How and why and on what grounds pro-abortionists criticize NRL News Today’s coverage of abortionist Kermit Gosnell

By Dave Andrusko - Daralene Jones

credit– – Daralene Jones

As it happens I don’t get as much mail from pro-abortionists, or even those who profess to be agnostic on abortion, as I used to. That is, until NRL News Today began our blanket coverage of the events leading up to the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, and the trial itself.Now I receive not a flood but considerably more than a trickle. As few as they are they are nonetheless important. Why?

Because there are several common denominators which tell us a great deal about why those who support abortion—or who profess to want only “accuracy”—are so unnerved by the Gosnell case. Let me just touch on just three, all of which call into question how we “frame” the issue.

#1. This is taken verbatim from the NARAL/PPFA playbook. Don’t make Kermit Gosnell the poster boy for the abortion industry. He is (take your pick) an “outlier,” a “renegade,” or worse, they tell us, but he is not representative of the Abortion Industry.

We’ve addressed that dozens of  times.

No one is saying there are countless abortionists who (if the Grand Jury and the prosecution and former Gosnell employees are correct about Gosnell) intentionally deliver viable unborn babies alive and then sever their spines. That’s the canard they use to take attention away from what is really at issue.

What many pro-lifers (and many who really are non-partisan about abortion) are saying is (a) that there are abortionists—plenty of abortionists—who are wholly indifferent to the health of women; and (b) that the Abortion Establishment (personified by Planned Parenthood) react in hostility whenever legislation is proposed to treat babies who survive abortion as you would any other premature delivery. Putting the latter less politely, they want a guarantee that an abortion = a dead baby.

Here are just a few examples of each:;;;;; and

#2. We are “sensationalizing” the Gosnell case. Yes, they actually write to me, saying that usually in the same paragraph that they remind me what a dummy I am. I am going to resist the obvious temptation to list ,say, 40 activities that the Grand Jury and the prosecution and various former Gosnell employees say took place at the Women’s Medical Society. It is almost impossible to go overboard on a case that is as macabre as it stomach-turning.

#3. A variation of #2. That we have made it seem as if most abortions are performed after (pick a time) 21 weeks or 23 weeks or 24 weeks. If NRL News Today were SERIOUS about being RESPONSIBLE, we would stop “misleading” people. (This typically includes a charge of “deliberately misleading” people. ) Where to begin?

First, it’s not true. We’ve never, ever said, or even implied, that “most” abortions are performed after 21/23/24 weeks. What is true is that the Gosnell trial primarily revolves around two issues. One, that he aborted allegedly babies past the legal limit in Pennsylvania—24 weeks; and two, that he allegedly delivered viable unborn babies alive and then murdered them by plunging surgical scissors into their necks and severing their spinal cords.

To talk about what the case is about is not to say/hint/imply that most (“or at least many”) abortions are (again, pick your time) performed at 20 weeks or 24 weeks, or whatever. It is what it is. The Gosnell trial has focused the spotlight on activities pro-abortionists have tried to keep hidden for decades. To write about them is not to “misrepresent” anything but simply to state the truth.

Second, there is an “only” implied or stated in all these emails. “Only” 1% or 1.3% or 1.5% of abortions are performed after, say, 21 weeks. For the sake of discussion, let’s say that 1.3% of the 1.2 million annual abortions are performed after 21 weeks. That’s 15,600 huge, already well-developed, and pain-capable babies.

That’s no big deal? That nearly constitutes a rounding off error? That’s to ignore that most abortions are performed in the first trimester, as if somehow that is a good thing in itself and/or wipes away/excuses what happens to these older babies?

And remember that Gosnell’s former employees testified that he routinely misrepresented what ultrasounds said about the age of the babies. Does anyone older than the age of four think Gosnell is the only abortionist who fudges the age of the babies whose lives they are about to take? Please.

Anyway, to those pro-abortionists or self-described neutralists on abortion, please keep the emails coming. But go after me for something else other than for bringing to light what you’d rather keep in the shadows.

If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at Please send your comments to