I have to say, this is an article I didn’t want to write. Two reasons: (1) I don’t want my blog posts to all be political rants (honestly, I really don’t), and (2) I didn’t want to touch the Kermit Gosnell story with a ten-foot pole. But I’ve long believed liberal hypocrisy is rampant and this story just reeks of it.
Now, first off, you’re probably asking yourself, “who the heck is Kermit Gosnell?” And you’re not alone. I’ll spare you all of the gory details which you can get on TheBlaze. but here is the short version: Kermit Gosnell is an abortionist who is being tried for the murder of seven infants who – after he failed to abort them and they were actually born alive – he systematically severed their spinal chords to end their lives. There are allegations that the seven infants were actually a fraction of the hundreds of babies that were killed in a similar way with his supervision. He is also being charged with the death of a female patient who was seeking an abortion at his clinic and died under his care. The traumatic stories from this case include mentions of blood-soaked rags, unsteralized equipment and even forced abortions – all making this sound more like a horror flick than reality – but this is a true story.
So, then the second question you should be asking is, “WHY have I never heard of Kermit Gosnell?” Well, that is part of the very reason I’m writing this article. The answer: because the mainstream media won’t talk about it. Fox News’ Bret Baier had a discussion panel about the Gosnell story on his show, Friday, where he pointed out how many times each of the networks have discussed the story since the trial began on March 18:
- CBS: 0
- NBC: 0
- ABC: 0
- CNN: 1
Bret didn’t say how many times Fox News covered it, but at last glance the only mention of the Gosnell story on Fox’s home page was at the bottom with a link to a video of Charles Krauthammer’s take on the lack of media attention. So even the “conservative” media isn’t talking about it much. (Side Note: BreitBart.com currently has 9 headlines on Gosnell on their home page and TheBlaze has 5 – so some outlets are talking about it).
So what’s the point? So what if the mainstream media isn’t talking about it? If that’s really your response, then leave. Please, just leave this site. There’s nothing here for you. But for the rest of you who actually care, let me ask you this. Do you or don’t you agree with NJ Representative Chris Smith’s comment about this case:
“If Dr. Gosnell had walked into a nursery and shot seven infants with an AR-15, it would be national news and the subject of presidential hand-wringing,”
I know I sure agree with him. They are still talking about the Aurora killer and the Sandy Hook killer (I refuse to repeat their names again because I don’t want to acknowledge them). They talked about Rutger’s coach Mike Rice for a solid week. They’ve been talking about Trayvon Martin for a year now and OJ’s horrific crime is still talked about to this day. But when a man senselessly murders at least seven newborn babies after he failed to abort them – all of a sudden no news outlet wants to cover the story?!?! If that doesn’t prove to you that the media is bias, I don’t know what will.
That would be enough if that were all there was to it. But, there are two other angles to take on this story that are worth exploring. First, the trigger that actually compelled me to stop what I was doing and start this article: that would be a tweet on the Gosnell story from Planned Parenthood:
The tweet itself is fine. They acknowledge – and distance themselves from – the Gosnell horror. But it was the link that truly … ahem, take a breath … made me angry. The link is not to a story on the Gosnell tragedy. Rather, it is a link to an op-ed column written by President of the Pennsylvania chapter of Planned Parenthood, Dayle Steinberg, written in 2011. The article mentions the Gosnell arrest and his crimes but the crux of the story is this: In light of this one monster’s actions, women’s rights in general may now be at risk.
Now, where have a I heard a similar statement? Oh yeah, that’s right, in reaction to horrific events like those in Aurora and Newtown. Except then, the statement was made by irrational gun owners and it was about gun rights. This time, though, no one in the media or in Washington would dare tell Ms. Steinberg that she is being paranoid about her rights. Now, honestly I don’t know if there was any reaction or replies to her article, but if there was I’m sure it was mostly reassurances that no one in the government has any intentions of infringing on a woman’s right to choose. Yet, I believe she makes a valid point in raising that concern. In fact, I’ve already seen a handful of articles repeating Steinberg’s sentiments that the attention (again, or lack thereof) to the Gosnell case may cause some to look into additional regulations on abortions and how troubling that is for women’s rights.
