The National Review Online has posted Charles Krauthammer’s comments on the media blackout of Kermit Gosnell’s murder trial. Among other things, Krauthammer says this:
On this, I would think there would be unanimity in the country, and the reason that there is resistance, against either outlawing or heavily regulating [abortion] is because the pro-choice people imagine that any regulation, at any level, at any kind, is the beginning of the end of abortion rights. I think there is room for a national consensus on this.
In other words, pro-choicers believe abortion rights to be so sacrosanct that they cannot acknowledge Gosnell’s crimes because it might lead to a curtailing of those rights. In short, preserving a woman’s right not to be pregnant is more important to them than preventing infanticide. That’s always been the corrupt moral calculus on the pro-abortion side, and it is no different now—not even when the doctor is killing live-born babies.
Do you REALLY want to know why the MSM refuses to cover the Gosnell trial? One need only understand that approximately 40 million women in America have had an abortion (Newsweek, 3/4/2010). One in three American women will have an abortion by age 45 (Guttmacher). Women who have had abortions are more than 80% likely to experience subsequent mental health problems than women who have not had an abortion (http://afterabortion.org/2011/do-not-publish/). Post abortion syndrome is real.
You can be sure that many women who work in the MSM have had an abortion on their way up the career ladder. Some of them have probably had late term abortions. Women who have sacrificed their children to achieve career success are especially reluctant to face the truth about their past. The guilt is unbearable. Therefore, they suffer silently and are complicit with the media blackout on stories that expose abortion and therefore, their own pain.
Post-abortive women are terrified, not just of the stigma of abortion, but of the reality of the pain that awaits them if they open the door of their hearts even a crack. Stories like the Gosnell trial barge into those well-sealed doors.
This does not mean that these stories should not be told. But for Christians, it means that we approach them with our eyes wide open. When we talk about abortion, and rightfully express outrage over atrocities like those exposed at the Gosnell trial, we must remember that one in three women is cringing inside, hoping that someone will deliver her from guilt and suffering. That Someone can only be Jesus Christ.
Excellent commentary. Thanks!
I concur with Victoria… Well done, Paula. Wondeful input!
Thank you, Brian. Appreciate it; glory to God.
Paula: You said:”You can be sure that many women who work in the MSM have had an abortion on their way up the career ladder. Some of them have probably had late term abortions. Women who have sacrificed their children to achieve career success are especially reluctant to face the truth about their past. The guilt is unbearable. Therefore, they suffer silently and are complicit with the media blackout on stories that expose abortion and therefore, their own pain.”
Many women-how many? And you can be sure? How are you so certain?
Tom, She quoted Newsweek’s “40 million” figure. I’m puzzled that you’d ask those questions.
Of course, the exact number of women in the MSM who are post abortive is unknown. Besides statistical extrapolation, that part of my commentary is based on over 20 years of working with post -abortive women. I was the founding director of a ministry to pregnant and post-abortive women. I have many anecdotal stories, including those from women in the MSM, one of whom bravely told her story of a late term abortion when she emceed our fundraising event. God gave her the courage and desire to share her secret after she went through our post abortion Bible Study/recovery program. Stories like hers, while unique in personal details, are not unusual.
“In short, preserving a woman’s right not to be pregnant is more important to them than preventing infanticide”
Very true. Many pro-aborts will tell me that “forcing a woman to stay pregnant is just as bad as forcing her to have sex”
The primary power of the news media has ALWAYS been to decide what is and what is not worth calling news. This in itself is such a large power that it is often referred to as the “fourth estate” in addition to the so-called first 3 estates of the clergy, the nobility and the commoners.
The pro-aborts do not have a cohesive morality and such things as the Gosnell trial exposes this, so the best they can do is ignore it, since talking about it in any way exposes their contradictions.
My suspicion is that it’s a purely financial decision. You’ll note that Fox News, which among all the outlets is most likely to be ideologically friendly to pro-life folks, is also ignoring it. The financial calculus must not indicate it’s a winner.
Here’s Conor Friedersdorf making the case (in The Atlantic) that it should be front-page news:
Paula Cullen, I still find it EXTREMELY farfetched to assert that “many women who work in the MSM have had an abortion on their way up the career ladder.” While I’m sure it isn’t unheard-of, the fact remains that all evidence shows that the majority of women seeking abortions are low-income. Most women working in the media are white-collar professionals who, although they often probably have liberal views in regards to abortion rights, are far more likely to wait until they are financially secure (and, yes, even married) before they get pregnant.
I can’t help but wonder if a primary reason virtually all media (including the conservative secular media) is ignoring the Gosnell trials is the specter of race. If it were a white abortionist, an op/ed writer could allude to eugenics. But this is a black doctor who, based on the demographics of that Philadelphia neighborhood (and the demographics of women seeking abortions in general), overwhelmingly took the lives of black infants. How do we filter this through the usual bogeymen of race and ethnicity?
One of the most misunderstood issues about abortion is the idea that “poor women” comprise the majority of those who obtain them. That is true when the definition of “poor” includes a college woman who is career bound and views a pregnancy as a deterrent to her ambitions. She is statistically “poor” because, as a college student, she is below the poverty level. And her own income, independent of her parents, is what the government uses in determining qualifications for “reproductive health care” benefits, including abortions. Therefore, a single college woman can get her abortion paid for by a government program because her independent financial status is what counts, even if she may have medical insurance through her parents’ policy and her parents are paying for her college education. She is still considered “poor.”
But within a year or two or three, with college degree in hand, that formerly “poor” college student will be on her way, working in her chosen career field, and living with the haunting memory of that abortion she chose as a college sophomore. This woman hardly fits the stereotype of the uneducated woman on public assistance who is stuck in a cycle of poverty.
In my years of experience with crisis pregnancy counseling, the college woman is far more likely to obtain an abortion. Yes, she is statistically “poor,” but not for long. On the other hand, the woman on public assistance who has learned subsistence living on government programs is far less likely to seek an abortion. Interestingly, these women love and value their babies, and have no intention of aborting unless someone pressures them into it. These are the women who seek out assistance from pregnancy resource centers. A little bit of help and encouragement goes a long way toward reinforcing their inherent desire to have their babies.
As for how race and ethnicity factor into the debate, in my opinion, the well-known truism, “follow the money,” trumps those issues every time.
Thanks Denny…. i did a blog post on this issue at
FYI, here’s a news story that was a front page link on msn.com news this morning:
this too at CBS:
It appears that this story was covered in different media outlets in 2011 but simply did not become a national issue. I think it has something to do with folks in mainstream America not really paying attention to what happens in poor urban areas. There are elements of poverty, racism, and exploitation involved in this case.
It interesting that this story is being used exactly like the liberals used the Newton massacre.