Tuesday, April 23, 2013

REAL TRUE, FAIR JOURNALISM...it can happen!



The content of this article is interesting enough, but what really grabbed me here was Melinda Henneberg's fairness and honesty even at the risk of betraying her own politics.  One would have trouble deciding if she's pro choice or not after reading this article.  We need more Melinda Henneberger's in journalism.   Please see why:

Why Kermit Gosnell hasn’t been on Page One

By Melinda Henneberger, Updated: 


News outlets have been struggling to explain why until now there’s been so little coverage of the murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of delivering live, screaming children and then beheading them.
The Post and other mainstream news outfits are on the story now, belatedly, so maybe critics like me shouldn’t act like the mother who, when you do call her, spends half the conversation asking why you haven’t called.
But, why wasn’t more written sooner? One colleague viewed Gosnell’s alleged atrocities as a local crime story, though I can’t think of another mass murder, with hundreds of victims, that we ever saw that way. Another said it was just too lurid, though that didn’t keep us from covering Jeffrey Dahmer, or that aspiring cannibal at the NYPD.
Yet another said it’s because the rest of the country doesn’t care about Philadelphia — that one was especially creative, I thought. And a friend argued that any “blackout” boiled down to the usual lack of media interest in the low-income community Gosnell “served.” (While he routinely turned poor, black patients over to assistants who lacked even a high school education, according to court testimony, the white patients he seated separately, and treated himself.)
I say we didn’t write more because the only abortion story most outlets ever cover in the news pages is every single threat or perceived threat toabortion rights. In fact, that is so fixed a view of what constitutes coverage of that issue that it’s genuinely hard, I think, for many journalists to see a story outside that paradigm as news. That’s not so much a conscious decision as a reflex, but the effect is one-sided coverage.
Now, I assign plenty of “rights under threat” stories myself, for She the People, and see them as perfectly valid. But we in the news business do cover the extremism of some who oppose abortion rights — attempts to run after pregnant women with transvaginal probes, for example — far more than we do the extremism of some who favor abortion rights, as per the Planned Parenthood’s Alisa LaPolt Snow, who said recently that when a baby somehow survives an abortion, it’s up to the woman, her family and her doctor to decide that child’s fate.
Two years ago, I wrote about the good doctor Gosnell’s “pro-choice enablers,” for Politics Daily:
“The ultimate non-partisan body – a criminal grand jury – has supplied us with the graphic, 261-page horror story of Kermit Gosnell, M.D., who stands accused of butchering seven babies – yes, after they were born alive — and fatally doping a refugee from Nepal with Demerol in a clinic that smelled of cat urine, where the furniture was stained with blood and the doctor kept a collection of severed baby feet. As often as possible, the report says, Gosnell induced labor for women so pregnant that, as he joked on one occasion, the baby was so big he could “walk me to the bus stop.” Then, hundreds of times over the years, he slit their little necks, according to the grand jury report:
[He] regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.
And the kicker? This nightmare facility had not been inspected in 17 years – other than by someone from the National Abortion Federation, whom he actually invited there. For whatever reason, Gosnell applied for NAF membership two days after the death of the 41-year-old Nepalese woman, Karnamaya Mongar. Even on a day when the place had been scrubbed and spiffed up for the visit, the NAF investigator found it disgusting and rejected Gosnell’s application for membership. But despite noting many outright illegalities, including a padlocked emergency exit in a part of the clinic where women were left alone overnight, the grand jury report notes that the NAF inspector did not report any of these violations to authorities.”
My point, then and now, is that I am a big fan of regulation; wasn’t it the loosening of regs in the financial world that led to the meltdown of ’08 and in the oil industry to the BP spill of ’10? Those who normally agree with me about the need for oversight, though, make an exception when it comes to the abortion industry, which they feel should be self-regulating even when what that gets us is the likes of Kermit Gosnell.
The counter-argument, then and now, is that it’s the restriction of abortion rights that creates such shady operators, though there are other clinicsin Philadelphia — and if his practice was restricted in any way over the years, I can’t see how.
Which “side” was Dr. Frankenstein to Dr. Gosnell? Well, there’s no mystery about where Gosnell could have gotten the idea that his youngest victims weren’t human, or entitled to any protection under the law. There aren’t just two sides, though, but a whole continuum of points of view, from those who see several cells as a legal person to those who insist that even a baby who could walk Kermit Gosnell to the bus stop is only a person if his mom says so.
Gosnell himself seemed confused, when he was charged with so many counts of murder, as to how that could be. Because even at that point, he didn’t appear to see the children he’s accused of beheading as people.
Planned Parenthood’s Snow was similarly obtuse, either willfully or out of habit, in testifying against a Florida bill that would have required medical care for babies who survive abortions. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion,” she was asked, “what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
Her answer was a familiar one: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.”
Though it pains me to say so, that’s the same stand Barack Obama effectively took when he voted against a similar Illinois bill — even after the addition of a “neutrality clause” spelling out that the bill would have no bearing on the legal status of the (you say fetus, I say unborn child) at any point prior to delivery, and thus could not be used to outlaw abortion.
Recently, MSNBC host Melissa Harris mocked those who see a fertilized egg as a fully human person: “I get,” she said, “that that’s a particular kind of faith claim that’s not associated with science.”
But I wish she and those who agree with her also got this: To insist that a baby born at 30 weeks, as one of Gosnell’s victims was, only qualifies as a person if his mom decides to keep him is also “a particular kind of faith claim that’s not associated with science.”
Melinda Henneberger is a Post politics writer and anchors She the People. Follow her on Twitter at @MelindaDC.

