Article Link: Daily Times

By This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

There has got to be a good controversial Super Bowl ad to be gotten out of the arrest of Kermit Gosnell, the alleged Philadelphia baby butcher. This time last year, Planned Parenthood and other feminist groups were protesting a mild pro-life ad produced by the Family Research Council featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom.

The groups were very upset that anyone would suggest that the maternal choice made by Mrs. Tebow was the "right" one, just because her son grew up to be a millionaire pro football player and she didn't die in childbirth.

They had a point.

Most of the pregnant women who choose abortion over giving birth probably wouldn't have had sons who grew up to be a rich NFL quarterback.

Moreover, as Planned Parenthood spokesmen pointed out, some women who choose life get death instead. Medically risky pregnancies are quite real and some women are faced with these awful decisions.

The doctors who counseled Mrs. Tebow to get an abortion meant well, at least as far as her health was concerned.

But in taking such offense to the ad, feminist groups fumbled badly. Even pro-choice women were appalled at the attempt to censor the Tebows' heartfelt pro-life message.

In response, Planned Parenthood produced its own ad featuring two male athletes promoting the pro-choice message.

Sean Williams, a former Minnesota Vikings football player, praised Mrs. Tebow but said, "My mom showed me that women are strong and wise. She taught me that only women can make the best decisions about their health and their future."

In light of the number of babies and women who were allegedly butchered by Dr. Gosnell, that's not always the case.

Women who sought Dr. Gosnell's services risked their lives to end their pregnancies.

There was virtually no regulatory oversight of Dr. Gosnell's abortion "house of horrors." Puppy mills got more attention from state regulators.

Why? Because pro-choice governors and their pro-choice bureaucracies thought looking the other way was reasonable given the ickiness of the issue.

So they ignored the 46 malpractice suits that had been filed against Gosnell and quit inspecting his baby chop shop in 1993.

As for the idea that greater regulation and oversight might have put an end to Gosnell's grisly practice sooner, Planned Parenthood's Dayle Steinberg sounds an awful lot like the National Rifle Association.

"Abortion is already ... quite strictly regulated," said Steinberg, president of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, "and no new regulations can stop a physician who decides to disregard the law."

For years, pro-choice activists like Steinberg have been arguing against "new regulations" on the abortion industry.

Most famously, they argued against a ban on the sort of procedures Gosnell routinely performed — late-term, "intact dilation and extractions," more commonly known as "partial-birth abortions."

When Philadelphia prosecutor Seth Williams describes Gosnell's conduct, he is awfully close to describing the procedure that was federally banned in 2003.

"A doctor who with scissors cuts into the necks, severing the spinal cords of living breathing babies who would survive with proper medical attention commits murder under the law," Williams said after Gosnell's arrest. "Regardless of one's feeling about abortion, whatever one's beliefs, that is the law."

Whatever one's beliefs?

That's another way of saying, even if you're one of those people who think that all women should have the right to choose any sort of abortion an alleged doctor will perform, under current law, not even doctors can kill "living, breathing babies" by sticking scissors in their necks.

There was a time when actual U.S. senators attempted to defend this as a woman's "right."

Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Barbara Boxer, D-umb, were directly asked if a baby that had slipped out of the birth canal during an attempted abortion and was living and breathing on its own was entitled to protection under the U.S. Constitution. They all said no.

In other words, these public office holders held the view that any woman who went to a doctor seeking an abortion was entitled to a dead baby.

No wonder Pennsylvania health bureaucrats were confused about their own responsibilities.

The negligence of state health inspectors and medical regulators in ignoring Gosnell's gory practice is painfully obvious and nothing short of outrageous.

Just the same, Planned Parenthood would be wise to get out in front of this scandal by demanding the repeal of unreasonable and restrictive laws that discourage good, well-qualified abortionists from plying their trade.

How about this for a Super Bowl ad:

"Recently, the media made a big deal out of a Philadelphia doctor being charged with killing a female patient and several babies. This is what happens when a 'climate of hate,' limiting the choices of grown women is created by anti-choice zealots.

"Shame on you, Sarah Palin."

How's that?

Gil Spencer's column appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Check out his Spencerblog every day at delcotimes.com.