NRL News

May 14, 2013: The Gosnell Murder Convictions, the Day After

by | May 13, 2014


By Dave Andrusko

Editor’s note. For the last month we’ve talked about the upcoming one-year anniversary of the triple murder convictions of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Well, today is that anniversary. We had the option, of course, of reprinting the NRL News Today story that ran May 13, 2013.  Instead I thought it made more sense to run the third of three stories that ran the day after the convictions for which Gosnell would soon be sentenced to three life sentences. Why? Because it talks about components of the case that rarely were discussed except in places such as NRL News Today. There is a link at the beginning to Parts One and Two, if you care to read them.

GosnellGuiltyIn Part One, we took a brief look at some of the media coverage of the verdict. A few were half-way decent, some (see The New York Times) was embarrassingly inadequate.

In Part Two, we talked about how the Gosnell murder convictions will be interpreted for the wider public which, unlike the readers of NRL News Today, will not have the wealth of background information to understand what really took place in Kermit Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society.

We largely talked about how pro-abortionists are historical revisionists and how they will always come to the same conclusion—absolutely no regulation of abortion clinics is needed–no matter WHAT has taken place in Gosnell’s abortion clinic, or any place else.

In this, Part Three, we look at one pro-life response.

Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer who writes a column for the Philadelphia Daily News. Her mind is as keen as the words that flow from her word processor are sharp. The title of her piece is “Gosnell jury saw the truth.”

I could end right there. The long and the short of it is the jury (self-described as including nine “pro-choicers”) would not be derailed. They heard what they heard, from medical authorities, investigators, and former Gosnell employees, and came to the conclusion that Gosnell was guilty of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter.

All the blue smoke and mirrors Jack McMahon (Gosnell’s attorney) conjured up could not change what had taken place.

Flowers adds a number of terribly important considerations, starting with her first three sentences:

“AND SO, what Jack McMahon audaciously called a racist prosecution, wherein a black man was being called to account for ending the lives of countless nameless black babies, has ended in a righteous verdict: guilty, guilty, and again, guilty. Three lives vindicated with three words, uttered after months of testimony and evidence that makes you want to turn your face away. But we looked, and we understood that here was madness and evil, not racism.”

McMahon had only two cards to play, and he played them both from the bottom of the deck. First, as Flowers noted, try to turn the trial into a racist conspiracy. Never mind that the District Attorney is an African-American or that almost all the women Gosnell aborted were women of color. That the jury did not buy into this disgusting tactic is refreshing.

Second, insist that all the babies whose spinal cords Gosnell severed were already dead. We’ve talked about this on many occasions, but it was absurd on its face. (See, for example, and

Flowers eloquently reaffirms what the Abortion Establishment is desperate to deny.

“The moment we start talking about how abortion needs to remain safe and legal and that Gosnell is not the face of the movement, we allow ourselves to fall back into that comfort zone of denial. …

“Gosnell is just the natural evolution of what started in 1973.”

Which is, of course, why Gosnell is the Abortion Industry’s worst nightmare. He may be unique—is anyone else deliberating delivering aborted babies alive only to kill them by severing their spinal cords?—because “unique” means one of a kind. But as we and others have written about for decades, the kind of gross indifference to women and the grotesque violence inflicted on helpless unborn babies is not confined to West Philadelphia.

Flowers is more pessimistic than I am about might happen—not will, but might—happen in the aftermath. She writes.

“While I have no illusion that what this jury has done will stop the moral devolution, I am glad that at least we are taking a long look at where we are headed. If the message conveyed by this jury does anything, it holds a mirror up to a society that, for so long, has closed its eyes.”

Overwhelmingly, Americans haven’t the first idea that tens of thousands of pain-capable unborn babies are aborted each and every year. To pro-abortionists, this is little more than a rounding error. Why get all in a huff over 15,000 or 20,000—or more—babies whose lives are taken when they have reached the point when they will experience pain no words could possibly describe?

And, of course, this is the primary reason the Gosnell murder trial received so little attention. The dominant media narrative is that most abortions are performed in the first trimester (true); that most abortion clinics are peopled by Marcus Welby, MD-types (most assuredly not true); and (implicitly) if a “tiny proportion” are killed who would experience pain imaginable only in Dante’s Inferno, it’s a small price to pay to ensure that “access” to abortion remains absolutely unfettered.

Former Gosnell employee Stephen Massof (according to NBC 10) “described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, ‘literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body.’ He testified that at times, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries, ‘it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.’”

Since that doesn’t promote the abortion brand, a task so many media representatives feel honor-bound (so to speak) to advance, it is to NBC 10’s credit that however briefly the American public heard the true horror that was Gosnell’s House of Horrors.

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at Send your comments to

Categories: Gosnell