Z:  Bravo, Ms Henneberger.....I was so impressed by this article, the content and the true intelligence and fairness within.

z

44 comments:

Ducky's here said...

I'm sure there will be plenty of coverage as the trial continues trying to link this monster with Planned Parenthood, just as you are doing in your "responsible reporting".

It isn't Planned Parenthood that's an issue but the Pennsylvania authorities who didn't care to shut down this animal. And they aren't fond of coverage.

Silverfiddle said...

Planned parenthood is to blame, Ducky.

They lobby againt governments regulating these chop shops. They lobby heavily against laws that would require abortionsists to be certified OB GYN practitioners and to have hospital privileges.

PP's irresponsible actions guarantee stuff like this will happen.

All you lefties love bleating on about the NRA, well, Planned Parenthood (Progressive racist Margaret Sangers legacy of death) is the NRA of abortion.

Z said...

Ducky, glad you're 'sure'...the problem is that many journalists have been writing about the lack of coverage. Maybe you could let them know it's going to start...when do you think? :-)

Silverfiddle, you're right...PP would be better served by making sure guys like this one are shut down, not ignored. But I guess killing babies is the main goal.
Good point about PP and the NRA.
I wondered what you thought of the journalist of this article...I thought this piece was very well done, considering how she includes how criticizing Obama over his horrid stance on botched abortions made her uncomfortable.


Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducky's here said...

1. There has been plenty of coverage equating Gosnell with Planned Parenthood. That in fact is the rights idea of "coverage.

2. The matter of why Gosnell was not reported and shut down has been blocked. Why?

3. Why is the right wing not objecting to the most critical question, one that is not being asked at all.
When there were safe abortion providers in Philadelphia, why did women subject themselves to this torture chamber?

To state that Planned Parenthood is to blame, Silverfiddle is risible and sadly twisted.

Z said...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-york-times-defends-insubstantial-coverage-of-gosnell-trial-calls-babies

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/13/dr-kermit-gosnells-abortion-case/

I have to go to work; don't have time to link every single story ..

Z said...

I'm hoping we can discuss the journalism in this piece, too.

Yesterday, Dave Miller and a I and a few others were talking about bias/agenda, etc., and that's why this piece stuck out at me when I read it last night.

The fact that this case hasn't rec'd the attention most murder cases get (or even every missing coed or child) is irrefutable...the journalism is refreshingly honest.

Silverfiddle said...

Hey Ducky,
Ever heard of the Mothers Day Massacre?

Know who it was who shoved the ball of razor blades into poor womens' uteruses, leading to permanent damage, and in some cases, death?

Kermit Gosnell. The Progressive eugenicists at International Planned Parenthood performed similar horror house experiments on poor women in Bangladesh.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578429431398819380.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324030704578422883948238160.html

Planned Parenthood and other ghoulish pro abortion organizations shielded him from scrutiny and welcomed him in.

