Kermit Gosnell Trial

[Lalaith]

I know. I know. Abortion. I'm not really looking for any kind of debate about abortion itself. I am curious about a few things, and I figured I could find varied perspectives here.

1) Is anyone paying attention to this trial?

2) Is anyone surprised that it wasn't being covered in the media? (Or does someone have an explanation for that that I haven't thought of?)

3) If you are pro-choice, does this situation bother you?


(I'm getting quite a bit of info from pro-life sources. I'm curious as to what those of you who are pro-choice are hearing.)

[elfshadow]

I've been following the trial a bit, since it seems to be popping up occasionally on the news sites and blogs I read. I also have some friends on Facebook who are following the case more closely than I am, and sometimes link to articles that I like to read. There may be many reasons the case isn't being more closely covered by major news media; the number of tragic news events that have occurred in recent days/weeks is pretty astonishing, and have largely pushed the Gosnell trial out of sight.

I honestly think the biggest reason the Gosnell trial isn't being covered to a greater extent is that the crimes themselves aren't all that controversial, IMO. Of course this guy deserves to go to jail. His practices were illegal, inhumane, and frankly sickening. I doubt there is any sane pro-choice person who would argue that he was doing public good with his "services".

I am a strong supporter of legal abortion, and cases like this are partially why. I believe that if abortion were to be made illegal, there would be hundreds or thousands of Kermit Gosnells across the country who would go underground, harming women without being discovered. Even in our current system, I have to wonder if women in poverty felt they had no choice but go to a person like Gosnell because they could not afford a reputable abortion clinic.

[axordil]

IAWE. The details of the case are also so nasty that most people instinctively turn away, since they don't make a difference as to his guilt, just how hard the stuff is to read. It may still be true that "if it bleeds it leads" but there are levels of ick most news managers want to avoid, for fear of Aunt Matilda calling the FCC.

That said, not only has it been in the NYT, but stories about why it's not been a "media event" trial have been in any number of reliably progressive outlets (The Atlantic, for example).

[River]

1) Yes, in small doses. It is ghastly. Clearly, we need to revamp our public health system and hire some more health inspectors so "clinics" like that hellhole are driven out of existence.
2) It's been in the news for a while. In fact, the Serbian news site my husband reads picked it up and he asked me about it. But, thankfully, infanticide in a poor, medically under-served part of town too unsavory even for a media circus. And apparently some consider anything that isn't the epicenter of a media circus "uncovered". Also, coverage of the trial this week has been completely overshadowed by the Boston Marathon bombing, the ricin letters, and now the industrial disaster in West, Texas.
3)

I am a strong supporter of legal abortion, and cases like this are partially why. I believe that if abortion were to be made illegal, there would be hundreds or thousands of Kermit Gosnells across the country who would go underground, harming women without being discovered. Even in our current system, I have to wonder if women in poverty felt they had no choice but go to a person like Gosnell because they could not afford a reputable abortion clinic.

This. Gosnell's operation is what happens when women do not have access to contraceptives and safe clinics. I read in one article that one of the women who went to Gosnell sought him out because the protesters around Planned Parenthood intimidated her. Talk about counter-productive.

However, the Gosnell situation isn't just about abortion. It's about access to healthcare in general. There is a huge disparity in both the quality and quantity of care available to people in this country and it falls in line with socioeconomic status. And that is a problem that our leaders are interested only in either ignoring or exacerbating.

[WampusCat]

1. Yes, I'm following it. I follow all the stories that come over our news wires. That's my job.

2. My paper has run several stories on the trial, though not as many as some of our readers want. We usually do not do day-by-day coverage of any non-local trials. Our space for national news varies, and so do the number of stories that absolutely must be covered. As a result, we don't give any trial the sort of breathless, nonstop coverage that the TV stations tend to do (especially if the story involves a particularly shocking crime). I'm sure we'll have at least two more stories: when he's convicted and sentenced.

3. The story is utterly appalling. The way this doctor treated his patients is horrific, and I can't imagine that anyone -- no matter what his or her position on abortion is -- would condone his actions or want to sweep them under the rug.

Holding his "medical practice" up as an argument against abortion would be like using Sweeney Todd as an argument against barbers.

[Dave_LF]

I've seen quite a few stories saying "why aren't the media covering this!"...in the media.

[JewelSong]

I have seen it coverd in the news and have read some of the stories, although there is a limit to how much I can take. In my view, this is a horrific case of malpractice and illegal procedures. I don't think it is a matter of "pro-choice" or "pro-life" or really anything to do with legalized abortion at all.

I agree with those above about the lack of adequate health care, access to contraceptives and access to legal abortion in the first trimester. Women who are pregnant and do not want to be pregnant will take desperate measures...this "doctor" was able to take advantage of their desperation. Much like back-alley abortionists did and still do.

The countries that have the least number of abortions per capita are the countries with full access to health care, birth control and early pregnancy termination. Then there is no need for "services" like those Gosnell was providing.

