Irony, the News Media, and Abortion

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

One of the definitions of irony is: “Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). As it pertains to the Gosnell trial, there are two ironies that are striking—two facts that are not what anyone would expect. The first of these is that, as of April 25th, two of the three major networks (ABC and NBC) had not mentioned the proceedings, the testimony, or any other pertinent facts. CBS claims they broke the story, but their continued reporting has been minimal. The reader should ask himself, “How much had he heard about the proceedings up until the end of April, and if he did have information, where did he get it from? The only place most people have learned about it is from Fox News, talk radio, or the Internet.

What is the reason for that? How is it possible that news stories go unreported by news networks? That situation is what is incongruous and makes for the irony that is the subject of this article. One would usually expect a news source to report the news. Is water wet? After all, if a news agency does not report the news, what good is it? For those who are unaware of the trial that has now concluded in Philadelphia, the following information is provided from an AP story, which was titled, “Gosnell Defense Rests in Philadelphia Abortion Provider Case.”

The defense has already rested (April 24, 2013), yet how many people know even a little bit about the trial and what the charges are? It concerns an abortion doctor. No, he was not shot, wounded, or killed. If he had been, the reader may rest assured that it would have made national news because those rare instances always receive full coverage. No, in this case, Doctor Kermit Gosnell was charged with killing four (reduced from seven, originally) babies that were born alive. He is also charged with the overdose death of a 41-year-old refugee. These are serious charges—and noteworthy. Why have so many ignored the trial?

Gosnell declined to testify in his own behalf and did not call a single witness in his defense. Below is what is a matter of public record. Authorities have described the clinic operated by the 72-year-old doctor as filthy. An apology is offered ahead of time for printing the following account, but a few of the grisly details must be given:

Former employees have testified that Gosnell relied on untrained, unlicensed staff to sedate and monitor women as they waited for abortions. Three workers have pleaded guilty to third-degree murder charges, admitting they helped medicate the adult victim or "snipped" babies' necks after they were born alive to make sure they died.

They told jurors that Gosnell had taught them the technique, and said they trusted that it was legal. At least one, though, admits she grew so concerned about conditions at the clinic that she took pictures of the outdated equipment, messy rooms and stacked specimen jars containing the severed feet of aborted babies.

This treatment of living human beings is absolutely gruesome and unconscionable. One wonders how such an individual could live with himself, but apparently he has no problem. Perhaps he figured that, since his intent was to kill the child in the first place, he was entitled to complete the process despite the fact that the baby’s will to survive was so strong that it survived his efforts at termination.

The fact too obvious to miss is that the baby in the womb definitely possessed life. In the face of evidence that is so plain, why is this society still allowing this barbaric practice to continue? What more medical evidence is needed in order to see what the truth of the matter is?

The Absence of Coverage

Surely, the uniqueness of this case would make it more than newsworthy; so why has it been shunned? Radio Talk Show host, Rush Limbaugh, suggested the the reason might be that the liberal news media does not want to report anything derogatory about abortion clinics, since they have been supporting the concept for decades. How many have ever heard of Carol Everett, former owner of several abortion clinics in the Dallas area, who left the business and wrote Blood Money about how lucrative the abortion business is? The news media seems to be rather one-sided when it comes to this issue. What other reason could there be for the lack of attention given to this trial?

Now someone on the left who does have knowledge of this situation might say, “You neglected to say that the doctor was black, which makes this a racial issue.” This song is rapidly becoming old and tired; it should not be played on the air for at least 20 years so that it could qualify as a “forgotten oldie.” The reason we do not call attention to a person's color is that it is irrelevant. Most abortion doctors are white, and some are women. So what? There are men and women of all colors who are pro-life, also, but a person's skin pigmentation has nothing to do with the actions they commit. All races in every country have their share of heroes and villains. On the positive side, the same is true of salvation. The gospel is not for one race or nation but for all (Mark 16:15; Gal. 3:27-29).

Limbaugh also reminded his audience that the founder of Planned Parenthood actually was a racist, and if her views were fully implemented, there would be even fewer of the black race. This writer did a review of the biography of Margaret Sanger three decades ago. Most of that review is included below from the September 5, 1982 Southside Mirror (Vol. 14, No. 36).

Elasah Drogin…is a Jewish convert to Catholicism…. The book is an uncomplimentary biography of Margaret Sanger (1879-1966). She founded Planned Parenthood. [She] “more than any other woman in contemporary civilization deserves the title of the founder of modern society, the father of utilitarian morality” (3).

The 112 pages of this expose are brimming with interesting details…. Sanger believed in birth control—especially for racial minorities; she herself believed in racial superiority—hence, one of her slogans was “more children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief aim of birth control” (12)….

During her first marriage, she began an affair with Havelock Ellis, famous author and sexologist. After she divorced her first husband, she married J. Noah Slee, president of the Three-In-One Oil Company. Chapter three goes into detail about Margaret’s personal life in a section called, “Lowlights of Margaret’s Life.”

Margaret discussed her beliefs in Woman Rebel (about 1914). She affirmed that women have the following rights: “The right to be lazy. The right to be an unmarried mother. The right to create. The right to destroy. The right to love and the right to live.” She also believed, “It is only the individuals that count, not families” (67).

She practiced what she preached by frequently deserting her family. Her son Grant said, “Mother was seldom around. She just left us with anybody handy and ran off we didn’t know where” (67-68).

Margaret belonged to a group of like-minded individuals and carried on concurrent affairs with many of the group for years. Among her lovers were Hugh de Selincourt, a would-be poet and hedonist…and author H. G. Wells (68).

