By Dave Andrusko
It was a couple of years ago today when we learned that Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer would be writing a book about convicted murderer, West Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Eventually the book would be published under the title, “Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer.”
Even today echoes of Gosnell, convicted of three counts of first-degree murder, continue to reverberate. Many of the laws subsequently passed to regulate abortion clinics, including the Texas law the Supreme Court will soon rule on, are a result of the outrage legislators felt over a man from whom the Abortion Industry did its best to distance themselves.
But pro-abortionists went, and still go, further. Protecting women from the likes of Kermit Gosnell will only make more of them seek out abortionists like him. It is a strange, even bizarre argument.
We all know that faced with Gosnell’s murderous behavior, pro-abortionists had only one path: blame pro-lifers for a man who murdered hundreds of babies he deliberately aborted alive (according to the grand jury report) and who is now serving three consecutive life sentences without chance of parole.
But this absurd attempt to displace the blame is even more difficult in Pennsylvania, his home turf. Even more so when those who write for a living bungle even the most basic dimensions of abortion in America and confuse everything with everything.
I offer you John Micek who became PennLive’s Opinion Editor in January 2013–in particular one of his columns titled, “Out of a deeply personal choice, a decision to support abortion rights.”
It is a really strange opinion piece, which reads like Micek spliced together random thoughts from drafts of disparate columns he’d thrown away.
Since his job is as a persuasive writer, he wins our heart-felt sympathy by starting with how his wife lost an unborn baby at twelve weeks. Many of us recognize that heartbreak.
And even though he subsequently tells us he understands that removing a baby who has died in utero is not the same as an abortion (“I realize full well the fundamental difference between our situation and that of a woman seeking an abortion. Our child was dead. An abortion involves a life – albeit one that is not viable outside the mother’s womb”), the reader is to understand that this experience gives him the kind of moral authority to take shots at those of us who realize that not only unborn children but a one-year-old baby is not “viable” without parental care.
He tries to buttress his argument by deliberately conflating the taking a child’s life with a child who dies because of some “accident of nature.” Both are “emotional and tragic.”
But they are not the same no matter how often he implies they are six of one, half dozen of another. One you have no ability to control, the other is completely in your control.
(The column is such a mish-mash. Part of the explanation why is contained in his response to a reader’s reaction to his column. Micek evidently believes there are 30,000 total abortions performed in the U.S, when, in fact, there are more than 30,000 abortions in Pennsylvania alone!)
Back to Gosnell. The default pro-abortion response to a man who made millions off of late abortions is to indignantly insist that passing legislation to actually monitor abortion clinics will lead more women to pits like Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society. “[T]he Gosnell horror is the inevitable end result of putting artificial barriers in the way of women who are, once again, seeking access to a legal medical procedure,” Micek tells us.
But while thousands of the abortions Gosnell performed were not legal– the women were past 24 weeks, the limit in Pennsylvania– Gosnell also performed tens of thousands of abortions that were legal. Would Micek be content if instead of being aborted at Gosnell’s “Baby Charnel House,” these large babies were killed (perfectly legally) someplace else?
Micek tells us, “People can rightfully disagree over the morality of abortion. But that’s a debate for the pews.” Really?
How about the “morality” (to this self-described “I’m of the ‘safe, legal and rare’ school myself”) of even later abortions which are legal in certain states? If a 28-week or a 30-week (or older) unborn baby is killed, would Micek be trashing pro-lifers so long as the abortion wasn’t performed by Gosnell?
By the way, would he impose his “morality” to oppose child abuse or human trafficking? Of course he would. The use of the word is just a dodge, and a tiresome one at that.
If he’s going to be the “Opinion Editor,” Micek’s opinions ought to be informed by a knowledge of the basic facts and his own glaring inconsistencies.