say then that Planned Parenthood is preventing 244,800 abortions each year? No. Those are hypothetical saves. They pale in comparison to the 332,278 actual lives who were violently destroyed by Planned Parenthood.

    In a 2010 CDC report examining contraceptive use in the United Sates over the last 30 years, they reach this rather shocking conclusion:

    Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age… But that does not mean that contraceptive use in the United States is completely consistent or effective. One-half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and the average probability of an unintended pregnancy in 12 months of contraceptive use in the United States is 12%, unchanged from 1995.1”

    Oh and the REAL CLENCHER!

    “Planned Parenthood concedes on their website that, “Being continuously abstinent is the only way to be absolutely sure that you won’t have an unintended pregnancy or get a sexually transmitted disease (STD)… abstinence is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. It also prevents STDs.”15

    On their chart comparing the effectiveness of different birth control methods, Planned Parenthood estimates that 2-9% of pill users will get pregnant in any given year and 15-24% of condom users will still wind up with an unplanned pregnancy.16

    Abby Johnson makes a revealing observation concerning her own birth control history. “There’s an incredible irony,” she writes, “in the fact that I had a career in educating women about contraception and yet, for the third time, conceived while using contraceptives.”17 If you scoff at the CDC assertion that 12% of the women using birth control still wind up pregnant, consider that even a professional, sex-educator – the director of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic wound up with three unplanned pregnancies – all while using contraceptives.””

    As I said(along with all the studies I presented), women become falsely reliant on birth control and would be having sex as an alternative to being abstinent during their fertile period. That increased sexual activity increases the risk of pregnancy even though on contraceptives because of their failure rates. HIGHLY EFFECTIVE birth control is only under ideal controlled conditions as your study shows. Your comparison of sex-ed and birth control in New Hampshire and Alabama proves what the studies, that I have been posting, have been saying all along.

    I don’t need “mommy” I have TRUE objective science behind my words. You have carefully controlled studies and dumbed down talking points on yours.

Comments are closed.