Patterico's Pontifications

4/8/2013

Witness: Baby Killed by Gosnell Screamed

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:26 pm

Content warning for the squeamish. If that is you, don’t read this quote:

A Delaware woman who worked for abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell recalled hearing one child “screaming” after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure at Gosnell’s West Philadelphia clinic.

Sherry West, of Bear, said she was loyal to Gosnell – who is now facing multiple counts of murder for allegedly killing children after they were delivered alive at his clinic – but said the incident “really freaked me out.”

When Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore pressed the 53-year-old West for specifics about the incident, West struggled to answer, clearly uncomfortable with the memory.

“I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” West testified, telling a judge and Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas jury that the body of the child was about 18 to 24 inches long and was one of the largest babies she had seen delivered during abortion procedures at Gosnell’s clinic.

Gosnell is accused of delivering babies alive and killing them by snipping their spinal cords with scissors.

Barack Obama voted against a bill designed to protect infants born alive — and, when called on it, “misrepresented the facts” to make it sound like abortion-related concerns were implicated by the bill. Not so, says the Washington Post‘s left-leaning and partisan fact checker.

You won’t be hearing about Kermit Gosnell from Barack Obama. (Nor, for that matter, will you be hearing him talk about the Newtown parent who opposes gun control.) Obama haughtily says we need to “make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down” — but he does not care a whit for babies born alive to moms who tried to abort them.

UPDATE: A search reveals no story about Gosnell in the Los Angeles Times for at least the past year.

48 Responses to “Witness: Baby Killed by Gosnell Screamed”

  1. “‘I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien person’ West testified.”

    FTFY

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  2. But gee, it’s so easy to see from Obama’s perspective: in the Gosnell case, the mommies wanted their little ones to be dead; in the Newton case the mommies didn’t want their little ones to be dead. Thus, the difference in treatment.

    JVW (4826a9)

  3. Obama explained his dissent on the BABY BORN ALIVE legislation in Illinois. Obama is twisted. And he lies like no one I have ever witnessed. Libs don’t care. Obama stood in the way of legislation in Illinois that required aid for live babies.

    Dana Kimberlin (694db4)

  4. And you CAN’T find this story being repeated nationally.

    They (the State Media) just won’t report it and they’re exposing themselves more and more as the partisan manipulating propagandists that they are.

    When the thread snaps, they will be lucky to be allowed on unemployment.

    Jcw46 (0af03c)

  5. Jwc46, if it doesn’t AID Obama, it isn’t a story.

    Gus (694db4)

  6. This is the kind of thing that drove me away from being pretty hardcore pro-choice in the ’80′s and ’90′s to where I am today.

    SPQR (768505)

  7. Yeah, all that baby dying stuff can change a man.

    Gus (694db4)

  8. This is the kind of thing that drove me away from being pretty hardcore pro-choice in the ’80′s and ’90′s to where I am today.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 4/8/2013 @ 8:38 pm

    I am definitely not a religious fanatic, but as a parent, It is hard to believe that someone is willing to kill their own children and willing to fight to protect that right. My wife was pro choice until our first child was born.

    One of the biggest contradictions in the abortion debate is that those who believe in the pro choice of killing the innocent, somehow strongly believe that is wrong to kill a murderer, ie the death penalty.

    joe (93323e)

  9. This is me speaking for Mr. Feets to say that we have more important things to focus on like jobs, and the budget and deficits and SSM in order to for Team R to win the future rather than these silly 700 Club socon issues that don’t win staunch conservatives any votes.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  10. in the ’80′s and ’90′s to where I am today.

    Context is always important, and to be of the left (or center, or right) today has a vastly different connotation today than what it meant, for example, over 70, or 40, or 20 years ago. Simply put, to be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal in 2013 — like a Barack Obama or his Hollywood pals, etc — is sickening and contemptible—and corrupted by more layers of false compassion and superficial sophistication than ever before.

    Mark (d8d476)

  11. If you read the article, Sherry West says she and the other baby abattoir workers called these babies born alive “specimens.” She testified that was to avoid the mental trauma that went with working in Gosnell’s house of horrors.

