The Kermit Gosnell trial is one which puts late-term abortions under the microscope. Due to the graphic nature of some of this content, reader discretion is advised. We have always sought to write material that is family-friendly in every way. However, this trial is not being widely covered by the media and it reopens a fundamental debate about late-term abortions. It also opens fundamental questions about basic rights contained in the Constitution.
Roe vs.Wade, the lawsuit that overturned abortion laws in most states, did not grant an absolute right of choice. Instead, it created a framework for debate that continues to this day. In the first trimester, women have an absolute right to choice and the decision to terminate one's pregnancy is one that is solely determined by a woman and her doctor. In the second trimester, the states, in promoting their interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure. In the third trimester, the state may regulate and even proscribe abortion except when the life of the mother is in danger. It is the third trimester which is the topic of this discussion.
The 14th Amendment states that all persons "born in the US" have full citizenship rights. Therefore, no reasonable person can justify, say, exposing infants after birth, which the Romans would do with unwanted infants. But the Constitution is silent about whether or not a fetus is a person for the purpose of legal protections. Does the mother have an absolute right to control her own body right up to birth? Does life begin at conception? These were the sorts of questions that the Supreme Court wrestled with in their decision.
Based on Roe, there are already laws on the books restricting or prohibiting late-term abortions throughout the country. And given the Kermit Gosnell case, these laws are being enforced. The grand jury which indicted Gosnell saw his actions as a case of graphic moral turpitude for which there is no excuse. Their description of what happened is not for the faint of heart:
This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy - and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. [editor's note -- This is the sort of thing the Saudi Arabian government does, aided and abetted by your taxpayer dollars.] The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels -- and on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.
The Grand Jury report goes on to allege that the clinic reeked of animal urine courtesy of the cats that were allowed to roam and defecate freely, furniture and blankets were not properly sterilized, disposable medical supplies were not disposed of but reused, medical equipment was broken or not used, and the emergency exit was padlocked shut.
The report alleges that staff falsely represented themselves as physicians even though only Gosnell was an actual doctor. Staff was allegedly making diagnoses, performing procedures, and administering drugs. Gosnell is accused of forcing full labor and delivery of premature infants on women. They would check in during the day, pay their bill, and then take labor-inducing drugs. The doctor would not appear until evening according to the allegations. "By maximizing the pain and danger for his patients, he minimized the work and cost for himself and his staff," said the report. The report went on to allege that Gosnell would then stick scissors into the back of babies' necks and cutting the spinal cord, which the report alleges he did hundreds of times.
On top of that, the Grand Jury report says that the employees of his outfit knew and "acted as if it wasn't murder at all" and that most of the files on these babies were destroyed in order to avoid prosecution. But the report notes specific cases, including one in which it quotes Gosnell as joking that one baby was so big he could "walk me to the bus stop." "And these were not even the worst cases," says the report.
The trial will likely not settle anything. The anti-abortion people will say that this simply proves their point all along that abortion is murder. The pro-choice people will counter that what Dr. Gosnell did, if convicted, is the sort of thing that will happen on a major scale if Roe is ever overturned. But what is clear is that
fetuses survive abortion procedures more than is popularly believed.
One such person, Gianna Jessen, is a prominent spokesperson for the anti-abortion movement. If a fetus does survive an abortion procedure, then under the Constitution, it becomes a person with full rights and protections under the Constitution since the 14th Amendment applies to all "born" persons.