Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on Pinterest Connect on Google Plus Connect on LinkedIn Connect on YouTube

Gosnell’s Defense: Can’t Prove Babies Were Born Alive – UPDATE

April 23, AD 2013 10 Comments

Just out today

A judge has dropped three of seven murder charges against abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who’s accused of “snipping” the spinal cords of newborns at his filthy clinic.

The judge ruled there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue the three first-degree murder charges against 72-year-old Gosnell, ABC reported.

Gosnell still faces four first-degree murder charges and a third-degree murder charge for the death of a 41-year-old immigrant who went to him for an abortion.

ABC reports the judge didn’t immediately explain why there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue the three murder charges. The case against Gosnell appeared to suffer a setback last week when the chief medical examiner testified he couldn’t say for sure whether any of the fetuses found in Gosnell’s clinic were born alive.

Gosnell is accused of operating a filthy clinic, spreading venereal diseases by using dirty equipment and routinely killing newborns. The crux of his defense is that no babies were ever born alive in his clinic.

Read more here at Business Insider.

Question: Why does it matter whether the baby was born alive or not?

I know we’ve had discussions about this already around here, but I don’t care. People need to face this question and think. We literally are defining murder by a separation of 5 minutes (less actually) in time and a few inches in space. What’s different about the baby? The one being killed? And don’t tell me it’s about the woman, because I can shred that argument up one side of the wall and back down again. The measures they take to kill the baby inside the woman put her at more risk than inducing birth and killing the baby outside her womb.

Read Leila’s question here, The Largely Unasked Question About the Gosnell Mass Murder Case.

Or read Jen’s piece here, Ignore the Tiny Corpses: America’s Powerful Conceal the Monster.

UPDATE: Think this only happens in filthy places like Gosnell’s clinic and it is something new? No. This happened in a hospital, in the room where babies are saved. I just saw this story at LifeSiteNews.

It is from a nurse whose story can be read in its entirety here.

The nurse from Labor and Delivery walked into our unit carrying a blanket and stating “This is a prostaglandin abortion. He has a heartbeat so we brought him over.” The baby was placed under a radiant warmer and I was told the rest of the facts. The gestational age of the baby was given to be 23 weeks by ultrasound. The mother had cancer and had received chemotherapy treatments before discovering that she was pregnant. The parents had been told that their baby would be horribly deformed because of the chemotherapy.

I looked at the baby boy lying before me, and saw that from all appearances he was perfect. He had a good strong heartbeat. I could tell this without using a stethoscope because I could see his chest moving in sync with his heart rate. With a stethoscope I heard a heart pumping strongly. I look at his size and his skin — he definitely looked more mature than 23 weeks. He was weighed and I discovered that he was 900 grams, almost two pounds. This was almost twice the weight of some babies we have been able to save. A doctor was summoned. When she arrived the baby started moving his tiny arms and legs flailing. He started trying to gasp, but was unable to get air into his lungs. His whole body shuddered with his efforts to breathe. We were joined by a neonatalist and I pleaded with both doctors saying, “The baby is viable — look at his size, look at his skin — he looks much older than 23 weeks.”

It was a horrible moment as each of us wrestled with our own ethical standards. I argued that we should make an attempt to resuscitate him, to get him breathing. The resident doctor told me, “This is an abortion. We have no right to interfere.” The specialist, who had the responsibility for the decision, was wringing his hands and quietly saying, “This is so hard. Oh, God, it’s so hard when it’s this close.” In the end, I lost. We were not going to try to resuscitate this baby. So, I did the only thing I could do. Dipping my index finger into sterile water and placing it on his head, I baptized the child. Then I wrapped him in blankets to keep him warm, and held him. These were the only measures I could take comfort the baby under the circumstances, no matter how much I wanted to do more. I held this little boy, who was still gasping for breath, trying to stay alive on his own. As the tears flowed down my face, I pray to God that he would take this child into his care, and that he would forgive me for my own part in his death. After a while, he stopped gasping. His heart continued to beat, but the beating became slower and weaker until it finally stopped. He was gone.

 

Hello, and thank you for reading. My name is Stacy Trasancos. I am a wife, mother of seven, and joyful convert to Catholicism. I write from my tiny office in a 100-year-old restored Adirondack mountain lodge that overlooks a small spring-fed lake. Read more about me here. Find me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, or contact me by email. God bless you!
  • Bobby

    “This is so hard. Oh, God, it’s so hard when it’s this close.”

    When rights are based on lies this is the result. Ex-abortionist and now deceased Dr. Bernard Nathanson admitted fabricating the number of illegal abortions that were being done before Roe v. Wade to persuade the courts to legalize abortion. Here he describes how this was done. Read the entire piece here: http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

    Excerpts from the article:

    “THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA

    We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000….”

    THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD

    “We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform”. And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking… ”

    These same tactics are being used today with SSM and people are still willing to be duped.

    Thanks for posting this Stacy.

  • maizie

    That is fine for Judge Jeffrey Minehart to take three of the charges off Gosnell. The judge has now taken them as his own charges however because of his actions God will hold the judge accountable for the three deaths and the blood of these innocent is now on Minehart’s head.

    Maybe in the eyes of man charges can be minimalized but not in God’s eyes. Without repentance Minehart stands guilty before God Himself.

  • Pingback: Pursuit of Beauty - Big Pulpit

  • https://thebestthingireadtoday.wordpress.com/ Philokalos

    Only in a society full of the poorly educated can ideologues of such a stamp succeed in convincing the public, that they are more educated than their putatively science-denying counterparts. One hundred and fifty years ago in the South, a plantation owner justified his inexcusable violation of human rights by claiming that his victims were ontologically inferior to real humans. Today that same Southern drawl is the voice of reason, while the old bastions of human rights are the laboratories of cruelty and ignorance.

    • Andre

      Philokalos,

      “One hundred and fifty years ago in the South, a plantation owner justified his inexcusable violation of human rights by claiming that his victims were ontologically inferior to real humans.”

      I’ll let the irony of that statement marinate in light of the actual justifications used by slave owners at the time. From ‘The Rights and Duties of Masters, by James Henley Thornwell:

      “The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders—they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins, on one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battle ground—Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake.”

      (http://books.google.com/books?id=MqARAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)

      • https://thebestthingireadtoday.wordpress.com/ Philokalos

        Dear Andre,

        I’m having difficulty understanding what you are saying to me.

        I can’t help thinking, though, it has more to do with a personal connection relating to other issues, and not this particular comment, unless perhaps it’s just a coincidence that you posted this response immediately after responding to something else I said on a different thread elsewhere, than it does with anything I’ve actually said here, since, being so well read in the history of the abolition of slavery, you know of course that slaveowners on more than one occasion, in print, claimed that blacks were ontologically sub-human.

        But we should really get back to work, no? Before we start taking things personally? Or worse, attacking each other personally?

        • Andre

          Philokalos,

          No coincidence at all. Just surprised that you were seemingly unaware of the appeals to tradition and religious texts used to ground the ontological claims you’re referring to.

          • https://thebestthingireadtoday.wordpress.com/ Philokalos

            This one is called “ignoratio elenchi.”

          • Andre

            “This one is called “ignoratio elenchi.””

            OMG, I always order this when we go to nice Italian restaurants.

    • maizie

      This is interesting considering that abortion is the number one killer of African Americans in the United States.

      I guess we have not progressed as much as we pretend.