    Awww! Isn’t wonderful they were able to dehumanize these infants like that to protect their delicate psyches.

    I mean, isn’t that really the important thing?

    I notice that the NYT has done at least one article on this. It seems their stylebook demands they continue calling these delivered babies “fetuses.” And they continue to call the procedures they used to kill the delivered infants “abortions.”

    I hate to bring up the Nazi reference, but how can the comparison not strike you? The guards at the extermination camps dehumanized their victims, too.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  12. And now, of course, we can expect some snark by trolls and others.

    This is a hideous story.

    My father said something to me years ago, about someone who had done something truly awful. “What if,” my working class, chain smoking father mused, “reincarnation is real…but there are more people than souls around?”

    I looked at him, confused.

    He shrugged. “People without a soul might do things like that.”

    My father might be right.

    Simon Jester (2705ba)

  13. The ALIVE CHILD isn’t a PERSON until the LIBTARD LEFT has used all of the NON-PERSONS’ CAPITAL for their POLITICAL PURPOSES.

    Same is true of Grandma.
    Same is true of Mary Jo Kopechne,
    Same is true of Terri Schiavo,

    It’s just another vote, until it’s usefulness is gone.

    Gus (694db4)

  14. he’s like the worst abortionist ever

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  15. Because if they didn’t hear the screams, he would be a good abortionist?

    Dana (292dcf)

  16. Oh, I suspect that he just couldn’t help posting on this one. Sigh. Here we go.

    Simon Jester (2705ba)

  17. feets speaks true

    Icy (4b226c)

  18. JVW wrote:

    But gee, it’s so easy to see from Obama’s perspective: in the Gosnell case, the mommies wanted their little ones to be dead; in the Newton case the mommies didn’t want their little ones to be dead. Thus, the difference in treatment.

    And that is precisely the difference. Being alive or being a “person” does not depend upon yourself; it depends upon whether someone else wants you to be a person.

    The Dana who recognizes the truth. (3e4784)

  19. joe wrote:

    I am definitely not a religious fanatic, but as a parent, It is hard to believe that someone is willing to kill their own children and willing to fight to protect that right.

    You would think it would be hard to believe that, but reality has a way of forcing the truth on you: there are many, many people who are willing to kill their children and plenty of others, including Barack Hussein Obama, himself a father, who are willing to fight tooth-and-nail to preserve that “right.”

    President Obama and the pro-abortionists had better hope that the atheists are right, or the gates of Hell will be looming wide open for them.

    The daddy Dana (3e4784)

  20. And that is precisely the difference. Being alive or being a “person” does not depend upon yourself; it depends upon whether someone else wants you to be a person.

    You’d have thought we’d have learned the lesson of that attitude in the 20th century. Oh, well, looks like another round for the 21st!

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  21. I don’t remember exactly where I saw the article, but it was an interview of someone who opened their home to people who traveled to their location for the purpose of undergoing an abortion.

    The article had a feel like it was supposed to be positive. The homeowner was pro-choice and argued she felt she was doing a necessary service by allowing poor people a rent-free place so they could receive an abortion.

    But the article told some uncomfortable truths. One was a story of a pregnant woman who showed the homeowner a sonogram of her “fetus”, and was acting like a proud expectant mother. That made the homeowner uncomfortable because she knew the fetus wouldn’t become an infant. The other story really affected me. The homeowner confessed she was having discomforting dreams about the unborn. She dismissed them by reminding herself that she believed in her purpose.

    It reminded me of the story of Pilate’s wife. She sent Pilate a message that he should leave “that innocent man” alone, that she had deeply troubling dreams that caused her to “suffer”.

    Ref: http://bible.cc/matthew/27-19.htm

    bonhomme (80d168)

  22. Speaking re nazi reference, i heard a clip of an american born and raised in germany testifying against any weakening of the 2nd amendment, he said in 1933 nobody imagined what the world would be like in 1945

    meanwhile, it was in 1937 or so that germany made it mandatory that children not be allowed to be taught at home by their parents (the law that the Holder DOJ is in favor of and trying to deport a german family)
    oh, and an MSNBC person said that “we need to get past/over this idea that children belong to their parents and not to the community” or some such

    all of this seems too crazy to take seriously, but all too many people believe these things

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  23. I have not wanted to comment on this thread because if I said what I want to do to Gosnell and all his accomplices, I would frighten Sarah again. I very much want to believe in Dante’s vision of Hell and that those monsters will suffer there for all eternity.

    nk (d4662f)

  24. oh, and an MSNBC person said that “we need to get past/over this idea that children belong to their parents and not to the community” or some such

    I thought maybe that this quote from the MSNBC “personality” would be the subject of a post here. I am almost willing to buck my conservative friends and agree to back the idea that children should be treated as community property, provided that means I am allowed to discipline the little urchins and brats that I regularly encounter. I had an encounter with an unruly teenager at the community library a year or so ago where I asked him to quiet his illiterate ass down (he was loudly talking with his idiot friends), and it was all I could do to restrain myself from smacking him in the mouth when he sassed back at me. Fortunately the librarian kicked them out before I really blew my stack.

    JVW (4826a9)

  25. Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/9/2013 @ 10:46 am

    1937 or so that germany made it mandatory that children not be allowed to be taught at home by their parents (the law that the Holder DOJ is in favor of and trying to deport a german family)

    A couple of things done by Hitler, that did not strike anybody as evil, wound up not getting reversed, including his changing of the style of lettering in 1943 from Gothic (as seen in the masthead of the New York Times) to what’s seen in other countries.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  26. I’m perfectly confident that the Maker of All is able to give each and every potential life a full and cherished existence.

    And, unlike Sartre od “Hell is other people” fame, I’m also pretty sure Hell is solitary confinement, devoid of sense and stimulation.

    Kinda like the womb of a dead mommy.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  27. Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 4/9/2013 @ 12:00 pm

    I think the community has a responsibility to step up if a child is being abused or neglected (though this of course is subject to deciding where the line is crossed).

    But I’m afraid what she really wants is for children to be taught what “the community” wants them to be taught, like “Bible thumpers” are crazy and a danger and menace to society, and that the smartest people did not get to write the Constitution, and that rights come from the government, and tolerance is the perfect answer, except in the case of those who don’t want to be as tolerant as we are, so we don’t have to tolerate them.

    When I was a child if a neighbor adult saw me doing something wrong, he/she would say something about it to me or to my parents, not because I belonged to the community, but because the community reinforced the standards of my parents.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  28. Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/9/2013 @ 6:22 pm

    I heard about that.
    I think this is like working on a complex math problem and getting the wrong answer because right at the beginning it was thought that 1+1=3.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  29. Wish I could’ve written this:

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/08/obama-the-shameless/

    CiC(10 letters-in-Chief) has absolutely no shame at all.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  30. The concepts that society has a right and duty to protect children with the primary rights and responsibilities still being in the parents can exist harmoniusly. But when a parent decides to put her child to death, can there be any question that it now solely society’s right and duty? Can there?

    nk (d4662f)

  31. nk-
    It depends who you ask. Some, like our POTUS, think that if the mom wanted the baby dead then the baby should be made dead. Some, like Prof. Singer, think that if the baby isn’t healthy enough to benefit society, it should be made dead.

    I guess it is kind of like that saying about “the victors get to write the history”; it seems that whoever best manipulates public opinion gets to manipulate it however they want when they want. If they want to “protect a woman from being punished with a baby”, they make sure the parent has the right to kill the child-in-process, if they want to teach a child to believe something other then the parents, then it is society that has the right to teach the child what they want.

    The problem starts with the focus on rights instead of reponsibilities, performing responsibilities are more attainable but require effort and virtue, “rights” may be nothing more than claims of what one wants, but you get to blame someone else.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  32. 29.So what are the rights of a surrogate over her body?

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/04/california-law-to-make-it-easy-for-gays-to-sue-for-infertility/

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/9/2013 @ 6:22 pm

    They don’t have to sue. As I read it AB 460 states that after a year of “trying” to get pregnant that in and of itself is proof of infertility.

    How far are we going to take this “gay marriage is just the same as heterosexual marriage” charade?