When she married Slee, she had no intention of giving up any of her lovers; in fact, she added more. In addition she drew up her own marriage contract. Among the conditions were these: “…after the marriage she would be free to come and go as she pleased with no questions asked; she would have her own servants and apartment where she could invite the friends she chose; Slee would telephone her from the other end of the house to ask for a dinner date.” Oh, yes, on their honeymoon in London, she sent him off sightseeing by himself while she spent the day with her four lovers (67-71).

After her husband died, she stayed in Tuscon, where she informed one of her sons that she would “blow” the $5,000,000.00 left to her [her inheritance] on herself. It is surely a monument to selfishness that she did exactly as she said she would (73-74).

We have elaborated on Margaret’s “lowlights” because the philosophy of selfishness and immorality and irresponsibility found in her life is what permeates Planned Parenthood and the abortion philosophy.

Chapter one deals with Sanger’s philosophy of superiority. To her mind inferior folk should not be allowed to breed. She despised “human weeds.” If she had her way, inferior folk would have to be sterilized. If this sounds like Hitler a little, well, he argued the following:

In view of the large families of the native population, it could only suit us if girls and women had as many abortions as possible. Active trade in contraceptives ought to be actually encouraged in the Eastern territories, as we could not have the slightest interest in increasing the non-German population (23).

Sanger used the economics argument to campaign for sterilization. Those who couldn’t afford them shouldn’t have them. Why burden society with them? Sound familiar?

Chapter two reviews Margaret Sanger’s book, Pivot of Civilization, written in 1922. Among her ideas for a better world was an I.Q. patrol. She reasoned that any house containing a large number of children was a symptom of feeble-mindedness and degeneracy. People like these would have to be dealt with (42).

Sanger believed charity to slum mothers should be cut off. She believed it was more charitable to refuse help. She wrote, “The maternity facilities for slum mothers are injurious to the community and the race. Charity will only allow the misery of the unfit!” (45).

Her philosophy in a nutshell was that everyone ought to enjoy sexual freedom—not reproductive freedom—just sexual freedom. She thought teenagers should not abstain from sex, but they ought to be gracious enough not to burden society with any unwanted children (59-60). That is still the goal of Planned Parenthood—it matters not that they sometimes deny it.

Corroborating some of the material in Drogin’s book is an article in Christianity Today (September 3, 1982). That article was titled, ”Planned Parenthood Advocates Permissive Sex.” The six-page article is documented with 48 footnotes. In the first twenty Internet entries under Drogin’s book, only one article challenged the information, and it said that Sanger’s critics chose not to answer the charges against her. Hmm! One wonders why.

Irony #2

The defense in the Gosnell trial rested on April 24th. Two days later (April 26, 2013), the President of the United States spoke an encouraging message to Planned Parenthood. (Has anyone heard the president of Planned Parenthood condemn Gosnell?) Obama assaulted (in his usual polarizing way) conservatives once again for their efforts to restrict abortion and contraceptives, saying that he would stand with Planned Parenthood, “fighting every step of the way.” Some states are attempting to establish a rational philosophy toward abortion, but the part about birth control is just rhetoric. No one is trying to restrict it; people just don’t want taxpayers to be forced to fund it for the likes of women like Sandra Fluck, who are given to promiscuity. The president said:

When you read about some of these laws, you want to check the calendar, you want to make sure you’re still living in 2013. Forty years after the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose, we shouldn’t have to remind people that when it comes to a woman’s health, no politician should get to decide what’s best for you.

This is political drivel. Mr. President, sir, we have checked our calendars and find that we know a lot more about life, babies, and abortion than we knew in 1973. The court itself said that their decision was subject to revision in light of more information. So, no politician can be trusted? But we should all trust the Supreme Court, no doubt, and the 7 justices who ruled in Roe v. Wade in the absence of any precedent? Must it be pointed out that the Court erred in the Dred Scott decision? Care to comment, sir?

The president added the following words:

When politicians try to turn Planned Parenthood into a punching bag, they’re not just talking about you, they’re talking about the millions of women who you serve. And when they talk about cutting off your funding, let’s be clear—they’re talking about telling many of those women you’re on your own.

Politicians have not objected to Planned Parenthood’s existence—only that they are funded by taxpayer’s dollars that could be spent better elsewhere. According to one source, “Planned Parenthood performed 333,964 abortions in fiscal 2011.” Figure out how much each abortion costs and how much money they received from their “services.” Why should an agency dedicated to the destruction of human life receive any help from any government?

Planned Parenthood has not helped any women—especially those female babies who would have grown into young women. Many women who have abortions suffer great emotional harm when they realize that what they terminated was a human life—facts which this agency tries to keep them from receiving.

The president may be unaware that abortion was legal before 1973. In the late 1800s women could have abortions, but they were eventually made illegal largely due to reporting from—wait for it—the New York Times. People’s hearts were stirred by the practice of abortion—perhaps, situations not unlike those of Gosnell. Legislation was passed that stood for two generations until struck down by the Supreme Court in a blunder that not only equals that of Dred Scott—but, due to the more than 50,000,000 lives that have been destroyed—surpasses it.

The tide of society has turned against abortion because we know when the heart starts to beat and how the baby grows and develops in the womb. People now know that a child with a heartbeat is not the same as an appendix or a diseased organ. Those tactics will not work any longer. The president might want to check his calendar and look at the information that is available to women. He is the one trying to turn back time to the good old days when ignorance prevailed over facts.

Of course, the Bible has remained the same during the last fifty years. God has always regarded the child in the womb as a human life (see Luke 1:41, 44 and 2:12, 16). That is the nice thing about the Scriptures: no matter what year it is, God’s teaching remains the same. Neither culture nor ill-informed leaders can change it.