NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Abortionist Kermit Gosnell Preyed on Poor Women

by | Jan 13, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

As time permits I like to troll the web pages of college newspapers. Pro-life opinion pieces are not exactly in abundance, but reading what [some] college kids are saying helps me keep up to speed.

If the American public is confused about abortion (how many STILL think abortion is legal only in the first trimester, for example), you can’t expect 19-22 year old kids to be paragons of tight reasoning. But what I really look for is how they handle abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

Gosnell will stand trial for eight counts of murder: first-degree murder in the deaths of seven babies allegedly aborted alive and then killed when their spines were severed; and with third-degree murder in the case of the 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, who died reportedly from a drug overdose prescribed by Gosnell.

As we reminded our readers in a story yesterday, one of Gosnell’s employees, Steven Massof, last year plead to two counts of third-degree murder, murder conspiracy, and other charges. As a reporter wrote at the time

“Massof testified to a grand jury that he regularly delivered babies whose mothers were induced, snipped the umbilical cords and then cut the babies’ spinal cords, as it was ‘standard procedure.’

“When asked how often this happened, Massof answered:

“’More times than I really care to remember. I would have to say every week it would happen to at least 50 percent of the patients.’”

Which leads me to a piece that appeared in the “Daily Pennsylvanian,” self-described as the “University of Pennsylvania’s independent student news organization.” (The story evidently was written a few weeks ago, but popped up yesterday.)

The story was about the state’s new abortion clinic regulations, passed as a result of the furor over Gosnell’s “House of Horrors.” The story does a good job presenting some of the grisly details.

Naturally, some who are quoted say the regulations are unnecessary; no surprise there. One of the more interesting judgments is rendered in the next to last paragraph

“Gosnell’s case raises an important question apart from clinic regulations. His patients were primarily poor, minority and immigrant women who were unaware about the way they would be treated under his care. Gosnell attracted these types of patients because his services were inexpensive.”

This is true but also misleading. The Grand Jury, in its withering 261-page report, emphasized how Gosnell preyed on poor women, bothering to answer their questions only if the women were “Caucasian.”  The report said he made millions off of these poor women.

And his “services” were not inexpensive. You find the following on page 81 of the report. Tina Baldwin [an employee] testified that sometimes Gosnell would manipulate ultrasounds for women who were within the 24-week legal limit so that he could charge them more.

“‘From 15 weeks to 24 weeks then, you’re talking about money and you’re talking about making it, moving it to make it bigger and smaller.’ Gosnell charged his patients on a sliding scale based not on gestational age, with late-term abortions sometimes costing $2,500 or more.”

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha

Categories: Gosnell