Doug Wilson has a must read short essay entitled “Our Gosnell Gulag” over here. The media bias on this story has been stunning in its audacity. Apparently, the “right to know” is only the “right to know what we believe you should know.”
His opening paragraph to whet the appetite:
The Gosnell moment, for that is what it is, presents a clear opportunity for a real change of cultural heart. There are moments when some suppressed or ignored horror comes sharply into focus, and after that, it is not really possible to go back to the way it was before. This is what happened when Solzhenitsyn published his Gulag, for example. Something that had been successfully accommodated became impossible to accommodate any further. It was a conscience moment, which, given the nature of the case, most often come to us unsought. But they do come.
His observation and challenge to us as a society:
The standards and workarounds that we have devised for ourselves are arbitrary and demented. But they are also fragile, and one blast of reality can collapse the entire thing. The value of the Gosnell house of horrors is that it is just such a blast of reality. It reveals just how arbitrary and just how demented our entire national policy on this subject has been. Think about it.
Yes, think, not feel! Here’s another one of the key points:
First, let us talk about the arbitrary nature of what we allow and what we don’t. Partial birth abortions (which Obama does not want restricted) do exactly what Gosnell was doing, only with the baby half in and half out. This makes a major ethical difference, apparently. Regular abortions do these things with the baby all the way in. Gosnell does these things to the baby with the baby all the way out. And he’s the freak show? If he put the baby back inside the mother, in a reverse Caesarian, and cut the spinal cord then, is he a responsible medical professional again? If it happens here, in the middle of the room, it is a protected constitutional right. If he carries the baby over to the corner where the light is better, then he can be charged with murder. And he’s the freak show? What about the lawyers and lobbyists that insist on this? What can be said on behalf of a nation that is even a little bit okay with this?
Again, think about that last question. His next paragraph is highly clarifying of the absurdity of this liberal argument:
It is like having laws that say you can shoot your mom in the kitchen, but not in the living room — and then demanding that everybody continue to respect the majesty of the law. But demented is as demented does. When the Court upheld Roe, their argument was that they did not want to undermine respect for the judicial system by overturning a terrible law. Right — there is nothing like doubling down on lunacy to help persuade everybody that everything is just fine.
The final paragraph is, or should be, chilling to bone:
And the earth and sky fled from their places, and America came forward trembling to speak with the Ancient of Days. And America said, “Lord, when did we ever see you struggling on a table, and go get scissors to snip your spinal cord?” And the Lord will say . . . but perhaps we don’t want to hear what the Lord will say. But it has something to do with why there is a Hell.
May God have mercy on us!