Gosnell hasn’t been convicted of anything yet, and if he is, the abortion-rights folks will surely argue that he was a lone hack in an otherwise responsible industry. But if that’s so, why do abortion-rights forces battle so tenaciously against laws to protect babies that survive abortions?
Barack Obama, when he was in the Illinois Legislature, voted against several bills that would ensure medical treatment for aborted babies born alive, saying doctors could be trusted to do the right thing. California Sen. Barbara Boxer went further, flatly declaring that an infant is fair game for an abortionist until “you bring your baby home.” Buyer’s-remorse protection for mothers!
Then there was the ringing proclamation of a Planned Parenthood lobbyist before the Florida Legislature last month. Asked what her group thought should happen to a “child that is struggling for life” after a botched abortion, Alisa LaPolt Snow replied: “Any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.” A stray dog gets more protection than that — he’ll at least have a stay of execution for a few days to see if another family wants him.
But the blunt truth is that, to a lot of abortion-rights activists, stray dogs have more rights than babies. The same Philadelphia grand jury that indicted Gosnell revealed that his baby slaughterhouse went undetected for years because Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge’s administration ordered the state health department to stop inspecting abortion clinics. “Officials concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions,’ ” the grand jury reported; after all, the only victims would be “infants without identities.”
Those same officials were quite unimpressed with the grand jury’s criticism. Shrugged Christine Dutton, the state health department’s chief attorney: “People die.” That’s right, Ms. Dutton. People.