I do sometimes question the death penalty as it is practiced in this country, especially with the number of death row prisoners exonerated by DNA tests. But in cases where the alleged perpetrator not only admits what he did, but boasts in his deeds as good works, I don’t have any such questions. Which is why I would personally be quite happy if Kermit Gosnell, who is about to stand trial, were given the death penalty. As CNN recently reported,
“The 72-year-old Philadelphia physician is accused of running a ‘house of horrors’ where he performed illegal abortions past the 24-week limit prescribed by law. He used scissors, authorities say, to sever the spinal cords of newborns who emerged from their mothers still alive. On Monday, jury selection begins in Gosnell’s trial. If he’s convicted, prosecutors want him put to death. ‘A doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is committing murder under the law,’ Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said.”
Additionally, he caused the death of 41-year-old would-be non-mother because he overdosed her with anesthesia.
I’m sure that this abortionist is only being threatened with the death penalty to make him negotiate a plea bargain. But even though he won’t actually be executed, it is still refreshing to see a baby killer charged with a capital crime charged to his practice of killing babies.
But I have no illusions that, even if he were executed, that his death would serve the cause of babies and ending their legal homicide. Even though pro-life people know that abortion is homicide, and that Gosnell was simply doing what abortion really is, his prosecution will be used to communicate the opposite message. By putting Gosnell on trial and charging him with murder, the regime will make the case to the public that the government really cares about murdered babies. Gosnell is being portrayed as really evil, while, by contrast, “ordinary abortion” is portrayed as a normal part of civilized life.
But we know the only real difference is hygiene, licensure, and a lackadaisical attitude toward cleaning up the evidence of the crime. If those babies had been chopped up and flushed down the toilet, no one would have cared. It was because he left the corpses on display, along with some other legal indiscretions, that he is now being used to help us pretend that we are a civilized nation that hates child-murder.
It is all a ruse. Obama made it clear back in 2008 that he considers protecting the life of a newborn abortion survivor “above” his “pay grade.” Gosnell should be a hero by Obama’s standards and according to his legislative work in Illinois denying rights to born children.
“As a state senator, Obama actively opposed the Illinois Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, refusing to grant legal protections to living, breathing, post-birth babies — regardless of whether they were born as the result of labor (premature or otherwise) or induced abortion. In other words, Obama explicitly denied the extension of legal protection for basic human rights to babies who have already been born.”
But because Gosnell shows the ugly face of Liberalism, he has to be publicly vilified so that Obama and others can pretend that they are somehow different from him.
If Gosnell is getting punished for a real offense, it is for daring to show our culture’s true face. Punishing him is a way of putting lipstick on the skull.