By Dave Andrusko
“The seven newborn babies allegedly killed by a Philadelphia abortion doctor [Kermit Gosnell] and his staff will swell this year’s homicide statistics, police said. …All eight deaths occurred before this year, but FBI reporting guidelines say homicides should be counted in the year police discover them. Police have not found the remains of the seven newborns. Gosnell’s staff photographed one.”
— A report from United Press International.
When I say, as I have said many times, that for a significant slice of the pro-abortion community, there can never be enough abortion, occasionally people will write back that can’t be true. I concede that they don’t SAY that in so many words, but what matters is not their words but what they do to make sure that the abortion machinery grinds along unobstructed.
Every time there is a “limitation,” pro-abortionists find a way to oppose on the grounds that this protective measure is [pick your term]unfair/discriminatory/condescending/judgmental/unconstitutionally/unnecessary, and (if all else fails) counterproductive. The end result is that pro-abortionists oppose even the slightest speed bump on Highway Death. And if that weren’t enough, they demand that we pay for abortions out of tax revenues, a sure-fire recipe for increasing the number of dead babies.
Most, but not all, balk at defending abortionist Kermit Gosnell, charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of seven babies whom the grand jury reported were aborted alive and were subsequently killed, and one 41-year-old woman, who died of an overdose of anesthetics. As for the babies, whose spinal cords Gosnell allegedly snipped with surgical scissors, some pro-abortionists take refuge (hide?)in the fact that under Pennsylvania law it is (at least in theory) illegal to abort after 24 weeks (and Gosnell regularly aborted babies in the sixth, seventh, and eight month, according to the grand jury report), let alone kill these viable babies after they are born-alive.
But it also true that as you read the back and forth in the pro-abortion community, not everyone is willing to draw the line….anywhere. I use the musings of Ann Furedi, chief executive the pro-abortion British Pregnancy Advisory Service, as an example, not because she doesn’t have American counterparts, but to illustrate that the contagion has spread.
The bulk of her early comments is (a) annoyance that pro-lifers were “handed a gift” by Gosnell’s alleged atrocities and (b) harsh criticism of any “pro-choice” colleague who dares talk about the “morality” of abortions even well into the third trimester.
Furedi quotes a long-time militant pro-abortionist to the effect that we don’t know why these women had abortions so late in pregnancy and that the real villain is the state of Pennsylvania for putting more emphasis on reducing the number of abortionists than on “regulat[ing] it properly as healthcare.” Wow. Talk about getting it backwards.
The whole point of a large section of the grand jury’s 261-page report is that “Most appalling of all, the [Pennsylvania’s Department of Health’s] neglect of abortion patients’ safety and of Pennsylvania laws is clearly not inadvertent: It is by design” (emphasis in the original). There are many reasons, including the importance of not “impending” women’s “access” to abortion.
But for Furedi opposing these late-late-late abortions reflects “ill-informed prejudice.” She tells us there is a “reason” for all of these abortions but insists no one can ever question the reason (more “ill-informed prejudice.” She tells us, “The moral responsibility of decision-making, whatever the gestation, should rest with women and their doctors, because they most understand their circumstances and the results of their actions. “
In fact Furedi tweaks those pro-choicers who are unnerved by “late abortions,” accusing them of believing that “the early embryo is less of a human” than the “late fetus.” She proudly does not suffer from this “inconsistency.” All abortions “end a potential human life,” so for Furedi she can abort all with equal indifference. This illustrates what the headline to her op-ed describes as “a principled defence of abortion – as late as necessary.”
Please take a few minutes to read the excepts we are running today from the grand jury report: “How Did This Go on So Long?”
To do the best job possible I need your feedback on both Today’s News & Views and National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to email@example.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha