One "House of Horrors" or the Tip of the Iceberg?

The hand-wringing has begun.

Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic: "Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should be a Front Page Story." 

Kirsten Powers in USA Today: "Philadelphia Abortion Clinic Horror: We've Forgotten What Should be on Page One." 

CNN: Jake Tapper was the first to report on it, but Anderson Cooper is following in his wake. 

Others in the mainstream media are finally following suit. Have they been shamed to do so, as Friedersdorf suggests?

Why has the dominant media been silent? To those of us who oppose abortion, this is a no-brainer. Planned Parenthood, along with the powerful feminist lobby, has a vise-like grip on society and politics. To meddle in a woman's right to choose is to invite public scorn and humiliation, so public officials meekly look the other way, bury the reports, passively accept euphemistic language (ensuring fetal demise?), and obediently sidestep anything even remotely having to do with oversight.

"Ensuring fetal demise," by the way, is how Gosnell described the process of killing babies who survived an abortion, according to Friedersdorf's article. I prefer the clarity as used in the caption in the photo below, which was the caption provided by the Grand Jury report investigating the "Women's Medical Society" (another euphemism?) where these atrocities occurred.

So yes, we who care about the unborn are glad the story is finally getting the attention it deserves. But why do I suspect focusing on this story will not be enough? Certainly it's significant that this particular clinic will be shut down. Certainly it's important to recognize how poor women and minorities were being exploited by Gosnell. Certainly it's a relief that this monster will pay for his crimes and go to jail.

But will this story be about one rogue doctor, an aberration, or will larger questions be asked? Apparently agencies in Pennsylvania knew what was going on in Gosnell's clinic: The Pennsylvania Department of Health knew but did nothing "for political reasons." The Pennsylvania Department of State received complaints but either dismissed them or shelved the reports. The hospital at the University of Pennsylvania evidently treated numerous patients from Gosnell's botched abortions, but apparently asked no questions. The National Abortion Federation actually refused to certify Gosnell when he applied for membership (it was "the worst abortion clinic" they had ever inspected), but did not report the clinic.  

A hierarchy of oversight knew, but did nothing. Why? From the Grand Jury report:   

Bureaucratic inertia is not exactly news. We understand that. But we think this was something more. We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion.

So let the hand-wringing begin, yes. The liberal media will likely focus on the poor and minority victims and not the unborn. Anything to pull back the curtain on this vile industry is a start. However,  I hope the investigation and subsequent analysis extends beyond the idea of one "rogue" doctor, because personally, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. If what happened in Pennsylvania went ignored, similar atrocities could be going on in clinics around the country without detection, especially since the abortion industry is basically untethered from any sort of accountability.  

Also, let's not forget that the pro-choice lobby wants no restrictions on abortion and that they strongly resist attempts to make partial birth abortion a crime. Let's also not forget that Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act back when he was a senator. I blogged about this back in 2008 here. 

So even as we recoil at the gruesome images and express outrage at the atrocities in this Pennsylvania clinic, it's important to keep in mind that the pro-choice lobby is and always has been about women, not the unborn. Well and good if the media reporting on this trial results in greater protection for women seeking an abortion. But if the unborn can still be aborted at any stage of development, including near term; and worse, if they're not protected if perchance they survive an abortion, then we'll have learned nothing from this exposé. 

Kermit Gosnell may or may not have been an aberration. But we won't know unless we pull the curtain further beyond the doors of this one clinic. We can hope the mainstream media will do their job. But I'm not holding my breath.