Kermit Gosnell Guilty Of First-Degree Murder

[bonnie]

Kermit Gosnell Guilty Of First-Degree Murder

A Philadelphia jury has found Dr. Kermit Gosnell guilty on three of four counts of first-degree murder, the Philadelphia Inquirer and NBC News report.

Gosnell, a longtime abortion provider, was accused of killing four babies and one female patient, among numerous other charges. Gosnell was acquitted in the fourth baby's death.

The jury reached the verdict Monday after initially splitting on two of the over 200 counts in the case, including racketeering and conspiracy charges, as well as abortion law violations.

More from the Associated Press:

A Philadelphia abortion doctor was found guilty Monday of first-degree murder and could face execution in the deaths of three babies who authorities say were delivered alive and then killed with scissors at his grimy clinic, in a case that became a flashpoint in the nation's debate over abortion.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was cleared in the death of a fourth baby, who prosecutors say let out a soft whimper before he snipped its neck.

Gosnell was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the drug-overdose death of a patient who had undergone an abortion.

Gosnell appeared hopeful before the verdict and calm afterward; jurors and lawyers on both sides were more emotional.

The jury will return Tuesday to hear evidence on whether Gosnell should get the death penalty.

Former clinic employees testified that Gosnell routinely performed illegal late-term abortions past Pennsylvania's 24-week limit, that he delivered babies who were still moving, whimpering or breathing, and that he and his assistants "snipped" the newborns' spines, as he referred to it.

"Are you human?" prosecutor Ed Cameron snarled during closing arguments as Gosnell sat calmly at the defense table. "To med these women up and stick knives in the backs of babies?"

The grisly details came out more than two years ago during an investigation of prescription drug trafficking at Gosnell's clinic in an impoverished section of West Philadelphia.

Authorities said the clinic was a foul-smelling "house of horrors" with bags and bottles of stored fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments, and cats roaming the premises.

Pennsylvania authorities had failed to conduct routine inspections of all of its abortion clinics for 15 years by the time Gosnell's facility was raided and closed down. In the scandal's aftermath, two top state health department officials were fired, and Pennsylvania imposed tougher rules for clinics.

Four former clinic employees have pleaded guilty to murder and four more to other charges. They include Gosnell's wife, Pearl, a cosmetologist who helped perform abortions.

Both sides of the abortion divide seized on the case. Abortion foes said it exposed the true nature of abortion in all its disturbing detail. Abortion rights activists warned that Gosnell's rogue practice foreshadows what poor and desperate young women could face if abortion is driven underground with more restrictive laws.

Midway through the six-week trial, anti-abortion activists accused the mainstream media of ignoring the case because it reflected badly on the abortion rights cause. Major news organizations denied the allegation, though a number promptly sent reporters to cover the trial.

After prosecutors rested their case, Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Minehart threw out for lack of evidence three of seven murder counts involving aborted fetuses. That left the jury to weigh charges involving fetuses identified as Baby A, Baby C, Baby D and Baby E.

Prosecution experts said one was nearly 30 weeks along when it was aborted, and it was so big that Gosnell allegedly joked it could "walk to the bus." A second fetus was said to be alive for some 20 minutes before a clinic worker snipped its neck. A third was born in a toilet and was moving before another clinic employee grabbed it and severed its spinal cord, according to testimony. Baby E let out a soft whimper before Gosnell cut its neck, the jury was told; Gosnell was acquitted in that baby's death.

Gosnell's attorney, Jack McMahon, argued that none of the fetuses was born alive and that any movements were posthumous twitching or spasms.

He also contended that the 2009 death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar of Woodbridge, Va., a Bhutanese immigrant who had been given repeated doses of Demerol and other powerful drugs to sedate her and induce labor, was caused by unforeseen complications.

Gosnell did not testify, and his lawyer called no witnesses in his defense. But McMahon argued that the doctor provided desperate young woman with "a solution to their problems," and he branded prosecutors "elitist" and "racist" for pursuing his client, who is black and whose patients were mostly poor minorities.

"We know why he was targeted," McMahon said.

Prosecutors described Gosnell's employees as nearly as desperate as the patients. Some had little or no medical training, and at least one was a teenager still in high school. One woman needed the work to support her children after her husband's murder.

Stephen Massof, an unlicensed medical school graduate who could not find a residency, told jurors that Gosnell taught him how to snip babies' spines, something he then did at least 100 times at the clinic.

"I felt like a fireman in hell," Massof testified. "I couldn't put out all the fires."

