Ever since MSNBC finally chose to cover the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, the majority of MSNBC hosts have used the case as a disgusting opportunity to slam conservatives who want to regulate abortion clinics. Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough was the first MSNBCer to actually mention the case, expressing disgust and outrage over the abortionist's practices.
Today, which marks the 6th day since the jury entered deliberations, the network’s only other conservative, S.E. Cupp, finally used her daily platform to express similar outrage over the case involving Gosnell. [See video after jump. MP3 audio here.]
Cupp, who herself is staunchly pro-life, offered a much needed reality check about what this case means for the abortion discussion in America. Cupp’s first argument for greater monitoring of abortion clinics directly refutes the opposition that groups like Planned Parenthood have leveled against greater regulation of abortion clinics:
While you'd think the stunning lack of oversight in this case, multiple government agencies failed to put an end to his illegal practices over the years, would prompt calls for new legislation to make it harder for criminals like Gosnell to do what he did for as long as he did. Planned Parenthood has oddly said, no.
Cupp continued by pointing out that Planned Parenthood:
Insists that no new regulations can stop a physician who has decided to disregard the law. Now, that doesn't stop gun control advocates from pushing for new laws every time a monster shoots up a school or movie theater. But when it comes to abortion, there's a difference.
For one, lawful gun use doesn't accidentally or intentionally also result in a mass shooting. Legal abortion can result in the death of the mother, the death of babies born alive, and the deaths of late-term fetuses. For example, according to the CDC in 2008, at least 12 women died as a result of complications. Are those numbers insignificant?
S.E. rightfully calls Gosnell what he is, a monster, but then points out that such tragic results happen in other clinics, even when no monster exists, precisely because of poor regulation:
For pro-life folks the Gosnell case is horrifying because abortion is horrifying. At any number of weeks in any kind of environment, whether it's done by the book or unlawfully. But for the other side the very details of the Gosnell case that we might assume to be the most repellent are sometimes consequences of legal abortion. If we hate them here, shouldn't we want to reduce or stop them elsewhere?
Cupp concluded her monologue by noting that:
As a society it's up to us to progress with progress. That means having difficult conversations about why we are outraged by Gosnell and what we can do about it
While Cupp’s refreshing commentary on the Gosnell case is much needed, it is curious why she waited so long to bring up Gosnell on the program. Every day one of the four co-hosts concludes the show with a closing monologue of their choosing, but up until May 7, Cupp ignored Gosnell just like her liberal co-hosts did.
While Cupp’s decision to articulately discuss Gosnell is a welcome sign for MSNBC, it does not justify why The Cycle failed to cover the story up until today. Being one of the few conservatives on MSNBC, Cupp’s voice should be amplified, especially when it's on a horrendous story that the media did their best to ignore and then subsequently their best to spin for the abortion lobby's benefit.
See relevant transcript below.
MSNBC
The Cycle
May 7, 2013
3:56 p.m. EST
S.E. CUPP: Much has already been written and said about the lack of media attention the Kermit Gosnell abortion case has received. He’s charged with killed babies allegedly born alive in his clinic in West Philadelphia. The 2009 overdose death of a 41-year-old mother of three. Hundreds of abortion law violations including performing third trimester abortions and failing to counsel patients. But while the outrage was slow to come, it eventually did. And now even staunch pro-choice advocates are rightly coming out to denounce Gosnell and his practices. The outrage is appropriate and welcome. Planned Parenthood along with many others has denounced the doctor, but while you'd think the stunning lack of oversight in this case, multiple government agencies failed to put an end to his illegal practices over the years, would prompt calls for new legislation to make it harder for criminals like Gosnell to do what he did for as long as he did. Planned Parenthood has oddly said, no. It insists that no new regulations can stop a physician who has decided to disregard the law. Now, that doesn't stop gun control advocates from pushing for new laws every time a monster shoots up a school or movie theater. But when it comes to abortion, there's a difference. For one, lawful gun use doesn't accidentally or intentionally also result in a mass shooting. Legal abortion can result in the death of the mother, the death of babies born alive, and the deaths of late-term fetuses. For example, according to the CDC in 2008, at least 12 women died as a result of complications. Are those numbers insignificant? There are also countless stories of born alive abortions that occur in clinics across the country. Florida Congressman Cary Pigman, a doctor, recently testified that in 2010, 1,270 infants died after being born alive during abortions. Why oppose bills that require appropriate medical care for babies who survive abortions? But another reason we should ask ourselves why Gosnell's case offends us so much is that medical science has changed exponentially since roe v. Wade was passed and therefore we have to confront some hard realities about what it means to end a life today. In 2009, 1.3% of all abortions were performed after 21 weeks gestation. What does that mean? Well, thanks to advanced technology that we didn't have in the 70s, the difference now between a pregnancy at 12 weeks and one at 22 is life itself. As Margaret Carlson put it in "Bloomberg" last year. Walk into any neonatal unit and you’ll see newborns weighing 2 pounds, they'll be playing basketball one day. Gosnell is a monster but what happens when there is no monster and the results are the same. For pro-life folks the Gosnell case is horrifying because abortion is horrifying. At any number of weeks in any kind of environment, whether it's done by the book or unlawfully. But for the other side the very details of the Gosnell case that we might assume to be the most repellent are sometimes consequences of legal abortion. If we hate them here, shouldn't we want to reduce or stop them elsewhere? It isn't intellectually honest to say that these consequences are horrors when perpetrated by a monster like Gosnell but acceptable with well meaning and well trained physicians. The very nature of what we consider to be human life as changed. As a society it's up to us to progress with progress. That means having difficult conversations about why we are outraged by Gosnell and what we can do about it. Okay. That does it for "The Cycle."
