The scheduled murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell was postponed on Monday due to the illness of Gosnell’s legal counsel. It is possible that he had read the contents of the Grand Jury report, which is being referenced on a daily basis throughout the course of the trial.
In Section IV, entitled “The Intentional Killing of Viable Babies,” the Grand Jury reports on instances of abortion where the fetus was alive and then killed. In one case, a Gosnell employee described the size of a fetus that was aborted and then killed. The employee stated that the fetus was “nearly the size of her own six-pound, six-ounce newborn daughter.”
Gosnell’s reckless treatment of patients resulted in numerous cases of infection, sterilisation, permanent injury, and death. In at least two instances, patients died as a direct consequence of Gosnell’s actions. While these injuries and deaths were foreseeable, they were not the result of specific intent to kill.
It is similarly difficult to conclude that the same cannot be said of the numerous babies who were born outside their mothers’ wombs and whose brief lives were ended in Gosnell’s facility. The doctor, or his employees acting at his direction, deliberately killed them as part of the normal course of business.
Gosnell and his staff severed the spinal cords of viable, moving, breathing babies who were born alive.
Surgical abortions in Pennsylvania, performed up to 24 weeks of gestational age, are legal. The killing of living babies outside the womb is not. The neonatologist who testified before the Grand Jury defined “born alive.” According to this expert witness, the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act defines a human as “somebody who’s been completely expelled from the mother and has either a heartbeat, pulsating cord, or is moving.”
The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act defines “born alive” in a manner similar to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, but adds breathing and brain wave activity as indicators of life. 18 Pa.C.S. §3203.
Testimony from Gosnell’s staff revealed that he carried out scores of gruesome killings of born-alive infants, with the majority of these killings occurring under his direct supervision. However, he was not the sole perpetrator; Steve Massof, Lynda Williams, and Adrienne Moton were also involved in these killings. The frequency of these killings became so commonplace that it was impossible to determine an exact number. They were regarded as “standard procedure.” However, some of the victims were so advanced in their development that they resembled infants in need of care and attention. Even employees who were accustomed to the practice were shocked by the brutality of the killings.
Baby Boy A
One such infant was a male child born in July 2008 to a 17-year-old woman, who will be referred to here as “Sue.” Sue initially encountered Gosnell at the Atlantic Women’s Medical Services, an abortion clinic in Wilmington, Delaware, where Gosnell was employed on a part-time basis. The girl was accompanied by her great aunt, who had agreed to pay for the procedure and subsequently testified before the Grand Jury. Following the ultrasound examination of Sue, Gosnell informed the aunt that the pregnancy was more advanced than she had initially informed him, and that consequently, the procedure would cost more than the agreed-upon $1,500; it would now cost $2,500. (Gosnell typically charged $1,625 for abortions at 23-24 weeks gestation.) The aunt paid Gosnell in cash at the Delaware clinic. He then proceeded to insert laminaria, administer a pharmaceutical agent to initiate the onset of labour, and instruct her to be present at the Women’s Medical Center in Philadelphia at 9:00 the following morning.
Sue arrived at the clinic with her aunt at 9:00 a.m. and remained there until almost 11:00 that night. An ultrasound conducted by Kareema Cross yielded a gestational age of 29.4 weeks. Cross testified that the girl appeared to be seven or eight months pregnant. During the 13-plus hours that the girl was in the clinic, she was administered a significant quantity of Cytotec in order to induce labour and delivery. Sue reported experiencing pain and was administered a substantial dose of sedative. According to Cross, the girl was left to labour for an extended period of time. Subsequently, the woman gave birth to a large baby boy. Cross estimated that the infant was between 18 and 19 inches in length. She estimated that the infant was approximately the same size as her own six-pound, six-ounce newborn daughter.
Subsequent to the expulsion of the infant, Cross observed that the subject was breathing, although this was not sustained. After approximately 10 to 20 seconds, while the mother was asleep, the doctor proceeded to incise the neck. Gosnell placed the boy’s body in a shoebox. Cross described the infant as being of such a size that his feet and arms protruded from the container. Cross observed that the infant exhibited movement after the incision was made in his neck and after the doctor placed him in the shoebox. Gosnell informed her that the observed movements were a result of the infant’s reflexes. “It is not exhibiting any discernible movement.”
The neonatologist testified that Gosnell’s assertion was entirely false. If a baby exhibits movement, it can be reasonably concluded that it is alive. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the severing of the spinal cord is accompanied by a profound sensation of pain. Consequently, the fact that Baby Boy A. continued to move after his spinal cord was cut with scissors indicates that he did not die instantaneously. It is possible that the umbilical cord was not completely severed. In any case, the brief period of his existence was spent in excruciating pain.
The size and maturity of Baby Boy A were such that Cross was not the only individual to be startled by them. Adrienne Moton and Ashley Baldwin, along with Cross, took photographs because they were aware that this was a baby who could and should have lived. Cross elucidated the rationale behind their actions:
Q. Please explain why you took a photograph of this infant.
A. We took the photograph because the infant was of considerable size and because we were aware that it was wrong to allow such a situation to continue. We were aware that something was amiss.
It is unclear who took the photograph first, but when we observed this infant, it was a profound shock to us because we had never seen a baby of such a large size. Therefore, I was aware that something was amiss, as evidenced by the visual examination of the subject’s hair, eyes, and other features. Furthermore, I had never observed any other procedure that produced such a result.
The neonatologist looked at a photograph of Baby Boy A. Based on the baby’s size, hairline, muscle mass, subcutaneous tissue, well-developed scrotum and other characteristics, the doctor felt that the boy was at least 32 weeks’ gestational age, if not more.
Gosnell simply noted the size of the baby boy, as he often did after delivering a large baby. According to Cross, the doctor said, “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.” The doctor released Sue to go home 13 or 14 hours after she arrived. Her aunt described her condition as follows: “She was moaning. She was standing up. She was like holding her stomach, doubled over.” She remained in pain for days and was unable to eat. When she developed a fever, her aunt contacted Gosnell, who instructed her to take her temperature and enquired as to whether she was taking the pain medication he had prescribed.
However, he did not request that she be examined. Furthermore, he did not recommend that she be admitted to a hospital. Subsequently, upon the onset of vomiting a few days later, Sue’s grandmother contacted a different medical practitioner, who advised her to seek immediate medical attention at a hospital. Sue was subsequently admitted to Crozier-Chester Hospital. A subsequent examination by medical professionals at the hospital revealed that the patient had suffered from a severe infection and had developed blood clots that had travelled to her lungs. According to Kareema Cross, who spoke to the aunt, Sue was close to death. The adolescent remained in the hospital for approximately two and a half weeks. Her aunt reports that she became extremely thin and took months to recover.
The subject will be discussed further tomorrow. “Other infants were also killed by Gosnell and his staff.”
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