Gosnell still faces federal drug charges. Authorities said that he ranked third in the state for OxyContin prescriptions and that he left blank prescription pads at his office and let staff members make them out to cash-paying patients.

He performed thousands of abortions over a 30-year career. Authorities said the medical practice alone netted him about $1.8 million a year, much of it in cash. Authorities found $250,000 hidden in a bedroom when they searched his house. Gosnell also owned a beach home and several rental properties.

"He created an assembly line with no regard for these women whatsoever," Cameron said. "And he made money doing that

[Narcah]

I have absolutely no clue why our church has not taken a major stand against abortion of every kind. It is clearly Biblically wrong on so many levels, and yet we wishy-wash around the subject, afraid to "offend" someone. I'm GLAD this baby murderer was found guilty, may his conviction lead to many more until this horrible practice is thrown out of the United States.

[Ted Oplinger]

It is because so many Adventists ally themselves to the political Left, as they are 100% certain the dreaded Sunday Law can only come from the "Religious Right". Many others sympathize with the "social justice" concerns of the Left, and vote accordingly.

And, yes, the current caricature of Christ being a wimpy, non-offensive man as the portrait of "a loving God" is also part of the issue. Go along to get along...''

Blessings,

[OzarkWoman]

I have no understanding how anyone claiming to be a true SDA could possibly be a liberal. It really makes no sense at all.

[bonnie]

I have no understanding how anyone claiming to be a true SDA could possibly be a liberal. It really makes no sense at all.

If this was concerning the stand on tobacco/alcohol/drug use the

response would be far more forceful as to SDA belief.

At least with the use of the above there is a good chance that the participant will survive to quit the destructive habit.

These "fetuses" or whatever the term used to describe these innocent children don't get the second chance.

[Tom Wetmore]

I have no understanding how anyone claiming to be a true SDA could possibly be a liberal. It really makes no sense at all.

You know many of us so-called liberals feel the same way about conservatives!

[OzarkWoman]

Originally Posted By: OzarkWoman

I have no understanding how anyone claiming to be a true SDA could possibly be a liberal. It really makes no sense at all.

You know many of us so-called liberals feel the same way about conservatives!

Apparently you didn't really understand the meaning of what I posted. In fact, just by the reply you gave shows you did not understand it at all.

[Tom Wetmore]

It really wasn't difficult to understand. You expressed yourself quite clearly.

Maybe it was you that didn't really understand the meaning of what I posted. (Trying not to sound like a parrot, but...) In fact, just by the reply you gave shows you did not understand it at all.

Go figure!

But to be more explicit in restating what I posted... I have difficulty understanding how anyone claiming to be an SDA (or Christian for that matter) could possibly be a right wing conservative. It really doesn't make sense to me or many of my fellow progressives (which you so fondly like to label as "liberals").

Let's consider for a moment just the popular hot button topic of killing and use of tools of killing. And I am not just talking about abortion. (Which by the way, the official SDA statement is not incompatible with the view of many, if not most Democrats, and many Republicans for that matter. Its is conservatives that are more likely to have issues over that position on abortion taken by the Church.) The Church has long held a more anti-war POV and strongly supports conscientious objectors that refuse to bear arms. And it is well understood that international conflicts of any sort, wars and war-mongering frustrate and impede the Church's missionary efforts overseas.

And then there is the attitude and work for the poor of the world and issues of social justice. Notwithstanding the strident views of some expressed around here, the Adventist Church has long had a strong emphasis in welfare ministry and social justice issue through the work of the old Dorcas Societies, Adventist Community Services, ADRA, etc.)

And then there is the very significant Religious Liberty issues of protecting freedom of religion for all. It increasingly seems that the predominant conservative value in this regard is to only protect the religious values of part of the population, i.e. Christian. There seems no longer much interest among conservatives to consider protecting the religious freedom for minority religions, but rather to force and even legislate Christian only observances and values and encourage governmental assistance in doing so.

As far as many of the other issues that divide us, they are not ones on which the Church has or needs to take a moral stand, like economic policy, taxes, size and role of government generally, etc.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Let's consider for a moment just the popular hot button topic of killing and use of tools of killing. And I am not just talking about abortion. (Which by the way, the official SDA statement is not incompatible with the view of many, if not most Democrats, and many Republicans for that matter. Its is conservatives that are more likely to have issues over that position on abortion taken by the Church.) The Church has long held a more anti-war POV and strongly supports conscientious objectors that refuse to bear arms. And it is well understood that international conflicts of any sort, wars and war-mongering frustrate and impede the Church's missionary efforts overseas.

