Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    You mean the media didn’t want to report about aborted babies stuck in toilets and plumbing?

    You mean the media didn’t want to report about aborted babies stuck in toilets and plumbing?

    Marc Lamont Hill admits (to his credit) the obvious about the Gosnell news blackout

    Erik Wemple, a media-focused columnist at WaPo, notes a frank assessment from Marc Lamont Hill:

    In a HuffPost Live segment today on the issue, host Marc Lamont Hill made clear where his theoretical thinking lay:

    “For what it’s worth, I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, I do think there’s a direct connection between the media’s failure to cover this and our own political commitments on the left. I think it’s a bad idea, I think it’s dangerous, but I think that’s the way it is.”

    Strong words from a host on a left-leaning outlet.

    Strong words, but true.

    The fear of how knowledge of abortion procedures would play on the larger issue of abortion rights explains, in part, the Gosnell mainstream news blackout, despite attempts to obfuscate.  Defenses that feminists led the way in reporting about Gosnell or pro-lifers drove women to Gosnell are unfounded.

    Carl Cannon writing at Real Clear Politics, Abortion: Journalism’s Most Sacred Cow:

    Gosnell’s actions pull back the curtain on this procedure and allow Americans to  contemplate a disquieting prospect: that abortion itself is an inherently  violent act, the grisly details of which remain hidden even from the patients in  the operating room — and that if those specifics were truly understood, public  support for it would wane.

    Those grisly details were acknowledged on a conference call organized by pro-abortion groups ostensibly to deflect criticism based on Gosnell’s conduct.  From Tim Carney:

    When the pro-choice group RH Reality Check hosted a conference call today on abortionist Kermit Gosnell, the speakers focussed entirely on the substandard care Gosnell provided the mothers. But violating sanitation regulations is not really why Gosnell is on trial. He’s been charged with killing people — mostly babies.

    So I asked the call participants, “What is the distinction between what he did, and what a late-term abortionist like, say, LeRoy Carhart does?”

    Tracy Weitz, associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco, explained: “When a procedure that usually involves the collapsing of the skull is done, it’s usually done when the fetus is still in the uterus, not when the fetus has been delivered.”

    You see, headlines like this don’t play well, Gosnell Worker: Toilets Backed Up With Body Parts From Abortions (h/t Hot Air):

    Former abortion clinic worker James Johnson testified today during the murder trial of Kermit Gosnell and provided jurors with a nauseating account of the horrific conditions at the abortion facility.

    Johnson worked as a janitor, maintenance man and plumber of sorts and he was the common-law husband of 51-year-old Elizabeth Hampton, who is Gosnell’s wife’s sister. He told jurors some of the morbid details that appear in the grand jury report — including how he threatened to quit working at the abortion clinic because he refused to pull any more flesh from aborted babies out of the plumbing.

    His job was to collect abortion remains and take them to basement — but he eventually refused to participate and bags began piling up.

    He told the jury toilets backed up one-two times a week and said he opened the outside clean out pipe and fetal parts such as babies’ arms came spilling out.

    Johnson said he scooped up body parts with shovel and put them in a bag that was taken to rat infested basement. Johnson said a cat kept at the Gosnell clinic was there to deal with rat infestations that kept happening. He said the at pooped in plants all over clinic.

    Doesn’t play well, at all.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    What can I say … some people just don’t like small children.


     
     0 
     
     0
    janitor | April 17, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    Hollywood hasn’t made a worse horror story.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Ragspierre | April 17, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    Why do you think Collectivist students and faculty destroy pro-life displays as “profanity”?

    Reality is a form of heresy to the Collective. Images of reality are an argument they cannot tolerate. Will not tolerate.

    Little human bodies are a very “inconvenient truth” respecting abortion.


       
       0 
       
       0
      n.n in reply to Ragspierre. | April 17, 2013 at 2:35 pm

      There are two problems. First, an unwanted child interferes with a mother or father’s dreams of material, physical, and ego gratification. Second, a child born to an irresponsible mother or father will ultimately be a burden on the welfare (i.e. involuntary exploitation or redistributive change) state, which not only the Left, but most people, can only mildly tolerate. The Left, however, not only promotes irresponsible (e.g. dysfunctional) behavior, but they exploit the peculiarities of people’s base nature for democratic leverage. This, incidentally, is what people consider “smart political economics.”

      Think of the children… or something.

      Liberty is only suitable for women and men capable of self-moderating behavior. Only a small minority ever enjoy immunity from the consequences of irresponsible behavior.


         
         0 
         
         0
        Ragspierre in reply to n.n. | April 17, 2013 at 3:04 pm

        “Only a small minority ever enjoy immunity from the consequences of irresponsible behavior.”

        I would say that any such “immunity” is illusory. We never escape consequences, though they are often mediated.

        People learn, however, and if their conduct were more linked to what they were facing, they would exert MUCH greater self-control.

    The biblical standard to distinguish between inert biological matter and a life is a “living soul”, which can be reasonably correlated with the emergence of consciousness or neural activity.

    And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

    In the spirit of equal protection, perhaps the same objective standard we use to establish death can be applied to establish life. This would still give the unhappy mother or father between one and two months to decide the fate of the newly conceived human life.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Valerie | April 17, 2013 at 3:23 pm

    “The fear of how knowledge of abortion procedures would play on the larger issue of abortion rights explains, in part, the Gosnell mainstream news blackout….”

    Yeah, those larger issues get blamed for a lot of news blackouts, such as the ones about

    John Edwards’ affair
    Barack Obama’s campaign financing
    Bimbo eruptions

    and attempts to spike stories, such as
    the Swift Boat Veterans’ opposition to slander by John F’n Kerry

    Funny how those larger issues have to do with support for a political party. If it were Pravda doing this, our news media would have no problem recognizing the problem as corruption.

    Our national public debate is not well-served by a dishonest press. I say report the news and let the pieces fall where they may.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend