Part 1: What’s So Bad About Gosnell?

Part 1: What’s So Bad About Gosnell? May 15, 2013

Remember this?

http://youtu.be/uax-FrhOioY

This video is from this legislative session in Florida. It reflects the current attitude of Planned Parenthood concerning babies who are born alive during late-term abortions.

That’s the same Planned Parenthood we seeing throwing Dr Kermit Gosnell under the bus and condemning the very practices they paid a lobbyist to protect just a few weeks ago. I’ve written that Dr Gosnell is the monster pro choice built. Actions like the one in this video are how they built him.

Dr Gosnell only did what this lobbyist was working to protect. He was the physician. His patient had already voted that the baby should die by coming to him for his services. The Planned Parenthood lobbyist’s contention that the “decision” of what to do with a baby born alive during abortion “should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician,” was pretty well covered; the lobbyist’s oddball insertion of “her family” into the decision-making process notwithstanding.

So, what’s so bad about Gosnell?

 

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

2 responses to “Part 1: What’s So Bad About Gosnell?”

  1. Live Action may not be doing the work of God (as lying is consequentialism and all that jazz) but they are doing the work that Government should have been doing for the past 30 years (and has been shirking).

  2. But did PP really throw Gosnell under the bus for doing what the woman advocates in Florida legislative hearing? As you pointed out a few posts ago, the PP statement very carefully does NOT talk AT ALL about the killing of live-born babies, but rather speaks only of the mothers. E.g.: This verdict will ensure that no woman is victimized by Kermit Gosnell ever again.

    For PP, the only crime worth talking about was that a *woman* died because of Gosnell’s crummy methods. Even if we interpret their statement as somehow including “botched” abortions that produce unfortunately living infants among Gosnell’s crimes, it’s clear that from PP’s perspective, the crime is against the woman only, not against the (unnamed, unmentioned) baby.

    They’re ghouls, and their use of language is sinister.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.