But here’s what really got me. A direct quote from the article, when talking about the possibility of new regulations on abortions in reaction to the Gosnell case:
“No new regulations can stop a physician who has decided to disregard the law.”
Are you kidding me? How is this a viable argument in the world of women’s rights but not when it comes to gun rights? Gun advocates have repeated this same sentence over and over regarding tragedies like Sandy Hook and how any new gun laws won’t stop people who are hell-bent on breaking the law from doing just that. Yet we’re mocked for saying so. We’re told that “gun restrictions are worth it If we can just save one child’s life.” But what about saving the life of a child that was supposed to be aborted? What, their life doesn’t count if they were supposed to die anyway? So new laws on abortions are infringing on our rights but somehow laws on firearms are not? If this isn’t liberal hypocrisy, I don’t know what is. So, that’s angle number one worth pointing out.
For angle number two, let’s broaden the picture a little. Now, in all due respect to Ms. Steinberg, I have no idea where she stands on the Constitution or the Second Amendment. And, unlike many on the left, I will NOT assume that just because she happens to take a liberal view on abortion, that she shares the same view on gun rights. So, since I don’t know where she stands I am now leaving her out of the argument. But, here’s my point about liberal hypocrisy: Not all, but many on the left will be the first to assure someone that the government will never restrict woman’s rights, or minorities’ rights, gays’ rights, the environment’s rights or even animals’ rights. By all means, let’s not put any limits on who can get married or who can get an abortion or even limit what kinds of abortions a woman can get. But when it comes to guns, it’s a very different story.
Joe Biden can get in front of a national audience during the 2012 debate and say – that while he is a practicing Catholic – he has no problem with a woman’s right to abort her child. He has continued to say that he will protect women’s rights to have abortions. Similarly – on same-sex marriage – he’s actually said that homosexuals and heterosexuals should enjoy the same civil liberties and civil rights. So, this guy is all about protecting our rights – when he happens to agree with those rights.
This is what I mean by liberal hypocrisy. He’ll defend one group’s rights but when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, he has no problem attacking our rights. I know Joe doesn’t speak for all liberals. Like I said before, I won’t group everyone together and say that everyone who leans liberally in one area does so in all. I’m not making that kind of generalization here. I will say, though, that I am speaking specifically about Joe Biden AND ALSO those who agree with him on all of these issues. If you believe the government should restrict one group’s rights but has no business restricting another groups rights, let’s be honest, you’re a hypocrite.
It’s a fact that many of the things that Joe believes, so do many liberals I know, have read or listened to. Many self-proclaimed liberals have openly supported same-sex marriage and women’s rights while also supporting gun restrictions. Go ahead and Google it and you’ll find plenty of interviews given by liberals in the media who openly agree with all three stances: Jim Carrey, Chris Matthews, Harry Reid, Matt Damon, and on and on and on.
Look, let me be clear. I’m not taking a stance on same-sex marriage or abortion here. My point is that the liberal hypocrisy that is so evident in a story like this should not be ignored. It’s simply impossible to stand up for freedom in one area while directly opposing it in another. That is, by definition, hypocrisy. Yet, while being a hypocrite should cause one to be distrusted and disrespected, today’s society seems to embrace and even revel in it. We applaud Hollywood faces like Matt Damon and Jim Carrey when they make a video telling the government to stop the killing by taking away gun rights. But if either of them made a video asking Congress to stop late-term abortions they would be booed out of town. So it’s OK to limit what kinds of guns I can own but it’s not OK to limit risky types of abortion? How is that acceptable? How are stances like that not met with disdain and anger? The only answer I come to is that the world we live in simply is not as logical as it used to be. We’ve lost our moral standard and the common logic that goes with it.
I, for one, am bothered by this well-accepted liberal hypocrisy. I guess that’s why I felt compelled to expose it here. Is this a huge revelation? No, I don’t think so. Am I the only one who sees it and is bothered by it? Again, doubtful. So why spend a couple hours getting it off my chest here? For one, I feel a little better after doing so. Secondly, if this long article on this little website makes even one person pause and say “you know, you’re right, that really isn’t OK,” well, then I’ll feel even a little better.