A disgusting man and I hope he gets his due.

[Túrin Turambar]

I have to agree that there has been something odd about the news coverage of this story (and there is a section on wiki discussing it). If someone killed seven or more children that were wanted by their parents then you would assume that this would get more attention. Or, for that matter, seven abortion clinic staff. It would make them a serial killer of considerable proportions. Thinking that through leads to a number of squicky implications. Is it something less of a story because the infants/fetuses in question were scheduled to be legally destroyed (for want of a proper way of phrasing that) anyway? Does it matter that Gosnell's victims did not have names and so could not be really viewed as people? Is a newborn baby inherently less valuable to society than an adult because we can't really appreciate them as an inidividual as we can with an adult? Does this suggest that our society's concept of the sanctity of life is actually more flexible than we care to admit (I think that it does, personally, but that's my opinion and doesn't just stem from this case).

[elfshadow]

Lord_M makes a great point. It's also worth pointing out again that these women and infants were largely members of the urban poor from Philadelphia. Murders of adults and children in inner-city areas tend to get very little media coverage, too.

[JewelSong]

Lord_M makes a great point. It's also worth pointing out again that these women and infants were largely members of the urban poor from Philadelphia. Murders of adults and children in inner-city areas tend to get very little media coverage, too.

This.

If this had happened in an upper-class, white suburb, the media would be all over it.

Of course, in an a upper-class suburb, the women would never have needed to go to this butcher to begin with....

[Lalaith]

(I am reading and hope to have time to respond soon. Thank you all for your input. I do appreciate it.)

[Lalaith]

Like I said above, I do appreciate everyone's responses. As usual, I learn a lot from you all, especially how people can view things from different perspectives.

I do think LordM is right. The media coverage of this is odd and can't be explained by the other things going on in the world right now. IIRC, the Gosnell trial started well before the Boston Marathon explosions and the Texas explosion.

My thought is that the media didn't want to touch this for exactly the reasons LordM brought out.

To me, it's a sad statement about the slippery slope we've put ourselves on regarding the sanctity of life.

If this had happened in an upper-class, white suburb, the media would be all over it.

The fact that the media didn't care to cover it, possibly because it was a black doctor killing black babies, should outrage people everywhere, imo.

[JewelSong]

There was an extensive segment on NPR's "All Things Considered" about this today...and also an article on ABC news. Seems the trial is underway and Gosnell will NOT be testifying. Defenses case is that the babies were not born alive, although there has been testimony to the contrary.

The NPR segment was quite interesting, as they had interviews with both a pro-choice and an anti-abortion spokeswoman. Both "sides" consider the case horrific. The pro-choice person talked about the growing scarcity of licensed abortion clinics and the problem of poor women getting decent health are in general. The anti-abortion person implied that there were many clinics like Gosnell's...that he was not an outlier but typical of an abortion provider.

This is where I feel that the anti-abortion group defeats itself. I have had a number of friends and relatives who have undergone an elective abortion and the clinics were well-run and professional. The back-alley nature of Gosnell's clinic is not typical of any kind of medical facility. However, I do think that if acess to safe and legal abortion continues to be restricted, we will see more "clinics" like this horror show. Women who are well-off will always be able to travel to a place where there is a decent and regulated clinic. Poor women will take desperate measures.

Restricting abortion does NOT reduce the number of abortions. As I said above, the countries with the fewest number of abortions per capita are those with the easiest access to safe and legal abortion.

I think the trouble is that most people who are firmly against abortion do not see "reducing" the number of abortions as a valid option. They want no abortions, ever. And this is simply not a realistic outcome. Making it more difficult for poor women to get birth control, basic health care and early abortion is not going to stop abortion...and may even make things much worse, as we see in this horrific case.

[Lalaith]

That does sound like it would have been an interesting segment.

In my ideal world, no one would get an abortion, want to get an abortion, or have a reason to get an abortion. Obviously, I know that's not realistic. I don't know what the answer is really. You all know that I believe life is sacred from conception.

But I don't want a debate about abortion.

I am glad, at least, that even those of you here who are pro-choice (and have voiced your opinions on this case) do not think what Gosnell did was acceptable. I will be dismayed if we get to a point, as a society, where we say that this is okay, like LordM was pointing out.

[Frelga]

I admit this hasn't crossed my horizon until I read the thread. It's not too surprising, as I was mostly offline for a while, but -to swerve on a tangent - it does highlight the risk of relying on top headlines selected by an algorithm such as Google News. It's a serious problem in its own right, which at extreme may result in an electorate that sees nothing but the gossip headlines. That's why I rely on this site and Manwë in the hopes that the membership is diverse enough that if I miss something important, someone will bring it up.

