By Dave Andrusko

Abortionist and convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell
If you were busy and/or otherwise occupied Tuesday, please take a few minutes to read “NRLC and allies press for Senate action on key pro-life bill, but Senate Democrats block votes”
At a Capitol Hill press conference, NRLC President Carol Tobias stood side by side with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the prime Senate sponsor of the legislation, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), exhorting Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nv.) to allow a Senate vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. S. 1670 is an NRLC-inspired bill that would prohibit abortions nationwide after 20 weeks, on grounds that the baby is capable of experiencing great pain by that point in development.
The press conference, at which Tobias was joined by other pro-life leaders, was pegged to the one-year anniversary of the conviction of Pennsylvania abortionist Kermit Gosnell on three counts of first-degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter.
I’d like to add one more story to the many recent posts we’ve written about the man who operated an abortion clinic the Philadelphia Attorney General called (without exaggeration] a “House of Horrors.” [See, for example, nrlc.cc/1goISzC; nrlc.cc/1juzjJK; and nrlc.cc/1juzDIs].
It comes as absolutely no surprise that Ilyse G. Hogue, the President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, would fundraise against S. 1670, a bill that says it’s not okay to abort kids who are capable of experiencing excruciating pain. But in the process Hogue also tries to insist that the real opponents of Gosnell are his fellow abortionists and/or industry trade spokespeople.
With respect to fetal pain, if pressed (which pro-abortionists never are), Hogue no doubt would say there is no proof, which is not true as anyone who has visited either www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/index.html or www.doctorsonfetalpain.com could attest. But if there was no way she could escape the truth, Hogue would, I am confident, respond (a) that’s too bad [every woman must decide for herself, etc.], and/or (b) most of these kids would be better off dead, anyway, so what’s a brief bout of pain?
But why does she bring up Gosnell? Well, because if S. 1670 became law, Hogue asserts, women would “turn to criminals like Kermit Gosnell.” Thus, according to Hogue, “Make no mistake, Sen. Graham’s bill would be more appropriately named the ‘More Gosnells Bill.’ The danger it poses to women and families cannot be underestimated.”
Wow, even for Hogue, this is something. It weaves together several separate strains that, taken together, constituted the pro-abortion response to the murderous Gosnell–and to any pro-life initiative no matter how commonsensical, no matter how much public support there is for it.
#1. Gosnell was an “outlier,” a “renegade” not the least bit representative of the Abortion Industry. As we have documented countless times, Gosnell was unique only in the sense that he murdered these babies after (for his own unfathomable reasons) he aborted them alive. Tearing apart unborn babies attracts a certain kind of individual. And, oh by the way, the Abortion Industry had plenty of chances to rein in Gosnell. They chose not to. Couldn’t let anything impede abortion “access.”
#2. Read what the handful of abortionists who admit to performing “late” abortions say about their clients. For example, in one of the reviews we wrote about the movie “After Tiller,” we quoted from an interview abortionist Susan Robinson gave to Jia Tolentino, writing for The Hairpin. (The interview appeared here.)
Robinson notes early on, “I think that the public perceives first of all that late abortion could be completely eliminated if people would only get their act together and have their abortions earlier, which is completely untrue.” Robinson offers a bevy of extenuating circumstances—excuses—to get around the simple truth that some unspecified percentage of women abort huge, mature babies for reasons almost all people would not believe are commensurate will the gravity of taking the life of a viable unborn baby.
Noteworthy that after Tolentino allows Robinson to go back and forth on the ethics (my word) of aborting babies because they have disabilities (of course in the end Robinson would still abort them), Tolentino asks, “So how do you draw lines in the case of a healthy fetus?”
After so more yammering, the only time Robinson would say no is if the baby is “just too far along. It wouldn’t be safe” (to the mother).
Hogue represents the abortion mindset in its purest form (so to speak): Abortion for any reason or no reason, at any point in pregnancy, and too bad you’re in the way, kid.
She may attempt (and she has repeatedly) to distance herself from Gosnell. But she hasn’t been able to–and she can’t.
Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.