Indeed, other clinics that would not perform messy and late term abortions nonetheless had no problem referring the women to him.

Own it, you quacking bastard. You are defending medical experimentation of poor women.

Ducky's here said...

Thanks for the Atlantic article, z.

It brings up some of the points that are troubling me also.

Jack Whyte said...

Investigators had to remove a toilet to clean out dozens of fetuses that were clogging up the drain. Is this a right-wing lie?

Gosnell received the full support of Planned Parenthood. Is this merely a figment of right-wing imagination?

Should state authorities have been doing a better job in code enforcement? Sure, but in realizing that PA is a leftist state, does anyone think leftists aren’t willing to give other leftists a pass. After all, we’re only talking about fetuses, right?

Leftist media did everything they could to suppress this story. Why is that?

Dave Miller said...

I see two items at play here...

1. The media, both left and right, are terrified, IMHO of this story and have under covered it.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-14/lifestyle/38537484_1_abortion-doctor-mainstream-media-abortion-safe

2. What should happen to babies that somehow survive an abortion.

I think it is telling that many people choose to deflect when pressed with the second question.

Ducky's here said...

@Jack --- Gosnell received the full support of Planned Parenthood. Is this merely a figment of right-wing imagination?

---
Yes.

In fact it points out strongly what the right's objections to the coverage are.

You are objecting to the lack of explicit coverage and the lack of linkage to Planned Parenthood. Responsible journalism is barely on the menu for either side.

conservativesonfire said...

I have to agree, Z. This leftest journalist is surprisingly balanced her reporting on the Gosnell issue.

Ducky's here said...

Interesting article Dave.

Note that it's in the Style section.

I am fascinated that there are those on the right who think those who are pro choice would defend this beast.
The issue is too charged for responsible reportage.

Silverfiddle said...

"The issue is too charged for responsible reportage."

You just described every leftwing pet cause.

Exploiting dead kids and their parents, foreign studens who were looked at funny, starving grandmas afraid Paul Ryan will push them off of a cliff...

Exploitative Pathos is the cornerstone of leftiwing propaganda.

Jack Whyte said...

Ducky, that is nonsense. The right objects to the fact that in spite of several complaints filed with the State of Pennsylvania, his clinic was not inspected since 1993. The right objects to the fact that no one heard about the Gosnell trial because the media has a pro-abortion bias.

The left’s gift to America’s young people for far too many years is crappy parents, crappy schools, and abortions on demand.

Ducky's here said...

Not entirely Jack. I think both sides wonder why this guy wasn't closed down and I've certainly said I do.
Who was getting paid off?

No one has heard about the trial? That's absurd.

Jack Whyte said...

Absurd? The writer is Kirsten Powers, a liberal.

Pris said...

This case was also reported on The Blaze by Glenn Beck. After warning parents to remove children from the room, pictures were shown of babies and how they were killed. So horrible, and ghastly they turned my stomach.

Also there were large jars containing babies feet which Gosnell kept in his office, as if they were prizes for a job well done.
This doctor is a sick, evil SOB, who deserves the death penalty!

He's being charged for killing seven babies, but this has been going on for years at his so called clinic! He has killed many more than he's being charged for.

Dave,
"2. What should happen to babies that somehow survive an abortion."

The answer to this is, they should be put up for adoption.



Pris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liberalmann said...

The right's hypocritical bashing of Planned Parenthood which has saved the lives of women and helped countless children always amazes me. To many, this IS a 'pro-life' organization. Only extreme zealots trash it as an abortion facility.

3% of Planned Parenthood is abortions.

Ducky's here said...

@Pris --- This case was also reported on The Blaze by Glenn Beck. After warning parents to remove children from the room, pictures were shown of babies and how they were killed. So horrible, and ghastly they turned my stomach.

------
Q.E.D.

Thersites said...

The other 97% must be political activism.

Silverfiddle said...

Liberalman: How has planned Parenthood "helped countless children?"

... besides helped them die?

JonBerg said...

Liberalmann,

Don't you wish that you would have been aborted?

Margie McGrath said...

Speaker John Boehner unveiled a report on last's year attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that blames then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for lapses in security.
The 46-page report by the five committees of jurisdiction concludes that reductions in security levels prior to the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, including by Clinton herself.
The report also concludes that talking points from the intelligence community were altered to protect the State Department from criticism of inadequate security levels.