Is this a stand of liberal SDA's.Funny,most conservative SDA's

are for CO status.Wars are a fact of a secular world. T acknowledge that does not mean all wars are eagerly endorsed by conservatives.

We also have a right to expect government to defend this country.

This is the arena of liberals? Last I looked this type of work was fully supported by conservative SDA's as well.Unbiased stats put conservative christians in the lead for generosity.

Quote:

And then there is the very significant Religious Liberty issues of protecting freedom of religion for all. It increasingly seems that the predominant conservative value in this regard is to only protect the religious values of part of the population, i.e. Christian. There seems no longer much interest among conservatives to consider protecting the religious freedom for minority religions, but rather to force and even legislate Christian only observances and values and encourage governmental assistance in doing so.

Please be more explicit. Which minority religions are you referring to?

[phkrause]

Excellent post Tom

[joeb]

It really wasn't difficult to understand. You expressed yourself quite clearly.

Maybe it was you that didn't really understand the meaning of what I posted. (Trying not to sound like a parrot, but...) In fact, just by the reply you gave shows you did not understand it at all.

Go figure!

But to be more explicit in restating what I posted... I have difficulty understanding how anyone claiming to be an SDA (or Christian for that matter) could possibly be a right wing conservative. It really doesn't make sense to me or many of my fellow progressives (which you so fondly like to label as "liberals").

Let's consider for a moment just the popular hot button topic of killing and use of tools of killing. And I am not just talking about abortion. (Which by the way, the official SDA statement is not incompatible with the view of many, if not most Democrats, and many Republicans for that matter. Its is conservatives that are more likely to have issues over that position on abortion taken by the Church.) The Church has long held a more anti-war POV and strongly supports conscientious objectors that refuse to bear arms. And it is well understood that international conflicts of any sort, wars and war-mongering frustrate and impede the Church's missionary efforts overseas.

And then there is the attitude and work for the poor of the world and issues of social justice. Notwithstanding the strident views of some expressed around here, the Adventist Church has long had a strong emphasis in welfare ministry and social justice issue through the work of the old Dorcas Societies, Adventist Community Services, ADRA, etc.)

And then there is the very significant Religious Liberty issues of protecting freedom of religion for all. It increasingly seems that the predominant conservative value in this regard is to only protect the religious values of part of the population, i.e. Christian. There seems no longer much interest among conservatives to consider protecting the religious freedom for minority religions, but rather to force and even legislate Christian only observances and values and encourage governmental assistance in doing so.

As far as many of the other issues that divide us, they are not ones on which the Church has or needs to take a moral stand, like economic policy, taxes, size and role of government generally, etc.

Yeah, Tom, I agree with OzarkWoman. You didn't understand the context of her remark. She can't see how any Christian, let alone a SDA could support abortion "rights".

The "right" to kill someone who has no chance of defending themselves. That's what it really is when all the fluff is stripped away from the issue. You know, all the intellectualizing that ignores the moral issue at the heart of the matter.

The blanket demonization of conservatives that says they don't care about anyone but themselves. LOL. It's such shallow thinking it's not really funny though. It's just extremely ironic. Social Justice? Oh, yes, the political agenda of those coming from an anti-Christian, anti-religion, point of view. Christ taught, and the Bible teaches that the issue of taking care of our fellow man is one that we as individuals are to do.

We're to do these things to overcome our natural selfishness. Just how does taking money from our neighbor's pocket, through the power of the government, who doesn't believe the same way I do overcome my natural selfishness? To me that's the very epitome of selfishness. That says I want my neighbor to do what God has said is my own job, that I myself am to take care of. I'm supposed to sacrifice my worldly goods, not my neighbor's. That's what the Bible teaches.

I can go on about liberal thought and the liberal agenda, but I doubt I'm getting through. To me you are making your government your God. You're making the government your ideal. You're making enforcing your belief on others your ideal by promoting governmental power over all these things.

I'll say one more thing and then go away. You are, as a supporter of the liberal agenda, willing to run up a debt that is fast getting to point of forcing our nation into bankruptcy, and yet you ignore it as if it doesn't even exist. Anyone who sees the gravity of this massive debt and says we have to stop stop spending money we don't have is unloving, uncaring, and pretty much just evil in your eyes. The fact that your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and great great grandchildren will be subject to onerous taxes just to pay off the debt our generation of this society has generated goes right past you. You don't even think about what it's going to take to pay for all the spending. You don't care that you're enslaving generations to come with debt. To me that's the epitome of selfishness and a total lack of love for your fellow man.