By Dave Andrusko
Quick preface: because the piece was so long (10,000 words) and so thorough, it’ll be tomorrow before I talk about Eval Press’s “A Botched Operation,” a profile of abortionist Steven Brigham that appears in the current New Yorker.
Instead today I will talk largely about Armanda Marcotte’s Slate.com review of the essay. Hint: dealing with a man who has lost his license in multiple states, both women nonetheless draw the appropriate/predictable pro-abortion moral.
On the one hand, Marcotte, like Press, tells us that there were “multi-year attempts, spearheaded by more reputable abortion providers, to get Brigham out of the abortion business.” This is awfully convenient, wouldn’t you say, a very handy way of distancing “reputable abortion providers” from what the Abortion Industry dubs “rogue” abortionists such Brigham and Kermit Gosnell?
On the other hand, they cut abortionists and abortion entrepreneurs lots of slack. After all it’s difficult to air dirty laundry in public when (as Press writes) the “anti-abortion movement” caricatures clinics “as “’abortion mills’ run by venal profiteers.”
So (and how’s this for an excuse?)”As a result, pro-choice activists understood the potential dangers of drawing attention to any facility that might reinforce this stereotype.”
But what about the danger to women of not “drawing attention”? That obvious question is altogether neglected.
But back to coming to the appropriate conclusion when you have the likes of Steven Brigham and Kermit Gosnell (to name just two) in your midst. They have this kind of “practitioner” not because this grisly trade ATTRACTS this kind of lowlife but because (you guessed it) of pro-lifers!
“Brigham’s career is only possible because of abortion politics. Abortion stigma, protesters, and unnecessary laws designed to run good providers out of business all help create a vacuum that people like Brigham and Gosnell fill.
She quotes Press who wrote, “As reputable doctors, hospitals, and medical schools increasingly distanced themselves from abortions, it became more likely that substandard providers would fill the void.”
Click here to read the January issue of National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”
Get it? By trying to pass legislation, educate the larger public, witness to women in crisis pregnancies, and refusing to allow the Abortion Establishment to have uncontested sway over organized medicine, you and I are to blame for Brigham and Gosnell and others.
Isn’t it amazing that no physician could come to his or her own conclusion that slaughtering unborn children is not why they got into medicine?
If you think of it, this kind of nonsense is of a piece with the pro-abortionist’s self-exculpatory view of the world. They kill 1.2 million unborn babies a year, over 56 million unborn babies since 1973, and they demonize pro-lifers for having the audacity to get in the way of expanding “access” to abortion.
There are never, never, never enough abortions and never could be. To the Marcottes of this world, there will always be “underserved” populations. That’s why they love chemical abortions, and “webcam” abortions, and passing laws that allow more and more and more non-physicians to perform first-trimester abortions.
Make no mistake about it, they are bitter about anything that slows down the expansion of the machinery of death.
Gosnell is given a free pass for years and years by state and local authorities–and by an inspector from the National Abortion Federation [!]– and the blame for a butcher convicted on three counts of first-degree one count of second-degree manslaughter is laid at the feet of pro-lifers.
You get the point, which we will elaborate on tomorrow.
Wouldn’t it be nice if just once, the Abortion Establishment, led by PPFA, and maintained by its legion of apologists, admitted that there IS a reason for what Marcotte describes as “greedy, unscrupulous doctors” and that it is not the “anti-abortion movement.”
It is staring them in the mirror.