NRL News

Kermit Gosnell, abortion’s euphemisms, and “A close encounter with abortion”

by | May 9, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Indiana)

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Indiana)

As ghastly as the details are of the crimes allegedly committed by abortionist Kermit Gosnell, they took on a different urgency when former members of his staff testified at his murder trial. Likewise, if you had the opportunity to watch the mesmerizing documentary “3801 Lancaster,”  you heard from women who were victimized at Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society. Collectively, what had been just three words on a piece of paper—“House of Horrors”—became incredibly real.

Likewise, personal testimony of those who escaped what seemed to be an almost certain death by abortion are immensely gripping. I offer as the most recent example, “A close encounter with abortion: One life that wasn’t snipped short,” by Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Indiana) that appeared in yesterday’s Washington Times.

Stutzman writes of how he had been on the floor of the House denouncing Gosnell’s abortion clinic when the thought crossed his mind if his own mother had ever thought about ending her unplanned pregnancy. “My parents never gave any indication that it was ever a consideration,” he writes, “but was it?”

You need to read his essay for yourself so I won’t spoil it with a long paraphrase. Yes, his mother had, and she begged for forgiveness. (We’ve already been told that his mother discovered she was pregnant at 17 just after her home had burnt down!)

“I answered, ‘Yes, with all my heart,’” Rep. Stutzman wrote. “I said that I couldn’t imagine how scared she must have been, and how thankful I was for her and Dad’s strength to do the right thing and protect my life. It could have ended so differently. At home with my wife and two children that night, my heart ached at the thought that all of this might never have been.”

But what this essay does so well is lay out how the history and language and practice of abortion on demand has prepared the way for the likes of the Kermit Gosnells of this world—to which I would add that it also prepared the way for the medical authorities to deliberately choose not investigate his abortion clinic even though it had a truckload of complains and lawsuits against it.

The essay is replete with powerful passages; here is my favorite:

“After hiding behind euphemisms like ‘choice’ for so long, is it any wonder that Dr. Gosnell and his staff hid behind the euphemism of ‘snipping’ to describe severing infants’ necks with scissors? After decades of claiming that the unborn child is just a ‘blob of tissue,’ why should we be horrified to see freezers, trash bags and cat food tins stuffed with such blobs? Why should the White House find Dr. Gosnell’s actions ‘unsettling’ when, as a state senator, President Obama voted against Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act?”

While Gosnell’s murder trial revealed the truth behind the façade of “safe, legal and rare” abortions, the response to his alleged crimes also spoke volumes about what abortion apologists really believe.


First, there are never, ever enough abortions—which, by the way, ought to be performed by “respectable” abortionists such as Planned Parenthood.

Second, requiring that abortion clinics be treated as surgical centers is an impossibly heavy burden that will drive women to the likes of Kermit Gosnell. Never mind that the reason Gosnell flourished was NOT that Pennsylvania’s abortion clinic regulations were too onerous. In fact, they were minimal.

Gosnell made millions, according to prosecutors, because nobody in a position to do anything about his “baby charnel house” cared to. Making sure ‘access’ to abortion was absolutely unimpeded trumped anything as trivial as protecting poor women of color and viable unborn babies aborted alive.

If you have a chance, please read Rep. Stutzman’s essay.

If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at Please send your comments to

Categories: Abortion