    It’s not even sane to tell Joe and Jim, “Just try for a year and if neither one of you gets pregnant your insurance will cover the costs of your infertility treatment.”

    In one sense gay couples are the same as straight couples. If a man and a woman keep “looking for love in all the wrong places” they aren’t going to have any kids, either.

    On the other hand if she turns around . . .

    It’s odd that Kali is demonstrating to the nation why marriage is only between a man and a woman, and it’s insane to redefine it as if it’s gender neutral.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  33. Sorry, guys, I don’t see the connection. Making babies is a good thing, killing babies is a bad thing. Taxpayers paying for fertility treatments is not even on the same planet as abortions.

    nk (d4662f)

  34. after a year of “trying” to get pregnant that in and of itself is proof of infertility

    That is the standard medical definition. Of course, it presumes that the couple would otherwise get pregnant if there was no specific biological problem interfering, whether the couple was married or not.
    If the two people involved would/could not get pregnant even if all of their individual biologies were normal just because nature doesn’t work that way, then it is a bit like saying after 1 year of flapping my arms I still can’t fly.
    If I move to CA and that happens to me, can I get compensation?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  35. The only connection nk is the absurdity of what we are being asked to believe. The idea that 2 men or 2 women have a right to have a child on the basis of non-discrimination is a bit beyond what the law can demand (see may flying example above). It should also be beyond belief that someone can justify the killing of a developing human being that can live with “standard nurturing”.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  36. CiC(10 letters-in-Chief) has absolutely no shame at all.

    As I was watching “60 Minutes” two days ago, with the parents and survivors of the Sandy Hook massacre fretting over — and the CBS talking head prodding and poking about — gun laws, the one thing that wasn’t mentioned by any of them, or was barely alluded to, was how we live in an increasingly shameless, shame-free society. That while anti-gun laws have gone up over the past 50-plus years, a sense of personal shame has done just the opposite. (Hi, Bill Clinton, et al! You’re wonderful and beautiful!)

    I wanted to tell the group, “uh, hey, people, you’re living in a nation whose culture is now so permissive that no less than Nidal Hasan was given free passes until it was too late! And was his shamelessness tolerated by the ACLU? No. Or the Southern Poverty Law Center? No. Or the crowd at a Hollywood awards show? No. Hasan (and his shamelessness) was tolerated by none other than (drum roll, please) the US military. IOW, that’s how leftwing loony this nation has become.

    The idiocy of modern-day liberalism is what really needs to be controlled, not guns. But because the ethos that left-leaning biases imbue one with loving and lovely qualities — or can be greedily taken advantage of — is caressed by a large cross section of modern-day humanity, it may be too late.

    Mark (9f1e6c)

  37. nk, he only connection I am drawing between the two is the refusal to deal with reality in both cases.

    Reality: same sex couples can’t procreate.

    Kali: Gee, Barbara and Margaret have been trying to have a baby for a year and they haven’t had one together. The only possible explanation is they must be infertile.

    Reality: when a baby emerges from the mother’s body, it’s a baby.

    The NYT: it’s a “viable fetus.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/us/philadelphia-abortion-doctors-murder-trial-opens.html?_r=1&

    Reality: when you kill a baby that’s already been born, that’s infanticide. It’s murder.

    AP: it’s still an abortion, just not a typical one.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343460/unmourned-mark-steyn

    I wasn’t placing AB 460 on the same end of the moral scale as infanticide. But the same willful blindness to the facts are at work in both cases.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  38. Connection? There needs to be a connection?

    Sanctimonius prig, I am the Walrus, goo-goo-ga-jube. YEEAaarrrgghhhh!

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  39. Well, gary, it sort of should be relevant to the topic. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is. For instance here’s a link to the Planned Parenthood rep who advocated before the Florida legislature that the decision to perform a “post birth” abortion should be left between the woman and her “health care provider.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html

    “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

    “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

    Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

    “I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

    Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

    Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

    “I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.

    “That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that,” Snow said. “I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

    Later another representative asked Snow, “What objection could you possibly have to obligate a doctor to transport a child born alive to a hospital where it seems to me they would be most likely to be able to survive?”

