Kermit Gosnell Isn't An Aberration Among Abortionists


As I wrote two weeks ago, one of the most horrifying aspects of the trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell isn’t the decapitated babies and grotesque conditions of his facility but rather those who were basically complicit in his crimes because they assisted, or at least didn’t act to stop him.

Gosnell was able to operate for decades, spread disease from woman to woman and murdering children born alive in his clinic, because he had help from staff who believed they were just helping women exercise their “right to choose.” And complicity from bureaucrats who didn’t act on evidence of Gosnell’s crimes because it would have been inconvenient to the political cause of abortion.

But, predictably, the pro-abortion movement rejects this. They say Gosnell was an aberration. A lone mad man who is not representative of abortion practices in general.

That argument is hard to swallow when so many looked the other way while Gosnell committed his crimes. And it’s also hard to swallow when undercover investigators find other abortionists telling women how to kill their children if they’re born alive.

Case in point, this stomach-churning video from Live Action which shows a Bronx abortion clinic advising a woman to put her baby in a plastic bag if it is born alive, and to avoid a hospital which might try to save the baby:

More from the New York Post:

The employee assigned to take note of medical history reassured the woman, “We never had that for ages” (a seeming admission that a baby did survive abortion at the clinic at least once) but that should “it” “survive this,” “They would still have to put it in like a jar, a container, with solution, and send it to the lab. . . . We don’t just throw it out in the garbage.”

Oh, and this innocuous-sounding “solution” was, of course, a toxic substance suitable for killing an infant.

“Like, what if it was twitching?” asked the pregnant woman.

“The solution will make it stop,” said the clinic employee. “That’s the whole purpose of the solution . . . It will automatically stop. It won’t be able to breathe anymore.”

As for any qualms a woman might have about seeing her newborn child being poisoned and drowned in a jar, the employee advised her “patient” not to worry: She’d be under sedation, and the murder would take place in another room anyway.

The employee said, humorously, that “the doctor” is “not gonna wake you up and be like, ‘Hey, excuse me, you have—’ ”

The sentence was left unfinished, too unthinkable even for a euphemism. There’s no polite way to say, “You have just given birth, but we will murder the child.”

Pro-abortion advocates work hard to expunge any trace of the grim reality of abortion from their rhetoric. President Obama managed to address Planned Parenthood in the last week, and criticize pro-life legislation passed in the various states, all without actually uttering the word “abortion.”

When pro-abortion activists talk of abortion clinics, they’re quick to highlight things like “women’s health” and contraception. This is because abortion, itself, is difficult to talk about in a positive manner. It’s a sticky subject, because the reality is that children are alive in the womb, and with medical advancements making unborn babies viable outside the womb at an earlier in the pregnancy, the act of abortion itself seems increasingly ghoulish.

And why wouldn’t it? The idea of dunking children who could live outside the womb, and grow up to be functioning members of our society, in toxic solution to kill them should set off moral alarms.

For some, sadly, it doesn’t and we have the “pro-choice” movement and its politically-motivated definitions of life to thank for that.