Anyone Shocked?


"The report says Clinton had been informed of the deteriorating security
situation in Benghazi but signed off on cuts anyway. The conclusions are
at odds with Clinton's testimony that she did not personally read the
cables about the security situation in Benghazi."

Bingo, there you go. "What does it matter, DEM Comrade Clinton?" Maybe the TRUTH doesn't matter to leftist DEM ideologues such as yourself, but it certainly DOES to the brave people who serve in our armed forces overseas, and those in public service like the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The fact he PLEADED with your department for help and was ignored is hideous. What is even MORE egregious is that our military that could have rescued him was ordered to stand down. Two brave Navy SEALS who ignored the stand-down orders tried to rescue Ambassador Stevens and DID rescue several other Americans before being slaughtered themselves by Islamic terrorists. And that fact that YOU, Commissar Obama and your stooge Susan Rice REPEATEDLY told a BALD-FACE LIE that the Benghazi massacre was the result of an obscure video that nobody even saw is testament to the nefarious, treacherous and traitorous political motivations of your most corrupt leftist DEM regime.

The Screaming Eagle said...

Liberalmann said...
The right's hypocritical bashing of Planned Parenthood which has saved the lives of women and helped countless children always amazes me. To many, this IS a 'pro-life' organization. Only extreme zealots trash it as an abortion facility.



LOL. when you can't use the 'race' card.....you pull out the 'hate' card..

Ducky's here said...

Jack Whyte just Google the trial. There's plenty of information.

Because it was bumped by the Boston bombings isn't a sign of disinterest.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Dave,
"2. What should happen to babies that somehow survive an abortion."

I've heard a few women speak who were abortion survivors.
Maybe you want to kill them now?

Law and Order Teacher said...

Z,
Interesting article. I'm grateful that there are journalists left in the country who actually have a conscience. With the sell out to BO, this was just another in a long line of stories that the media found inconvenient and basically ignored. The lack of ethics displayed for the past five years has been disgraceful.

Z said...

Dave,
let me ask you a question because yours were too easy.
Do you think that baby should be murdered because it survived an abortion attempt?

yes, it's been under covered..the excuse that it's gruesome is NUTS, of course. The media LOVES gruesome. it sells, sadly.


Well, Ducky, you are very welcome. Your comment almost made me think you can be rational and even friendly. WHAT was I thinking? :-)


I was so busy today I didn't read any comments until now....and I am so gratified by most of them.

Thank you, those of you who have mentioned the fairness in this article. I thought it was a very rare example of what we need ALL the time.

And thank you, most of you, for standing up for babies.....are we to allow those little ones who survived abortion attempts to languish till dead, like Obama voted for FOUR TIMES.

Libmann...can we hear your take on that?

So many of you just knock me out with your goodness..thanks.

Margie, welcome to GeeeZ! Excellent information there...thanks.

Pris, ADOPTION, exactly.

Ducky..
"QED"..what?


Ed...can you imagine??

ALl of you..thanks

Rita said...

@Dave

"2. What should happen to babies that somehow survive an abortion.

I think it is telling that many people choose to deflect when pressed with the second question."

I never waiver on the answer to that question. Anyone who is heartless enough to know that it's a BABY and it's alive and still choose to kill it and murderers.

Anyone that cannot answer that unequivocally has a very black heart.

What I had to struggle with was reconciling the case of abortion when its incest and rape. I tried to put a distinction on it because it seemed to be "fair" for the rape victim but ultimately I cannot say that the baby that is a result of a rape is any less deserving of live than one who was not.

As a Christian, I realized that I had to either stand for life in all cases or my belief that life begins at conception was flawed.

That is the wavering question.

Last year some badly misspoken words killed the election of two easy seats in the Senate.

If life begins at conception, then it begins for ALL at conception.

What I have never able to get a "pro-life Christian" to explain to me is this question.

When does God put the soul into a fetus? At birth, at conception, at the number of weeks they can still get a legal abortion? When?

Jeremiah 1:5

Mustang said...

Three murder charges dropped in Philadelphia abortion doctor's trial ... lawyer convinces judge that there is no proof those three infants were alive to begin with. This in spite of witnesses' testimony.

