What have we learned two years after the conviction of Kermit Gosnell?
Send to KindleBy Dave Andrusko
Jack McMahon, Kermit Gosnell’s defense attorney
The jury of seven women and five men convicted the West Philadelphia abortionist of three counts of first degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter in the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar.
Gosnell would arrive at night after his unqualified staff had injected women with drugs to induce a premature delivery. Often times they would suffer horribly in the meanwhile and would deliver their babies before he arrived. If not, when he did arrive, Gosnell would deliver these huge, mature babies alive and then sever their spinal cords.
Wherever they stood on the issue of abortion, the members of the jury saw through the smokescreens of Gosnell’s high-powered lawyer, Jack McMahon. The most nauseously self-serving was…well, it’d be hard to say.
That Gosnell was an “an imperfect doctor “dedicated to serving poor people in his community?
That it was unfair to tell the juror about the squalor, the filth, the urine, the feces, the moaning, over-medicated women, who lay in caked blood next to dead and dying cats in Gosnell’s Women Medical Society?
“They want to put Mayo Clinic standards on a West Philadelphia clinic,” McMahon said contemptuously. “If you want Mayo Clinic standards, go to the Mayo Clinic.”
No, the worst part was his blatant attempt to make Gosnell–who made upwards of $l.8 million a year–out as a all-but-broke target of a rich, white power structure. (Bold, even by his standards, Gosnell initially claimed he was destitute and asked for a public defender. In fact his assets included several properties, among which was a $900,000 Jersey shore house.)
“This is a targeted, elitist and racist prosecution of a doctor who’s done nothing but give to the poor and the people of West Philadelphia,” intoned McMahon. Appealing to a mostly-black jury, McMahon accused the city of perpetrating a “prosecutorial lynching” upon his client, who is also black.
If you can know a lawyer by his choice of clients, consider this. In 2009 Tara Murtha of the Philadelphia Weekly (and no pro-lifer) wrote
“Some of McMahon’s better-known
clients include Arturo Juarez, alleged leader of the Latin King gang and
Rich Wise, one of the two men accused in the 1995 murder of Kimberly
Ernst, known in the press as the Center City Jogger case. McMahon is a
busy guy: on top of taking on the Gosnell case, he’s currently
representing Gerald Ung, the former Temple Law student arrested in 2010
on suspicion of attempting to kill Ed DiDonato in an Old City shoot-out
captured by Fox29 cameras.”
Would you be at all surprising that in its early stories detailing the jury’s verdict, the New York Times
wrote “The verdict came after a five-week trial in which the
prosecution and the defense battled over whether the fetuses [!] Dr.
Gosnell was charged with killing were alive when they were removed from
their mothers”? Of course not.The primary story written May 13 by Jon Hurdle and Trip Gabriel was fascinating on several levels. A subtext was to insist that, contrary to what pro-lifers insisted, the trial had been covered by the media. This was preposterous on its face, and no better refuted than by the very occasional drop-in coverage provided by Gabriel.
Here’s what they wrote at the very end of their story:
Even as reporters from national
newspapers arrived in Courtroom 304 of the Criminal Justice Center, a
blog war continued between abortion-rights supporters, who had written
of Dr. Gosnell’s abuses from the time of his indictment, and
conservatives, who continued to fault broadcast television for a
“blackout.”
On Monday, there were 29 reporters in the courtroom and a row of television crews on the sidewalk.
There were two implications. First, that pro-abortion scribes had diligently covered the case.But their spotty coverage had little to do with the specific horrors that witnesses testified to and everything to do with trying to distance themselves from Gosnell, an act which (as we pointed out in many posts) was as bogus as McMahon’s assurance that Gosnell was a man of the people.
Second that because there was a torrent of coverage the day the decision came down, obviously our insistence that the case had essentially been “blacked out” was transparently false. In fact, it affirmed our point: then, and only then, did the case attract the level of attention it should have had for months.
Over the course of March and April 2011, we republished most of the 261 page Grand Jury report which led to Gosnell’s indictment. Those daily excerpts are very much worth reading at nationalrighttolifenews.org.
As the Grand Jury said in the Introduction to its report:
This case is about a doctor who
killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly
and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of
pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal
cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this
business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with
dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected
instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two
occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know
that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.
Is it any wonder the Planned Parenthoods and NARALs of this world fight clinic regulation six days a week and twice on Sundays?What would happen if the public began to discover that Gosnell was no anomaly but the very face of the Abortion Industry?
Source: NRLC News
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment