Abortion Doctor's Murder Trial Opens

[LisaA]

Was that true in all states? I know that before the Roe decision, it was a patchwork system - like marriage is today. There was no single standard for when abortions were or were not allowed. For example, Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) could have gotten an abortion in another state, but she didn’t have the money to travel…

This is true. I don’t know about all states but in Oregon, abortion was allowed before Roe. I learned that my own parents helped the daughter of a friend (lived in Utah) procure an abortion because she could not get one in her home state. Of course in those days I was all for it I had no idea about the evil my own parents participated in. BTW this young lady had serious mental health issues following the abortion and remains a troubled soul decades later. It’s something they never tell the girls at the time.

Today, people appear to want reassurance that abortion will remain legal in the case of rape, incest and the life and health of the mother. I don’t think they really consider how that would work on a practical level, but that seems to be the common consensus as I read it.

(

I think that would be a compromise most of America could live with, although the caveat “health” of the mother needs to have a higher standard than “she will be depressed if she has to buy large jars of mayo at Costco…” The devil in the details. Ironically I also know of several women facing serious health problems who elected to carry their pregnancy to term, knowing the consequences to their own health and life would be serious.

Obviously it’s not the Catholic standard but I am a firm believer that part of something is better than all of nothing.

Thanks for the update. Much easier than reading about the gruesome nightmare. I haven’t felt this heartsick since the Sandusky trial. It reminds me of serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer. I don’t know what motivates people like that, but that’s how I think about Gosnell. He is a really evil & sadistic serial killer who found a way to get paid to victimize women and murder babies under the cover of legitimacy. I really do hope that people see how insane our laws are when they hear that his defense was that it couldn’t be murder because he killed the babies BEFORE they were born.

Although not criminally insane, clearly this man’s mental process is not normal. The brutality to both the women and their babies goes far beyond what was necessary to complete the process. Just the fact that the clinic was filthy and unsafe makes Gosnell’s state of mind (as a doctor) subject to question. He made a lot of money and had something like $250000 in cash in his home. So it’s not as if he were a dedicated doctor, serving the poor as best he could with limited resources. You have to wonder if he got some kind of pleasure out of the process. More than one witness told him they did not want the abortion (often very young women brought by family members) but he would drug them and perform it anyway.

Further he was apparently incompetent. One of the medical reporters stated that he was unable to kill the babies in utero as is the normal although horrifying procedure, thus the high number of babies born alive that needed to be killed after their birth.

This is truly a failure of the agencies that are supposed to monitor both the practitioners and their facilities. You mention the Sandusky case…also in Pennsylvania. They have a lot of explaining to do!

Lisa

 

[qui_est_ce]

Consider this in the spirit of fraternal correction:

You may not think your exchange with Lisa comes off as “uncaring and judgmental” but trust me, it does.

I think LisA is responding to the pro-abortion people who claim this to paint prolifers as uncaring.

It is interesting the NPR calls prolifers “Anti-abortion” and pro-aborts “pro choice” and “women’s reproductive rights.”

There is clearly a media bias to paint pro-choicers as radical anti-feminists.

Trust me, LisA would not be rude or uncaring if she encountered a women needing help.

 

[LisaA]

I think LisA is responding to the pro-abortion people who claim this to paint prolifers as uncaring.

It is interesting the NPR calls prolifers “Anti-abortion” and pro-aborts “pro choice” and “women’s reproductive rights.”

There is clearly a media bias to paint pro-choicers as radical anti-feminists.

Trust me, LisA would not be rude or uncaring if she encountered a women needing help.

Thank you

This is true. My ire is reserved for those who mangle the truth, if not outright lie about abortion and its impact on both the babies and the women. I TRULY want women to be given other choices and to be warned about the dangers to their mental and physical health as well as helping to preserve the life of their babies. It frustrates me to no end that the pro abortion forces don’t want the truth to be known…because if it were, far more women would choose to carry their babies to term.

When I was pro abortion, it was out of ignorance, not malice. I wasn’t a Catholic or even a Christian so there was no religious basis to make a decision. However like most people who are not opposed to abortions, I wasn’t heartless, just ignorant. Abortion was presented to me as solving a problem, not taking a life. This is done in families (like mine) and schools and the media.

No better example of the verse that the truth sets you free. We just need to keep speaking the truth in love and know that seeds planted today will eventually bring fruit.

Lisa

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This is true. I don’t know about all states but in Oregon, abortion was allowed before Roe. I learned that my own parents helped the daughter of a friend (lived in Utah) procure an abortion because she could not get one in her home state. Of course in those days I was all for it I had no idea about the evil my own parents participated in. BTW this young lady had serious mental health issues following the abortion and remains a troubled soul decades later. It’s something they never tell the girls at the time.

I think that would be a compromise most of America could live with, although the caveat “health” of the mother needs to have a higher standard than “she will be depressed if she has to buy large jars of mayo at Costco…” The devil in the details. Ironically I also know of several women facing serious health problems who elected to carry their pregnancy to term, knowing the consequences to their own health and life would be serious.

Obviously it’s not the Catholic standard but I am a firm believer that part of something is better than all of nothing.

Although not criminally insane, clearly this man’s mental process is not normal. The brutality to both the women and their babies goes far beyond what was necessary to complete the process. Just the fact that the clinic was filthy and unsafe makes Gosnell’s state of mind (as a doctor) subject to question. He made a lot of money and had something like $250000 in cash in his home. So it’s not as if he were a dedicated doctor, serving the poor as best he could with limited resources. You have to wonder if he got some kind of pleasure out of the process. More than one witness told him they did not want the abortion (often very young women brought by family members) but he would drug them and perform it anyway.

Further he was apparently incompetent. One of the medical reporters stated that he was unable to kill the babies in utero as is the normal although horrifying procedure, thus the high number of babies born alive that needed to be killed after their birth.

This is truly a failure of the agencies that are supposed to monitor both the practitioners and their facilities. You mention the Sandusky case…also in Pennsylvania. They have a lot of explaining to do!

Lisa

I just wanted to touch on this highlighted part. Pennsylvania law prohibits abortion after 23.6 weeks. Usually a baby would die during the abortion procedure that Kermit would use, the contractions would kill the baby because the baby is still very young. (Still evil and gruesome )

On his own falsified records, he was incompetent enough to make the babies’ ages uniformly 24.6 weeks, a week past the legal limit. Irrespective of size. So a baby closer to full term would survive the procedure he used.

Preemies survive the birthing process. There is actual evidence that the birthing vaginally for preemies might stimulate their lungs.

One baby was 28 weeks, about a month past the legal limit. I don’t understand how just this one example of a dead baby is not enough to convict him of murder?

 

[JMJSHJ]

I think LisA is responding to the pro-abortion people who claim this to paint prolifers as uncaring.

It is interesting the NPR calls prolifers “Anti-abortion” and pro-aborts “pro choice” and “women’s reproductive rights.”

There is clearly a media bias to paint **pro-choicers **as radical anti-feminists.

Trust me, LisA would not be rude or uncaring if she encountered a women needing help.

Bolding mine.

I think you mean pro-lifers. If media were to protray pro choicers as radical anti-feminists, I think I would have a heart attack from good, but shocking news!!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Bolding mine.

I think you mean pro-lifers. If media were to protray pro choicers as radical anti-feminists, I think I would have a heart attack from good, but shocking news!!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Thank you

This is true. My ire is reserved for those who mangle the truth, if not outright lie about abortion and its impact on both the babies and the women. I TRULY want women to be given other choices and to be warned about the dangers to their mental and physical health as well as helping to preserve the life of their babies. It frustrates me to no end that the pro abortion forces don’t want the truth to be known…because if it were, far more women would choose to carry their babies to term.

When I was pro abortion, it was out of ignorance, not malice. I wasn’t a Catholic or even a Christian so there was no religious basis to make a decision. However like most people who are not opposed to abortions, I wasn’t heartless, just ignorant. Abortion was presented to me as solving a problem, not taking a life. This is done in families (like mine) and schools and the media.

No better example of the verse that the truth sets you free. We just need to keep speaking the truth in love and know that seeds planted today will eventually bring fruit.

Lisa

I was hoping you’d weigh in on that thought as you are much more eloquent than I.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I took the numbers from the previous post, adjusted the values so that higher values indicate greater support for the pro-life position, adjusted the labels to reflect this, and then ordered them by magnitude. This makes it easier to interpret the data.

I didn’t check the source of the original numbers, and have no idea whether they are valid or not, but checking now they appear to be from a Gallup poll:
gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx

Here are the original numbers and source:

An NBC/WSJ poll in January had majority think abortion should be legal in most or all cases:

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/w.jpg

Source

NBC/WSJ poll from April discovered most people think abortion should be illegal in most or all cases:

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ab.jpg

Source

Polls fluctuate. What circumstances do people think abortion should be legal in and my previous post to you addressed that.

 

[losh14]

Bellasbane - this is a helpful way to look at it, but one correction:

• 46% want abortion to be illegal
• 44% want abortion outlawed

Averaging the next two (which really measure the same thing) gives us a solid 45% of people who want abortion to be outlawed or illegal.

The 46% was actually those who want it to remain legal. Sorry for the confusion.
The cognitive dissonance (44% want it outlawed = 56% don’t want it outlawed, 46% want it kept legal = 54% don’t want it kept legal) is likely due to question wording. I’ve actually studied this, and can recommend (for those interested) a text by Bethlehem and Biffignandi that includes how wording of surveys can impact results. Suffice to say we can’t ask “Do you want abortion to stay legal?”, take that percentage yes, and subtract it from 100% to get an equivalent to those who say “Do you want abortion outlawed?”. Aside from the “I’m not sure” or “I refused to answer” group, there’s a cognitive effect. Uncertainty tends to lean towards the status quo so that people who aren’t solidly on one side or the other have an easier time agreeing with how things are than with change.

 

[losh14]

Second to Nate Silver. His methodology is excellent, and I’m on chapter 7 of his book, which is very accessible and well-cited.

As Nate Silver likes to explain, a single poll can be skewed, but when multiple polls using a variety of methods all say the same thing, you can be pretty certain its real.

The 30-70 split over Roe v Wade has been a stable for about 20 years.

LisaA said my above comment more concisely:

Before anyone gets too wrapped around the axle with poll watching, the reality is that polls can be “pushed” by the way the question is framed.

The poll does not recognize that the majority of self described pro choice people agree with many restrictions on abortion that self

Astute observation. This is why pro-life phrases it “abortion on demand” and pro-choice phrases it “abortion without restriction”. I wonder if we had a methodology that was multiple-choice, ie:

“What do you think of abortion in each of these instances? Please mark whether you think it should not be legal, should sometimes be legal, or should always be legal?”
a) To save life of the mother
b) In case of incest
c) In case of forcible rape
d) In case of the mother being under age
e) To space births
f) For family financial reasons
g) Out of concern for the mother’s health but not when the mother’s life is in imminent danger
h) In case of triplets to improve the chance of the other two being born
i) In case of contraceptive failure
j) For gender selection
k) For population control
l) For a fetus with birth defects that is expected to be viable
m) For a fetus with severe birth defects that may not be viable after birth
n) For a fetus exhibiting symptoms of Down’s Syndrome
o) For a fetus exhibiting polydactyly (6 fingers) with no other associated abnormalities
p) For a fetus showing spina bifida
q) For a fetus exposed to alcohol
r) For a fetus showing symptoms of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
s) For a fetus exposed to cocaine
t) For a fetus testing HIV-positive

I’m curious if people who wouldn’t ban abortion in cases of rape would restrict abortion based on age. I included age, rather than statutory (not forcible) rape because if a 14-year-old gets pregnant by a 16-year-old, in Missouri that’s lawful (even if wrong), but if he’s 17 it’s statutory rape (or, if she’s 16 and he’s 19, it’s rape, but if he’s 18 it’s lawful). So the difference is, ironically, the boy’s age, which I think respondents would get hung up on. I’m also reluctant to make a distinction between rape and forcible rape given comments by Todd Akin and other Missouri Republicans, that would probably make some respondents close the survey.

 

[LisaA]

Bellasbane - this is a helpful way to look at it, but one correction:

The 46% was actually those who want it to remain legal. Sorry for the confusion.
The cognitive dissonance (44% want it outlawed = 56% don’t want it outlawed, 46% want it kept legal = 54% don’t want it kept legal) is likely due to question wording. I’ve actually studied this, and can recommend (for those interested) a text by Bethlehem and Biffignandi that includes how wording of surveys can impact results. Suffice to say we can’t ask “Do you want abortion to stay legal?”, take that percentage yes, and subtract it from 100% to get an equivalent to those who say “Do you want abortion outlawed?”. Aside from the “I’m not sure” or “I refused to answer” group, there’s a cognitive effect. Uncertainty tends to lean towards the status quo so that people who aren’t solidly on one side or the other have an easier time agreeing with how things are than with change.

Also note in the poll posted by Abyssinia that the reference was to “first three months” which I think numbs many into agreement with keeping abortion legal.

If the question were worded "Would you be in favor of overturning the Supreme Court decision that allows abortion up to the ninth month of pregnancy and for any reason?

I bet the answer would be different. Unfortunately most people do not realize that Roe has essentially been expanded to allow abortion at will. I do not believe the American people, even those who are relatively non-committal about life issues, want abortion to be virtually unregulated as to stage of pregnancy.

Lisa

 

[losh14]

An NBC/WSJ poll in January had majority think abortion should be legal in most or all cases:
…
Polls fluctuate. What circumstances do people think abortion should be legal in and my previous post to you addressed that.

Abyssinia, thanks for putting these together. This is very much a difference in phrasing. “Overturn Roe v Wade” is a scary idea. “Abortion illegal with exceptions” is a safe idea and may not be far from “Abortion legal but with restrictions”.

If we were to ask about the nitty-gritty, technical instances, we may see vast differences emerge. Another thought would be to ask in the form of a conjoint analysis: in marketing research it’s asking about characteristics, ie “compare this washing machine with X speeds and Y energy usage and Z water capacity against this other - which do you prefer”? The idea is to discover underlying preferences to help build a product with the most qualities in common.

One recent application of conjoint is a study at MIT on immigration in which respondents are asked to assess a number of hypothetical immigrants and choose who should get the visa (assuming a scenario of limited visas and zero-sum):

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2106116

I can’t tell if a conjoint has been done on attitudes towards abortion - every search I run comes up with “reasons for abortion” and I think I’m on to something until I see that the search engine corrected my search to “conjoined twins”. Oh my…

The point is, it’s a “safe” phrasing to speak generally of abortion, but more difficult to talk specifics.

For example, if we were to ask:
“Which method of abortion do you think should remain legal?”
a) A pill that prevents an egg from fertilizing after sex
b) A pill that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting
c) A pill that causes the uterine lining to cease giving support to an implanted egg
d) A pill that causes menstruation within three weeks of implantation
e) Curettage (cutting away from uterine wall) of a fetus up to 13 weeks
f) Vacuum-extraction of fetus up to 13 weeks
g) Injection of heart-stopping medication into fetus up to 26 weeks, followed by menstruation or curettage
h) Induced labor followed by excision of brain through skull of fetus up to 28 weeks, followed by removal of rest of fetus vaginally"

And took the highest % agreement score (probably from a) or b)), you’d likely get a number that was lower than “Do you think abortion should be legal with restriction?”

See, Guttmacher won’t put out a survey like this. Neither will NBC, CBS, or CNN. If an obviously Christian organization put it out, abortion supporters wouldn’t participate. It’d need to be a random sample polled independently. It could even include some from skewed groups provided we kept those as special cases, ie “we polled 1000 at random, but also 1000 from people leaving church services and another 1000 from visitors to Planned Parenthood clinics”.

hmmmm, wondering now if I should contact our local office Pro-Life outreach with this idea.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Second to Nate Silver. His methodology is excellent, and I’m on chapter 7 of his book, which is very accessible and well-cited.

You should be skeptical of Nate Silver:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9976926&postcount=182

 

[losh14]

Further he was apparently incompetent. One of the medical reporters stated that he was unable to kill the babies in utero as is the normal although horrifying procedure, thus the high number of babies born alive that needed to be killed after their birth.

Horrifying prospect. Horrifying. I could only imagine the cross-examination (note, I’m paraphrasing - this is my imagination based off story content):
Prosecutor: “Why did you routinely ‘snip’ the backs of the necks?”
Gosnell: “To ensure fetal demise”
Prosecutor: “So you made no action to cause fetal demise while the fetus was in the womb?”
Gosnell: “I injected drugs to stop the heart”
Prosecutor: “Why did you need to snip the neck if the heart was already stopped?”
Gosnell: “To ensure fetal demise?”
Prosecutor: “It sounds like you weren’t very sure of fetal demise in the first place. Did you ever deliver a fetus with a heartbeat?”

I’ll need to spend some time today in prayer to help fight off the desire I have to see violence done to this demon of a person.

 

[losh14]

You should be skeptical of Nate Silver:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9976926&postcount=182

He has obvious personal biases. He favors progressive causes and he’s a darling to the Left, hence he’s given much forgiveness by the media (and anyone who friended the “I’d like to sleep with Nate Silver” page on Facebook the day after the 2012 elections). So yes, we can hold that against him.

The bulk of the book is less about what he does well and more about errors in forecasting across disciplines - or, in the rare cases that forecasting is very good, what is done right. My perspective may be different in that I’m an economist - specifically a regional econometrician - by training, and I work in public opinion polling for clients in the financial sector. So where some are willing to give him credit for helping Obama win (really, I think he lended talking points for common conversation between Obama supporters more than substantively driving out the vote), he was really the bearer of good news.

I’ve got more to write but I’ll put it in a PM, since it’s really not on topic.

 

[_Abyssinia]

What I Saw and Heard in Two Days at the Kermit Gosnell Murder Trial

Why Gosnell’s ‘house of horrors’ is the logical result of legalized abortion

Bachmann on Gosnell: ‘Mainstream Media’'Failed to Cover this Horrific Violence Against Women’

 

[LisaA]

What I Saw and Heard in Two Days at the Kermit Gosnell Murder Trial

Why Gosnell’s ‘house of horrors’ is the logical result of legalized abortion

Bachmann on Gosnell: ‘Mainstream Media’'Failed to Cover this Horrific Violence Against Women’

This from the second link:

***Gosnell’s so-called “house of horrors” is the logical end result of declaring a class of humans inhuman. It is what happens when naive women are told, without a trace of irony, that death leads to freedom: that killing their unborn children will rescue them, help them, free them.

Tell me again why we’re surprised.***

This is what allows them to continue to spread this evil just like all evil, dehumanizing some portion of our brothers and sisters. Whether it’s by race or age or physical or mental challenge if you can dehumanize them, you can kill them and as these women are convinced .killing their unborn children will solve their problems.

According to reports, closing arguments are Monday. No defense, no expert testimony to refute the prosecution’s claims about Gosnell’s practice and practices. It will be very interesting to hear how the defense attorney advocates for his client. Not a lot to work with is there?

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

This from the second link:

Gosnell’s so-called “house of horrors” is the logical end result of declaring a class of humans inhuman. It is what happens when naive women are told, without a trace of irony, that death leads to freedom: that killing their unborn children will rescue them, help them, free them.

Tell me again why we’re surprised.

This is what allows them to continue to spread this evil just like all evil, dehumanizing some portion of our brothers and sisters. Whether it’s by race or age or physical or mental challenge if you can dehumanize them, you can kill them and as these women are convinced .killing their unborn children will solve their problems.

Yep. Aided and abetted by “personally opposed” Catholic/Christian Democrats.

 

[LisaA]

Archbishop Chaput’s weekly address:

catholicphilly.com/2013/04/think-tank/weekly-message-from-archbishop-chaput/the-gosnell-story-and-its-lessons/

The irony is that much of the media’s lethargy in covering the Gosnell case really doesn’t surprise. It’s part of the fabric of a culture that simply will not see what it doesn’t want to see about the realities of abortion. And it leads to the kind of implausible claim made recently by one local commentator that “no sense of guilt is warranted” by the media because “there is no causal connection between coverage of [the Gosnell] case and bias.” It’s hard to imagine a more untenable alibi.

The brutality in abortion is intimate, personal and permanent. It violates women, and it kills a developing human life every time — whether the venue is a “Women’s Medical Center”-style meat factory or a soothing suburban clinic. What makes the Gosnell story unique is that it should distress anyone with its details, pro-choice or pro-life, regardless of religion or politics.

But of course, people need to know about an evil before they can do anything about it.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Archbishop Chaput’s weekly address:

catholicphilly.com/2013/04/think-tank/weekly-message-from-archbishop-chaput/the-gosnell-story-and-its-lessons/

The irony is that much of the media’s lethargy in covering the Gosnell case really doesn’t surprise. It’s part of the fabric of a culture that simply will not see what it doesn’t want to see about the realities of abortion. And it leads to the kind of implausible claim made recently by one local commentator that “no sense of guilt is warranted” by the media because “there is no causal connection between coverage of [the Gosnell] case and bias.” It’s hard to imagine a more untenable alibi.

The brutality in abortion is intimate, personal and permanent. It violates women, and it kills a developing human life every time — whether the venue is a “Women’s Medical Center”-style meat factory or a soothing suburban clinic. What makes the Gosnell story unique is that it should distress anyone with its details, pro-choice or pro-life, regardless of religion or politics.

But of course, people need to know about an evil before they can do anything about it.

Amen!