News,  Politics

Why the media don’t want you to see the horror of Gosnell’s crimes

Last January, I posted the above documentary about Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his murderous late-term abortion clinic. My hope then was that the video might go viral and attract widespread public attention. My thought was that if we could just put this story before as many people’s eyes as possible, they might reconsider their indifference about the horror that unfolds every day in abortion clinics around the country. I’m not sure that the documentary has yet had that impact.

Over the last week, however, Dr. Gosnell’s trial began and offered a new opportunity for the public to witness the horrors that took place in his clinic. Dr. Gosnell is on trial for causing the death of one woman seeking an abortion and for killing seven live-born babies who survived abortions. Since the trial began, the details have begun to emerge, and they are even worse than the charges. One worker in the clinic says he witnessed over 100 executions of live-born babies in Gosnell’s clinic. Another worker saw live-born babies take a breath and then die as they were decapitated with scissors. He said that at times it would “rain fetuses” in the clinic as women were given drugs to speed up their deliveries. When babies were born before they could be killed, Dr. Gosnell and workers killed them after they were born.

As I said, this trial has given another opportunity for the public to see the truth. But that hasn’t happened this week. Why? Because the national media has by and large turned a blind eye to the trial. The same media that gives daily attention to trivialities in slow news cycles does not find the mass-murder of live-born babies to be newsworthy. How can this be? How could they possibly pass up this story? Could it possibly be that they understand the implications of this story? Perhaps if the American public sees reports on the killing of live-born babies, they might conclude that there really isn’t any real moral difference between the live-born babies and the unborn ones. Perhaps the public might recognize the moral insanity of suggesting that a baby in the birth canal is killable while that same baby outside the birth canal is not.

Here’s the bottom line. What happened in Gosnell’s clinic exposes not just his crimes. It also underlines the moral bankruptcy of pro-choice arguments that routinely and callously disregard the humanity of the unborn. The entire pro-choice position requires persons to ignore the personhood of unborn persons who die daily in those clinics. That reality cannot bear the light of day, and that is why Gosnell and every other perpetrator like him are enjoying a media blackout.

Kirsten Powers is a liberal commentator, and in today’s USA Today she writes a powerful exposé of the media’s dereliction of duty in reporting this story. It would be worth your time to read the entire thing, but I’ll conclude with her words:

Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News’ Brian Williams intoned, “A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh,” as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed — a major human rights story if there ever was one — doesn’t make the cut.

You don’t have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” It’s about basic human rights.

The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.


  • James Stanton

    Good points although the US media is generally loathe to publish graphic images and details of the victims of violence out of sensitivity to the average viewer. We also didn’t see the images of dead children at Newtown or the dead children as a result of errant drone strikes and bomb strikes in war zones.

  • James Bradshaw

    “The entire pro-choice position requires persons to ignore the personhood of unborn persons who die daily in those clinics.”

    While I’m very reluctant to insist that the law deem as “persons” a newly-fertilized egg, there does seem to be a point where the fetus displays a number of signs of life that are measurable and observable (such as a heart beat, brain waves, etc). Just as we have a mechanism for determining clinical “death”, I’m not sure why similar standards cannot be applied to determining biological “life”. Once that assessment is made, to assert that some lives are worthy of protection while others are not (merely by virtue of their biological dependency on another) is dangerous.

    Personally, I’m all for forcing people to confront the reality of the results of their ideas and beliefs, even if doing so is uncomfortable to them. Given that there are a (rare) few medical ethics experts who support post-birth abortion, one might want to attempt to appeal to conscience while there are consciences left to prick. IOW, perhaps the graphic images need to be shown. One can do so without using inflammatory rhetoric. Let the facts speak for themselves.

    I don’t have a personal vested interest in this either way. It just seems that many liberals form opinions on this issue merely to serve as contrarians to religious believers.

  • Andy Moffat

    A decision not to show images is one thing. I can accept that. However, what Denny and Kirsten Powers are noting is that there is a lack of words as well. This lack of willingness to report it in any meaningful way is shameful and shows the commitment of some to the idea of abortion at the cost of truth and justice.

  • Ian Shaw

    Denny, I can appreciate what you are trying to expose this gross incompetence from mainstream media. I literally just had to take a step away from my desk from reading this. I had to remind myself that God is patient and he gives those who don’t know Him time to repent of their ways, but He will also judge righteously.

    If the media take the line that children are not human until they come out of the womb, then it’s no surprise that they refuse to cover this as they have followed the sheep into believing that life within the womb is inhuman. No pro-choice advocate could defend this. Not one. Prayers over these children that lost their lives and these mothers that thought they had no alternative.

    • Kathleen A. Peck (@purisomniapura)

      I agree with your comment …the media doesn’t agree these are human beings …so to afford them the dignity they deserve by covering this story just doesn’t make sense & they are being consistent with their position!
      Nevertheless this entire situation is utterly disgraceful with fingers being pointed everywhere in terms of responsibility, yet no one willing to address the root of it.
      The White House is all over the situation when one citizen misuses a gun harming innocent people, eager to pass legislation ….why wouldn’t they be all over this…as one abortionist is found murdering innocent babies? The infamous double standard!

  • Angela Schneider

    Yes, the media doesn’t generally post pictures of things that some may find disturbing. Yet when Saddam Hussein was hanged there were pictures on the front page of most newspapers (at least here in Canada) and all over the news. Maybe it’s different because he was considered evil, but I don’t want to see a dead body no matter whose it is.

    Also, Andy has a point about them at least mentioning it. When school shootings and other tragedies happen it’s on the news for days. Some stations just constantly run footage of outside the school or something for hours on end even when nothing is happening.

    They could at least mention these atrocities in a 2 minute news segment.

  • Margaret Dodd

    The media picks and chooses, and they did not choose this because it doesn’t support their agenda. It doesn’t matter how newsworthy we may think it is, they don’t see it that way and therefore it isn’t publicized. News is no longer news. It is propaganda.

  • James Harold Thonas

    Don’t forget that in addition to not wanting others to hear the story, many reporters don’t want to hear the story themselves. They’d rather sit there hugging their knees and rocking back and forth saying “it’s not a baby it’s not a baby it’s not a baby … Ok, I bet a new Justin Bieber story would go over well!”

      • James Harold Thomas

        Looks like my original comment didn’t go through. (I had misspelled my name as “Thonas” instead of “Thomas”). Here’s the gist of what I said:

        In addition to not wanting others to hear this horror story, many reporters don’t want to hear it themselves. They’d rather just close their eyes, hug their knees, rock back and forth and say “it’s not a baby it’s not a baby it’s not a baby … Hey, I’ll bet a new Justin Bieber story would go over pretty good about now.”

  • Michael Lynch

    I wish I could say I’m shocked (I am repulsed) but we elected a man to the office of the presidency who voted against giving medical treatment to babies born alive during botched abortions. I’m not saying he would have approved of killing babies this late in term (honestly, a few weeks doesn’t matter to me), but we don’t actually know how he would have handled it. I would like to hear from him or Planned Parenthood on this case.

  • Stephen

    Sinners doing really sinful things,it only confirms what the scriptures teach about the unregenerate. Lets face it we were all devels children before we became the Fathers. It must get worse in the end,we have not seen anything yet I fear. Lets talk in a decade and see where we are at then. I’m praying for another Great Awakening,but it may not come.

  • Paul Reed

    You know what pro-aborts often tell me when I show them this? They tell me that if pro-lifers had their way, all abortion clinics would be this way instead of being safe, legal, and regulated. And then they asked me if I even care if the abortion may have been medically necessarily. They are so far gone.

    • Margaret Dodd

      . If a late term abortion is ‘medically necessary’ then it would be called an early delivery, and the live child,if unwanted by the parents, would be adopted.

  • Adam Ford

    Thanks for this post, Denny.

    When brutal serial murders are not reported solely because of the demographic of the victims, what we have is an egregious civil rights issue.

    God help us.

  • Deborah Osborne

    Excellent article and one that I desperately want to share on Facebook. Unfortunately, I can’t. The unedited title makes our side appear uneducated, turning away those we are trying to reach. Can you edit it? The world needs to see why the media DOESN’T want you to see the horror of Dr. Gosnell’s crimes.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.