Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Kermit Gosnell: Doctor on trial for infanticide.

  1. #1

    Default Kermit Gosnell: Doctor on trial for infanticide.

    If anyone here can deny that ABC, NBC, and CNN is biassed towards the left, I wonder what you have to say about this:

    Several witnesses who were in this doctor's practice witnessed him order and/or perform seven killings of infants outside the uterus. Regardelss of your views on abortion or when life begins, it can be established that among most of us that killing live infants outside the uterus is incomprehensibly cruel.

    Where did you hear about this story? From ABC? NBC? CNN? CBS? ... No! They QUASHED the story. It was only the right-wing station FoxNews that reported it. Seven infants were killed outside the uterus, most or all of them with a pair of scissors to the spine, according to witnesses who worked for him. Why did they quash it? The doctor was an abortion doctor. They were afraid of the pro-choice movement. These court testimonies were reported where? Fox News. The same station that hosted conspiracy freak Glen Beck who said that China could bring America and the West down to oblivion by not buying any more US treasury bonds. Yet they reported more facts on this than any other station?

    I think of the media as one big 4-engine prop-plane with three propellors on the left wing, labled ABC, NBC, anc CNN, and one really huge, propellor, way out to the right on the right wing labled Fox. It's sad that everyday, I have to hear trash on both extremes of the political spectrum to ... guess ... what is happening in the real world. There's your "Fair and Balanced" news media today.

    I wish I had links to back me up but this was a cable news broadcast on Fox News.
    What do you all say?

  2. #2


    I think the media are so biased on all sides that you can't really find out "what's happening in the world". And even if you could, you'd have to sit through hundreds of hours of programming every day! There's more happening in the world than we are capable of comprehending.

    I've never once watched the news and thought "Right! That information completely changes the way I live my life!", so... in a way, watching the news is just voyeurism. If there's something I need to know about, someone will tell me. And if there's something I want to know, I can look it up on the web.

    But that's just me...

  3. #3


    I don't watch Fox News, so the only way I learned of this trial was through Facebook postings of a pro-lifer. I would assume most of my other pro-choice friends who are too busy to read the news do not know it is happening.

    The media silence is pretty appalling but completely unsurprising. I think that everyone in this day and age should be aware of the fact that media outlets can and do get away with suppressing stories that do not support their agendas and will talk their way out of it if accused. Stories are also twisted when they are reported. Anybody who thinks that he can watch a single station and get every story or an unbiased account is delusional.

  4. #4


    My opinion is that for the most part, the major networks covering of the news is "News Lite". They don't go into any depth and they don't reveal sources nor back up what they are saying. For that you have to go to written sources, and there are good sources, whether they are papers like The New York Times or The Washington Post. There are more conservative choices such as The Wallstreet Journal and U.S. News and World Report. I'm not sure if they still publish. There is also The Economist and of course, The New Yorker. In addition is NPR which does go in depth.

  5. #5


    The entire story is rather horrifying, particularly in how long it has been going on (decades, according to what I've read).

    His clinic routinely performed late-term abortions (i.e. abortions after 24 weeks), which is illegal in Penn. His method of abortion involved inducing labor and then snipping the baby's neck once it was fully outside of the womb. Penn. state law requires doctors to provide medical care to any infant born alive. Hence why he is charged with murdering 7 infants along with committing infanticide.

    All of Gosnell's staff were, according to the grand jury's report, not licensed to practice medicine, yet they routinely administered drugs. He even hired a 15 year old daugher of one of his employees and allowed her to medicate patients! To make matters worse, these drugs were often administered in dosages well over the legal limits.

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg...there's charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, racketeering, and so on.

    The lack of coverage is rather interesting when compared to how the media covered, say, Komen's decision not to give Planned Parenthood any further money or Todd Akin's (idiotic) remark about rape. The media was quite obsessed with reporting on both of those incidents...yet you can hear the crickets chirp on this topic.

    Aside from reporting on the sheer horror of what Gosnell did, there's some other interesting angles to consider as well:

    Gosnell treated white patients drastically better than minorities. Unlike other patients, they were treated in a clean room and weren't recklessly given excessive, illegal doses of medicine. (Imagine if that occurred at a regular doctor's office - it'd definitely be on the front page.)

    According to the grand jury's report, the Penn. Department of Health and Penn. Department of State both received complaints about Gosnell's practice. Nearby hospitals also treated his patients for complications from the abortions, yet failed to report it to any state agency. Certainly, a good journalist could investigate that and report on who was responsible for ignoring the complaints and why they were ignored.


    The grand jury's report is available online: (Warning: Don't eat while reading, and don't read it if you can't stomach very graphic descriptions)): Reading the first 18 or so pages should give a fairly good idea of what happened.

    In more condensed form, The Atlantic published an article on why the story should be on a front page story (same warning as the grand jury report applies): Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
    Last edited by HogansHeroes; 22-Apr-2013 at 01:33. Reason: spelling errors

  6. #6


    There are often good reasons for not publishing such stories at this time, so to say the reason more left leaning media haven't run it is because of bias is not necessarily fair. Specifically to claim it is for pro-choice reasons is grossly unfair. I think the vast majority of pro-choice people would be equally appalled by the alleged actions of this man, they are in favour of legal abortion, not murder of medically viable foetuses.

    I should state I know nothing of the relevant US laws here, but this is my reasoning. In the UK papers are meant to be very careful about what they publish about suspects and particularly those on trial, this is in case they should publish misleading claims or false accusations that could influence the decision of a jury. In theory the judge can hold a newspaper in contempt of court the same as an individual. So this has be be weighed against the public interest in publishing the story, if for example it concerns a suspected murderer on the loose then there is a danger to the public and arguably it is in the public interest to warn them. In this case I assume the doctor concerned is either in custody for the duration of the trial or banned from practising, in which case he poses no immediate danger to anybody.

    Though in this case it would appear there is clearly wrongdoing, perhaps the other news stations have weighed up the risks of jeopardising a fair trial against the public interest to know, and decided to wait until the outcome of the trial to run the story. There are also the people giving evidence in the trial that could benefit from not being harassed by the media until it is over.
    I'm not saying it is necessarily right not to publish the story, I am in possession of very little evidence here, that's just my thinking of reasons the story might not have been run rather than solely "left-wing bias". Interestingly, in the UK at least, it is more often than not the right-wing media that partake in the vilification of potentially innocent people and speculation while trials are ongoing. I'm surprised the Daily Mail hasn't been heavily fined for contempt of court yet with some of the things they claim.

  7. #7


    Yes, this case is horrifying and this guy should spend the rest of his life in jail.

    However, why exactly is this news? Why do I need to know about this? Should I live my life differently somehow with this information? Is it of some consequence to me that I don't understand? Does it impact my life in some remote way that I don't realize?

    Here's a spoiler for anyone who thinks that they need to follow this in the media. This guy will go to jail for a long, long time. He'll never practice medicine or anything even vaguely resembling medicine ever again. The AMA will look into how the system of licensure and peer-review didn't catch this guy and how patients can better find qualified doctors rather than people like this (easy, since guys like this are rare). There will be a spurious debate about abortion rights which should be over in two seconds because what this guy was doing was infanticide, not abortion. People who would deny women the right to determine what does and doesn't happen in their uterus will make scream about the false equivalency anyway.

    There. I just saved everyone a lot of time. Now let's talk about actual news. This isn't news and the reason most outlets aren't covering it is because they realize as much.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandWanderer View Post
    I should state I know nothing of the relevant US laws here, but this is my reasoning. In the UK papers are meant to be very careful about what they publish about suspects and particularly those on trial, this is in case they should publish misleading claims or false accusations that could influence the decision of a jury. In theory the judge can hold a newspaper in contempt of court the same as an individual.
    Yea, that doesn't exist here. News sources can get away with reporting anything so long as they use the proper weasel words.

    Say that there's a spree killing in California and somehow someone living in Florida is accused and arrested.

    Libel: The spree killer has been arrested. His name is [X].
    Kosher: Mr. [X], the accused spree killer, has been arrested and will be arraigned later today.

    When the news talks about crime and punishment, you see the word accused frequently.

  8. #8


    I don't understand how the killing of 7 infants is not news. 20 children were killed at Sandy Hook. Is 7 really such an order of magnitude smaller than 20 that coverage of the Gosnell trial is trivial?

    These circumstances are rare, so maybe they should not influence abortion policy (in the same way that some have argued that the Sandy Hook shooting should not influence gun control policy). I find it hard to agree that this case should accordingly not be covered. Unclean, abusive, illegal abortion clinics do exist. They are the minority, but there is no reason the public shouldn't know about them. Evidently Gosnell's clinic managed to survive for a very long time. If citizen awareness of his clinic allows other unsafe institutions to be revealed elsewhere, then that's good.

    As far as not covering the case for legal reasons, as has been mentioned, papers can publish what they want with the right terminology. At the very least I would think left-wing media outlets would cover this case if only to prevent the right-wing media from having a monopoly on the information. I think it is turned into a larger, more politicized issue when you give the other side the chance to accuse you of bias.

  9. #9


    Quote Originally Posted by NeverKnow View Post
    I don't understand how the killing of 7 infants is not news. 20 children were killed at Sandy Hook. Is 7 really such an order of magnitude smaller than 20 that coverage of the Gosnell trial is trivial?
    That's the magnitude of the tragedy. Not the magnitude of the tragedy's newsworthiness.

  10. #10


    Then I suppose we disagree as to whether the public should be aware of the extent to which some abortion clinics are unsafe. I would contend that the public does deserve to know this, especially given the fact that Gosnell's clinic deliberately exploited indigent, desperate women. Right now no one knows how many other women are being likewise abused, but the fact that Gosnell's clinic could stay running for so long suggests that it is not unlikely that similar clinics exist elsewhere.

Similar Threads

  1. Trial 24/7 Run
    By Serah in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 15-Mar-2012, 18:20
  2. Casey Anthony Trial
    By MikeyxBaby in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 10-Jun-2011, 11:46

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  • - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community. is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.