NRL News

Kermit Gosnell and NARAL’s Revisionist History

by | Apr 30, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

 NARAL President Ilyse Hogue and MSNBC's Thomas Roberts

NARAL President Ilyse Hogue and MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts

As NRL News Today has discussed at length, pro-abortionists have tried to turn a scorching indictment of the Abortion Industry—Kermit Gosnell’s murder trial—into a black mark against pro-lifers. In that convoluted logic so dear to their too-small hearts, they tell us to insist the abortion clinics meet minimal standards will drive women into the hands of men like Kermit Gosnell. Their hands (so to speak) are clean.

Never mind that in many states tattoo parlors are more heavily regulated than abortion clinics and that the Abortion Industry fights unceasingly to self-regulate. Never mind that the National Abortion Federation sent an inspector in who subsequently turned down Gosnell’s request for membership (it was “beyond redemption”) but choose not to utter a peep to authorities. This application came a day after a woman died at his clinic.

But that’s not enough for the Abortion Industry—attempt to turn an abject failure on their part into an assault on pro-lifers. Now we’re told by NARAL that “[W]e were the first out of the gate to call attention to this case. And you know why?… It’s because unfortunately as the anti-choicers try and restrict more and more doctors out of business, they are the ones keeping the Kermit Gosnells operating.”

That astonishing out-of-left-field quote came in an interview NARAL President Ilyse Hogue gave to Thomas Roberts of MSNBC. Kudos to Erik Wemple of the Washington Post for publicizing the interview and calmly debunking this absurd misrepresentation.

You can read Wemple’s excellent blog item  so let me just highlight the bottom line.

Wemple did a simple Nexus and Internet search and—guess what? What few comments NARAL made were not way back when, or even when the trial began six weeks ago. NARAL’s feigned indignation surfaced when pro-lifers loudly (and effectively) complained that the major media had almost completely ignored the Gosnell murder trial. (The coverage never even came close to approaching the level of attention it deserved, but at least there was no longer a virtually complete media blackout.)

NARAL tap-danced around Wemple’s inquiries and finally settled on its preferred response:

“I wake up every morning to protect women’s access to clean and legal abortion care, and from the likes of predators like Kermit Gosnell. This is why I was the first leader of a national pro-choice organization to speak out as the case went to trial.”

As Wemple politely concluded,

“OK, so it’s the first ‘national pro-choice organization’ out of the gate on the Gosnell case. That’s different.”

So, who cares, right? We care. We care because the truth always matters to pro-lifers just as it is of no concern to pro-abortionists.

So why do pro-abortionists care, beyond their habitual penchant for historical revisionism? My guess is, regardless of the outcome in the Gosnell multi-murder trial, that more and more will seep out about exactly what pro-abortionists knew—and when they knew it—about Gosnell.

And that will not reflect well on an industry (to quote Hogue) that purports to “wake up every morning to protect women’s access to clean and legal abortion care.”

Categories: Gosnell