    Snow said Planned Parenthood was concerned about “those situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that’s the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there’s just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about.”

    Ms. Snow thinks she’s coming across as a reasonable human being, but she’s actually no different than Gosnell’s henchwoman who called the infants they were killing “specimens.” I can’t believe that we’re talking about a person who would leave a baby to die a “health care provider” and the place that would happen in a “health care facility.”

    Although there is one difference. Gosnell’s henchwoman used the term to shield herself from reality. Ghouls like Ms. Snow use euphemisms to cover-up the reality of the situation from others. Really, the Planned Parenthood rep’s answers to the simple questions from these Florida state legislators is that, no, that child isn’t a human being and , no, that child isn’t the patient, and , no, the objective of an abortion is a dead fetus and that’s what we’re going to achieve no matter how long it takes.

    Similar reality avoidance is apparent in the proponents of AB 360 in Kali.

    The language in that bill is:

    Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

    So under this law every single gay person (you can’t discriminate based upon marital or domestic partnership status remember) would be deemed “infertile” simply because they won’t have heterosexual intercourse.

    But these extremists are demanding that society, and every individual in society, can acknowledge no difference whatsoever between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That was the gist of Judge Vaughn Walker’s prop 8 ruling, as well, if you read it.

    In reality you can’t make babies without heterosexual sex.

    They are legislating biological reality out of existence in the name of equality.

    It’s all part of a larger pattern of reality denial, it stems from the left, and it’s what makes PC so essential. People who raise facts to the contrary constitute an existential threat to the world inside a bubble their building.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  40. Breitbart this AM linked the two stories, so there’s that.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  41. Update: LifeNews‘ Matthew Philbin has a fascinating analysis of media priorities over the last week:

    The Rutgers basketball story continues to transfix the media, and why shouldn’t it? Mike Rice, the disgraced former Rutgers basketball coach allegedly killed a woman and at least seven viable, born-alive babies “by plunging scissors into their spinal cords” in his filthy, macabre “house of horrors” abortion clinic.

    Oh wait, my mistake.

    Rice was fired last week from Rutgers over video of him shoving, kicking and yelling at his players, throwing basketballs at them and – most damning – using “homophobic slurs.” That’s made Rice the most notorious villain in America. And in one week it earned him 36 network news stories clocking in at 41 minutes, 26 seconds of air time on ABC, CBS and NBC.

    Now, had Rice been accused of killing a woman and eight babies, he’d be enjoying the same anonymity as Kermit Gosnell– provided the killings were carried out in an abortion clinic. Gosnell is the West Philadelphia abortionist who ran an unimaginable charnel house of a “clinic,” for 30 years. Witnesses testified that he may have murdered over 100 babies outside the womb. Gosnell’s trial, underway for weeks, has featured wrenching testimony and horrific details. And it has received exactly zero seconds of airtime on the broadcast networks.

    JD (b63a52)

  42. Our Chicago counselor wrote:

    The concepts that society has a right and duty to protect children with the primary rights and responsibilities still being in the parents can exist harmoniusly. But when a parent decides to put her child to death, can there be any question that it now solely society’s right and duty? Can there?

    Society, championed by our friends on the left, certainly say so, when it comes to deciding whether parents can use corporal punishment for discipline, what children can and should eat, whether minors should have access to contraception in case they have sex (something to which they cannot legally consent), or whether parents need to be informed whether their children have an abortion or want the morning after pill. Yet, in the matter of life and death, then Hell no, neither society nor fathers, nor any other family member has any say, only the pregnant woman.

    How is that?

    The Dana who sees the logic (3e4784)

  43. I’ll trade you the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments for a Right to Life Amendment. Seriously. All these individual rights that our infanticidal society prides itself of are nothing more than paint over dry-rot when we kill millions of babies.

    Aw, forget it. Maybe these babies are better off never knowing what soulless monsters conceived them.

    Rant over.

    nk (d4662f)

  44. I had to read an editorial today in the New York Post to realzie that Gosnell is on trial now in Philadelphia for murder – killing seven babies and one adult, if I am right..

    Saqmmy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2989 secs.