Source

Elmers Brother said...

What I had to struggle with was reconciling the case of abortion when its incest and rape. I tried to put a distinction on it because it seemed to be "fair" for the rape victim but ultimately I cannot say that the baby that is a result of a rape is any less deserving of live than one who was not.

.4% of abortions are carried out for rape or incest....pro death supporters try to distract pro lifers with this argument

As a Christian, I realized that I had to either stand for life in all cases or my belief that life begins at conception was flawed.

con·cep·tion (kn-spshn)
n.
1. The act of forming a general idea or notion.
2. The formation of a viable zygote by the union of a spermatozoon and an ovum; fertilization.

Some doctors use the word fertilization and conception interchangeably. Even pro death advocates believe a fetus is a human being.

Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States – Planned Parenthood – argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:


I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.1

On the other side of the pond, Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate:


We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life… the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?2

Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author and abortion supporter, makes a similar concession when she writes:


Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.3

David Boonin, in his book, A Defense of Abortion, makes this startling admission:


In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.4

Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes:


It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.

Z said...

Elbro...good one. It's sure not an Amana refrigerator.

Rita, you caught the thing I forgot to mention about Dave's comment...who's 'deflecting?'!!!

beamish said...

Given a choice, aren't we all abortion survivors?

Always On Watch said...

Information about the horror chambers of Gosnell have appeared in the Style section of the WaPo and online at the WaPo. But in the news section of the hard copy? Not that I've seen, and I subscribe to the WaPo.

Good point about the wall-to-wall coverage of Dahmer, Z.

Always On Watch said...

From Slate:

After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide

...“after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk....


More at the above link.

Silverfiddle said...

Dave: So what about it?

@ 2. What should happen to babies that somehow survive an abortion.

Two people have addressed your comment, but no anwer from you.

Too busy working in your father's vinyards?

Conservative Christians have no problems answering your question. She is a human being! God's child. With all the rights the rest of us enjoy, including that of not being killed.

What say you? And I recommend you pray before answering.

Dave Miller said...

Sorry Silver, I was pretty busy yesterday with magueys, not grapes...

My question, of course was rhetorical... to me there is no answer other than the baby lives...

The question is a question that many on the left will always refuse to answer because it will call into question their beliefs.

It's the same mindset that at one time always claimed that even consensual sexual contact between a boss and an employee was sexual abuse. Until President Clinton was found to be guilty of just that.

We heard nothing from the women's rights groups condemning him.

But Ducky is correct in one of his comments... pro-choice does not equal a desire to see babies killed, infanticide, etc.

Is there room in this issue for a position that says the decision should be left to the doctor, the family and their pastor or spiritual advisor, and work like the dickens to make sure no one felt this was the only option?

Just as liberals struggle with consistency on these issues, so do conservatives.

Like most things, I believe that some sort of middle road must be there, if we are willing to search for it. Unfortunately, the middle road approach does not fit into nice neat polemics.

But agin, let me reiterate, the baby lives. And yes, at that late date, absent a medical emergency, the abortion should never have been performed.

Silverfiddle said...

Dave,

Thank you for the answer.

I wonder how many liberals could give a similar answer?

Dave Miller said...

Silver, that's why I lament the comments that attack before listening... or reading.

And yes, I am fully aware that I do not fall into the typical lib/con paradigm.

And neither do you...

Z said...

Dave, that is right: And most people against abortion don't think pro-choice means "oh, boy..we can kill babies!" but sometimes it sure feels like it. Obviously, that's certainly not the case.

Still, to deny help to an infant who survives an abortion is infanticide and even Mr. Obama voted for that in the Illinois State Senate four times...
tough to consider, isn't it.

I think a lot more of us don't fit into that paradigm than you think.
The other day, I responded to you somewhere that I wish, many times, that I could write my feelings about certain things but won't because the leftwingers here will pile it on with "We TOLD you so" and I don't need that.
I want decent conversations at geeeZ and I thank you and SF for today's.

Rita said...

Oops, I meant "pro-choice Christian". How they can believe in a human spirit but not answer when God decides to give a baby a spirit?

I usually get called all kinds of names when I press a pro-abortionist that claims Christianity into answering that question.