Gosnell: Abortion's Sandy Hook

What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a horrible slaughter. So was what happened at Gosnell's abortion clinic.  It's time for a national dialog on abortion.

As Obama's anti-gun legislation goes down in flames (only 4% of Americans think gun control is the most important issue facing us today), even after the big emotional appeal from parents of the murdered children, abortion's ugliness rears is bloody head.

People outside the fringe left don't buy the alleged connection between the actions of law-abiding gun owners and those of Loughner, Lanza and Holmes. As a result, congress will not act, and we will proceed with the status quo. I expect a different result from the Gosnell story. Indeed, other abortion mills are coming under scrutiny as I write this.

Unlike the left's shaky dot-connecting on gun violence, the progression from abortion to infanticide is logical and anecdotally verifiable. It is an easy logical leap from killing a fetus in the womb before it is "viable," to late-term abortions, which NARAL and Planned Parenthood vociferously support. Some, like Senator Obama from Illinois, have made the next logical leap, which is to kill a baby that survives an abortion. Why not? We don't want the mother punished with a baby.

James Taranto, a pro-chioce agnostic, has written an extremely thoughtful piece on the issue. Like fellow previously pro-choice writer Roger Simon, he is not ready to call himself pro-life, but he can no longer say he is is pro-choice, and I think many Americans are similarly situated. As this story gains more coverage, I predict we will see a shift in public opinion against abortion except in the rare cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.

I also expect to see a push in many states to require abortion providers to be certified OB/GYN practitioners, and for those physicians to have privileges at an area hospital.

The reason this is so powerful is that unlike the left's asserted conclusions and beating us over the head with the sledgehammer of illegitimate law, the anti-abortion revulsion comes from within a person as they are confronted with the moral repugnance of killing an innocent human life.

Indeed, the pro-abortion lobby relies upon keeping images and other real-life aspects of the abhorrent practice away from the public consciousness. The use of Orwellian language like "reproductive services," "pro-choice," and "After-Birth Abortions" is a sure sign that their agenda is shifty and their moral and logical positions are weak. Indeed, a cornerstone of pro-abortion argumentation is to dehumanize a baby in the womb, denying her personhood.

Linda Couri, who worked at Planned Parenthood, described how she responded when a teenager considering abortion asked her the following question: "If I have an abortion, am I killing my baby?"

Couri said: " 'Kill' is a strong word, and so is 'baby.' You're terminating the product of conception."

Couri was haunted by the girl's question and troubled about her [own] response. She recalls asking her supervisor if she had done the right thing. The supervisor did not deny that abortion was killing a baby but told her that in the teenager's case, abortion was a "necessary evil."

Struck by the use of the word "evil," Couri continued to question her position at the clinic. Eventually, she left, and now she is a pro-life speaker. (Taranto)

I recommend Taranto's article to everyone, pro or con. Taranto discusses the issue much more dispassionately than I, and he demonizes no one. I think his teetering position reflects the vast swath of America much more so than mine, and he does an excellent job processing the information and walking through the logical and ethical issues surrounding abortion.