Lali, to me, this sounds like a cautionary tale about what happens in a society without a safety net. In my ideal world, no one wants an abortion, either. That means that women who for whatever reason are not prepared to have a baby have access to safe and affordable forms of contraception, that every woman has access to opportunities that would allow her to provide for her family alone. That means that every woman is able to take time off work to care for her child, that affordable, quality child care is available, that every child is guaranteed a place to live and enough food. That also means that there is no rape or incest, and that no woman is diagnosed with life-threatening illness for which treatment is incompatible with pregnancy.

And we are heading in the opposite direction, IMO.

[Primula Baggins]

That's kind of where I am, too. As I've said here before, I am one of the many women I know who were using birth control responsibly and got pregnant anyway.

For me, as it happens, it didn't matter beyond inconvenience. But what if I lived in poverty and weren't planning or hoping for any more children? What if I were divorced, or widowed, or single? What if I were a teenager trying to finish high school? What if I were in an abusive relationship?

What if I'd just been diagnosed with cancer?

Ideally, no woman in any of those situations would ever find herself in an unplanned pregnancy, because safe and effective birth control would be available to any woman who needed it.

In our nonideal world, people are trying to prevent birth control from being available to those who can't afford it, or whose husbands or parents might be trying to keep it from them. People (not you, Lali, I know) believe that no woman should ever have sex until and unless she is certainly able to bring a child up to adulthood without any help whatsoever. To have sex even once is to consent to parenthood, irrevocably—and once you're pregnant, you're on your own; you chose this, after all; don't go looking for help.

People have sex—that hasn't changed in all of human history. Most brides in Plymouth Colony (the original Puritans!) were pregnant. It seems to me that women should have the right to live normal, human lives without surrendering control of their bodies and futures the moment they cease to be virgins. And that does entail controlling when, and how, and whether they have children.

I would like to see a world where this is true because every woman has full access to birth control that is safe and reliable. But the world we live in is full of powerful men who want to block all access to any birth control for the vast majority of women (their wives and daughters excepted, if you could get them to admit it). Many such men are in power in this country. If a woman has no choice before she has sex—and many women, including married women, don't—then she needs to have choice after she gets pregnant.

To prevent abortion, let women prevent those pregnancies.

[Impenitent]

I am glad, at least, that even those of you here who are pro-choice (and have voiced your opinions on this case) do not think what Gosnell did was acceptable. I will be dismayed if we get to a point, as a society, where we say that this is okay, like LordM was pointing out.

Lali, I cannot imagine anyone in his/her right mind would consider what Gosnell did acceptable!

I am pro-choice - beginning with adequate sex education, access to contraceptives, and a social environment which allows women to engage in, or refrain from, sexual activity without coercion or judgement, to providing a social net which provides women with the means to bring up their children with dignity, should they fall pregnant despite all precautions. And yes, I am pro-choice in terms of society providing the right and the means to any woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy should all other options fail.

I speak as one who's been through it, and I fully comprehend the weight of that kind of decision.

Gosnell's actions were evil. Evil, greedy, sociopathic, cruel. Anathema to a compassionate society.

Even if those aborted foetuses were dead on delivery, dignity, respect and caring was their due.

[JewelSong]

IAWI.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

IAWI&J

[JewelSong]

I know you didn't want this to turn into a discussion of abortion, Lali...but I would like to think - to hope - that abortion can be discussed. Even if it is a hot-button issue.

People have sex—that hasn't changed in all of human history..It seems to me that women should have the right to live normal, human lives without surrendering control of their bodies and futures the moment they cease to be virgins. And that does entail controlling when, and how, and whether they have children.

It seems to me that IF groups who are anti-abortion truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they would work to reduce the number of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. They would look at how other countries with lower incidences of abortion have done this. And they would see that countries with the most comprehensive sex education programs and best access to both birth control, prenatal care and child care have the LEAST number of abortions per capita.

However, it seems to me to be somewhat ironic that the voices which speak loudest against abortion also seem to speak loudest against sex education and access to birth control, medical care and programs for young children.

People...believe that no woman should ever have sex until and unless she is certainly able to bring a child up to adulthood without any help whatsoever. To have sex even once is to consent to parenthood, irrevocably—and once you're pregnant, you're on your own; you chose this, after all; don't go looking for help.

(bolding mine.)

In many ways, I feel that the anti-abortion movement (or a large portion of it) isn't really anti-abortion as much as it is anti-sex. At least - anti-sex for those slutty disgusting women who have sex while unmarried. They deserve what they get! That baby is their punishment! Nice girls stay virgins until they get married and then they only have gross, icky sex when they want to procreate!

Until it happens to them or their daughter or sister or niece. Then...they go to an abortion clinic and get the pregnancy terminated. Because - it's different when it's YOUR abortion.

I truly wish that the anti-abortion and pro-choice people could meet someplace in the middle and work on reducing abortion by the methods shown to work in many other countries. A realistic, comprehensive sex education program starting in Kindergarten. Access to reliable birth-control and medical care. Prenatal care for everyone and assistance for single mothers.

There would not be so many unwanted pregnancies and for those women who did find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, there would be more options that could result in them deciding to continue the pregnancy.