The admittedly pro-choice prosecutor, played convincingly by Sarah Jane Morris, puts a respectable abortionist, a very proper female doctor, on the stand to show just how anomalous was Gosnell’s practice.
At this point in the movie, I could imagine an abortion supporter thinking, Yes, the problem is not abortion. The problem is criminals like Gosnell.
Then the cross examination begins. The defense attorney, played with snarling gusto by director Nick Searcey, walks the good doctor through the details of her lawful termination of the baby while still in the womb.
The inescapable reality is that a D&E, dilation and extraction, abortion is no less gruesome than Gosnell’s snipping of a live baby’s spinal cord. It is simply less visible.
The D&E is routine for second trimester abortions in the United States. More than 100,000 are performed every year. The defense attorney has the good doctor describe how she removes the thorax, pelvis, cranium, and each arm and leg separately using surgical instruments. If need be, she crushes the baby’s brain in order to extract it.
Although the respectable abortionist admits to having performed some 30,000 abortions, she claims she did not have to deal with live births as Gosnell did because “we listen to the sonogram to ensure that the fetal heart has stopped.”
When the defense attorney asks what she would do if a baby were born live, the doctor, now obviously uncomfortable, replies she would give the baby “comfort care,” adding, “It will eventually pass.”
The “it” in question is a living, breathing baby. “Pass” means “die.” The attorney repeats with a touch of contempt, “Eventually, it would pass.”
Although his motives are pure self-interest, it is the defense attorney who establishes that dismembering a living baby in the womb or letting the baby die slowly outside of it is no more moral than what Gosnell did. It is simply more hygienic.
This is a reality that dawns on any dispassionate observer forced to face the actual practice of abortion. No one who participated in the trial or who watches the movie walks away unaffected.
When confronted with an undeniable truth, abortion providers and the media do what they inevitably do: ignore it, suppress it and hope it goes away.
If stories of Americans falling victim to crime committed by aliens, including murders and rapes committed by MS-13 across the country; of Mexican drug cartels taking over American parklands for marijuana cultivation and drug trafficking; and of “human trafficking,” much less our importation of hostile Muslims, are not enough, let us ponder what seems likely in the future. Our country is being inundated by “migrants,” who are coming in such numbers and at such a pace that their bringing the crime, violence, and dysfunction of their home countries with them is inevitable...
The enemies of Donald Trump and historic America obviously aim to erase borders altogether and overwhelm America’s “deplorables” in what is clearly a plan of population replacement. They no longer hesitate to tell us what they are up to: Slogans like “No countries, no borders!” and “Abolish ICE!” as well as their frequent and passionate calls for white people to hurry up and die off should tell us everything we need to know. In their Post-America of the future, a thin overclass will rule a growing underclass and a hard-pressed and declining middle class. The vast tentacles of the managerial state, buoyed by its dependents, will envelop what’s left of historic America, by then chiefly a “geographic expression.”
We, fellow deplorables, will be homeless.
Mass immigration is being used as a weapon in the war globalists are waging against sovereign nations and their peoples. It is proving to be a far more dangerous weapon of mass destruction than the stockpiles of bombs and missiles the great powers accumulated during the Cold War. If our enemies win this war, we may forget about the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and indeed, about the Constitution itself. We can forget about property rights, overturning Roe v. Wade, freedom to practice our religion, all of the conservative slogans, all of the achievements of a great country and the people, religion, and culture that produced it. Globalism is a totalitarian faith, essentially antihuman, at its root, a manifestation of the great rebellion against God Himself. They will not leave us alone...
As of this writing, Donald Trump is threatening to shut down the government if Congress does not fund a border wall and enact patriotic immigration reforms. He faces an uphill battle, with members of his own party undermining his administration’s every move... Trump retains “the bully pulpit,” and he will have to use it to mobilize his supporters to counter his—and our—enemies.
The United States Supreme Court has taken a fancy toward the word "animus". With its politically manufactured jurisprudence, it has decided that an appearance of "animus" toward any particular group is an indicator of a constitutional violation.
But it turns out that Greensboro's politically correct mayor, Nancy Vaughan, also harbors animus toward certain groups.
One of them is Duke Energy. George Hartzman recalls our dear Mayor having engaged in grandstanding several years ago when the power company was cutting down trees in Greensboro to avoid power outages. One of her typical crusades was launched to protect trees, and those who got their feelings hurt when trees were chopped back. Some of us warned at that time that we were going to pay the price with power outages.
And that happened this past week with Hurricane Michael. Many thousands of Greensboro households were without power as trees snapped and disrupted power lines throughout the city.
Mayor Vaughan was absolutely shameless when she took Duke Energy to task for its response to the outages. Never mind that the utility had to respond to outages along the entire "cone" the hurricane traveled within the state, from its southern border with South Carolina, to its northern border with Virginia. It was not just Greensboro that was affected.
This is one of the reasons it feels it has to keep trees trimmed. When these things happen, the utility cannot logistically be everywhere at once making repairs instantaneously. It must rely on outside utilities to assist; and in this case, there were also situations in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia that required a response by the various utilities working together. Resources had to be spread thinly.
I have little doubt that Mayor Vaughan's tree ordinance is directly responsible for the extent and severity of the power outages many Greensboro residents experienced this past week. She made it more difficult for Duke Energy to keep its power lines clear of trees that would potentially be disruptive during storms.
Another one of Nancy's crusades is against those who value our nation's Western tradition. With relatively little fanfare, she had the city council pass a resolution proclaiming Monday, October 8 to be Indigenous Peoples' Day in the city of Greensboro.
Most of us are aware that this same date is a national holiday-- Columbus Day, which celebrates the exploration and discovery of the Western hemisphere; and the process of bringing Western/European civilization here, which was a huge advancement on balance.
Of course, many within the progressive/socialist camp, including Ms. Vaughan, feel compelled to diminish the celebration and importance of the Western/European tradition. If there was a desire to curry favor with "indigenous peoples" as a designated victim group worthy of the left's attention, she could have chosen any of the other 364 days on the calendar that were not already holidays.
But of course, she had to choose Columbus Day. I do not know whether the fact that Ms. Vaughan is at least partially of Middle Eastern descent explains her animus toward Western/European achievement.
In any case, our dear mayor is full of animus these days. It ought to be unconstitutional.
(Disclosure: Duke Energy is a client. And I was among those who lost power for four days).
I had the opportunity to see the film, "Gosnell" last night. It relates the story of the investigation and trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the African-American abortionist based in Philadelphia who had killed many live infants in his offices.
The film was heartbreaking, but fortunately did not present images that attempted to recapture fully the very worst that took place in his clinic.
His offices were a shambles-- an unsanitary mess. He and his staff did not even attempt to follow standard medical technique for maintaining sterile supplies and equipment.
The head prosecutor was a pro-choice female who had five children. It was evident that her experience as a mother caused her to feel repulsed at what Gosnell had been doing. She was doubtless forced to re-examine her own beliefs as the trial unfolded.
One of the most fascinating exchanges during the trial occurred when she called as a witness a white, female, middle aged abortionist to provide a contrast with the techniques Gosnell used. This second abortionist-- the "good" one, who provided an impeccable appearance, made it clear that she would never kill babies after they were born, as Gosnell had. Gosnell's attorney, however, cross-examined her, and forced her to admit to the ugly specifics of the abortion procedures she performed every day she worked-- with the most graphic detail. He was trying to make the point that this second abortionist's procedures were ethically comparable to what Gosnell had been doing.
And in this respect, he was absolutely right.
Another striking aspect of the film was that Gosnell's staff turned against him. It was not necessarily clear from the film, but Wikipedia shares that prosecutors obtained their testimony by charging them also. It turns out that Gosnell's wife was also charged, and was a key part of the operation, but that aspect was not emphasized in the film, either.
A key turning point during the trial, depicted poignantly in the film, was a photograph of a murdered infant-- taken by a clinic staffer-- being shared with the jury. Their reaction to the photograph was entirely understandable.
It was also clear from the film that monsters like Gosnell have been permitted to do these things in the United States because abortion has been politically a sacred cow for so many years, and especially in certain parts of the country. It was considered untouchable. The Health Department in that area took a hands-off approach to Gosnell's clinic for precisely that reason.
The District Attorney in Philadelphia made it a point to emphasize that the trial was not about abortion, even though Gosnell was convicted on multiple counts, including the performance of many late-term abortions in violation of the law. Gosnell tended to have an attitude that he could disregard the law. The DA was very concerned about huge media coverage, although the courtroom was relatively empty during the early stages of the trial.
And there were only six folks viewing the film when I attended last night. But this was a gripping story and presentation that merits a much wider audience. Go see it. The depths of the evil of the pro-abortion viewpoint cannot be better represented.
NAFTA, even though Trump claims it’s been replaced, is very much alive in the new deal named the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
I always look forward to receiving the NC Family Policy Council voter guide because it contains very useful information about candidates running for office.
It should be noted that Republican candidates are often given political advice not to respond to these types of questionnaires even though they are very helpful to the voter. For this particular guide, Trudy Wade, Phil Berger, Jon Hardister, Alissa Batts, Troy Lawson and Peter Boykin did not respond. It should be noted that the three incumbents listed above voted to repeal HB2.
A question was posed as to whether the candidate believes that state nondiscrimination laws should include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classifications. This is one of those issues that truly distinguishes among candidates. Let's examine the responses from the candidates in Guilford and Rockingham Counties. Interestingly, John Faircloth and Clark Porter both responded in favor. This would, of course, lead to even more persecution of orthodox Christians-- including conservative Protestants and traditional Catholics. Kurt Collins, Kyle Hall and Jerry Carter appropriately opposed this idea.
My recollection is that John Faircloth also voted to repeal HB2. He probably needs to be defeated in this election.
For the state Supreme Court race, Justice Barbara Jackson declined to respond to two particular questions that required a brief, concise response. Instead, she prepared a verbose response that had to be searched on the website. Many voters receive a hard copy of this voter guide, and her responses are not contained therein because of how she chose to handle it. Her lengthy response found on the website seems satisfactory, although this seems like a missed opportunity for her. And she is apparently running way behind in at least one poll.
The other judicial races are covered in the guide also. It is worth checking out.
Jake MacAuley says they must properly assert their authority in these matters: