When I alluded to this Huffington Post “article” in a comment here, I refused to link it but after reflecting on it a bit, I want to call attention to it because it illustrates two things:
- The tendency of “progressives”/ liberals, including writers and reporters, to start a story with honest reportage and then turn that reportage on its head to attack conservatives and,
- With respect to abortion, the depravity of their positions and perversion of the language used when they discuss it.
First a little about the authors – the post was written by Kate Michelman and Carol Tracy. Michelman is the former president of NARAL Pro Choice America. Carol Tracy is the Executive Director of the Women’s Law Project. NARAL is well known for its radical stand on abortion – as that is its reason for being. Tracy’s organization is lesser known but has been busy:
The Women’s Law Project has a stellar record of achievement protecting reproductive freedom in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States. We represented the plaintiffs in three landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions on reproductive freedom: ACOG v. Thornburgh (1986), Planned Parenthood v. Casey(1992), and Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001). We led the massive, nationwide amicus effort upholding abortion rights in the U.S. Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000); our litigation struck down Pennsylvania’s rape and incest police reporting requirements for low-income women’s Medicaid-funded abortions in Blackwell v. Knoll (1996). On a daily basis, Law Project attorneys troubleshoot for Pennsylvania clinics, hospitals, doctors, patient advocates, and women seeking abortions, providing acurrate (sic), authoritative information about Pennsylvania’s abortion laws.
Kind of humorous that they claim to provide “acurrate” information when they can’t even spell the word “accurate” correctly…but it is the intent that matters in the liberal world, right?
This article was used as proof by a commenter to refute the proposition that the media isn’t really interested in the Gosnell story because it draws a picture that is not helpful to promotion of the liberal sacrament, abortion. The assertion was that the liberal media is in fact, reporting on the disgusting revelations of the Kermit Gosnell case – but are they really? When you actually read past the first paragraph, it seems to be something else entirely:
With Kermit Gosnell’s criminal trial underway in Philadelphia, public outrage at the physician accused of murdering one woman and seven infants increases with each grisly new piece of evidence.
Good start, seems reasonable, but the tide turns quickly from condemnation of Gosnell to blame shifting:
But the Gosnell trial raises several inescapable questions: How could this happen? In particular, how, in a state that has led the nation in imposing restrictions on abortion, could such atrocities go undetected? Just as puzzling is why the numerous complaints against him were ignored.
The answer is simple: Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, when abortion policy was established, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s primary goal was to overturn Roe v. Wade and, barring that, impose as many barriers as possible to limit access to abortion. By and large, our policymakers have never viewed abortion as a medical procedure – instead placing it under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code — and therefore have not nurtured a system of abortion care that is woman-focused, readily accessible, and responsive to their medical needs. The Commonwealth’s focus has been on denying access, not protecting the health and safety of women who need this medical care. If the charges against Gosnell prove true, Gosnell was an outlaw who repeatedly violated numerous laws and should have been shut down years ago, but the state did not hold him accountable to its own laws and policies.
Of course Gosnell is a monster (if he isn’t proven innocent, which we must give him the benefit of the doubt even in the face of his own testimony)…but you know what?
Those pro-life bitches are even worse.
So the people who are trying to stop abortions are actually responsible for Gosnell doing them? Seems a bit counterintuitive to me.
So why did women go to his clinic? Why not choose a legitimate, reputable provider of abortion care? During a Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee hearing on proposed abortion regulation bills, Tyhisha Hudson, a woman who had obtained an abortion at Gosnell’s clinic, was asked why she went to him. She testified that women in her neighborhood knew that Gosnell was the man you saw for the cheapest abortion.
Republicans hate poor people because they oppose federal funding for abortion.
Another Gosnell patient, Davida Johnson, noted in an Associated Press article that she intended to go to Planned Parenthood for an abortion procedure, but was scared away by anti-abortion protesters picketing outside the clinic. An acquaintance suggested she go to Gosnell, where protesters (ironically) were not an issue.
Yep, those pro-life protester bitches are to blame. Told you they were monsters.
Evidence suggests that a number of factors influenced a woman’s decision to seek care at Gosnell’s clinic: Medicaid’s refusal to provide insurance coverage for most abortions; the scarcity of abortion providers in Pennsylvania (and across the nation); the fear of violence perpetrated by protestors at clinics, and the right-wing culture that has so stigmatized abortion that many think it is still illegal 40 years after Roe v. Wade.
Right wingers have stigmatized abortion so much that only an estimated 1.2 million children were aborted in the US last year and roughly 55,000,000 since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land.
Only 55 million. We’ve evidently scared the Hell out of them. According to the American Life League, those numbers work out to:
- 234 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)
- Abortions per year: 1.2 million
- Abortions per day: 3,288
- Abortions per hour: 137
- 9 abortions every 4 minutes
- 1 abortion every 26 seconds
Wow. We abort 23.4% of babies as compared to live births.
Notice the soft language that is used as a euphemism for elective child murder – “abortion care“, “woman-focused, readily accessible, and responsive to their medical needs.” Stopping abortion is equal to “not protecting the health and safety of women who need this medical care.”
It’s not birth control via killing a human baby, it is necessary medical care for women’s health and safety, got it?
These are evil people, as are the people who support them.