Monday, July 1, 2013
"If only Kermit Gosnell had worn pink sneakers"
Imagine a parallel universe in which the media coverage of legislators' recent efforts to pass gun control omitted any reference to last year's slaughter of 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
David Freddosso explores the media's silence about the underlying reasons that Texas and other states are attempting to pass new regulations on the abortion industry.
As of Friday, the pink sneakers Davis wore on Tuesday night while standing up for late-term abortion were mentioned in more than 90 newspaper articles and 15 television segments, according to the Lexis-Nexis database. Yet a far more relevant detail — the reason this law was ever considered — received just four mentions in the papers and two on FOX News.
That reason, of course, concerns the lack of regulation that enabled the notorious Philadelphia abortionist and now-convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell.
UPDATE: I have added the link. Sorry, I thought I had done that when I first posted. Thanks WmBrennan for the heads up.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/07/if-only-kermit-gosnell-had-worn-pink-sneakers.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
I don't buy the comparison. It's just a fact that anti-abortion politicians are not trying to put more stringent regulations on late-term abortions and make abortions safer for women. They are taking an incremental approach to banning all abortions. The pro-ife movement would not claim otherwise. I suppose I can only speak for myself, but I would imagine that most people in the United States, including those who are pro-choice, could be persuaded to regulate late-term abortions more strictly, and certainly no one who is pro-choice wants abortions to be unsafe.
The contention that regulations that would, in effect, reduce the number of abortion clinics in Texas from 42 to 5 are for the safety of women is no more than a lie.
It would be great if some "reasonable" compromise could be arrived at by abortion supporters and abortion opponents. But the fact is that abortion opponents are not interested in compromise or "reasonable" regulations. They are intent on banning abortions entirely. So any concession abortion supporters make to abortion opponents is a step toward eliminating all abortions for all reasons.
Is the Texas law going to pass constitutional muster in any case?