What's the difference between a 25-week-old baby and a 24-week-old-fetus? Not a thing as far as I'm concerned. And not a thing as far as most if not all pro-lifers are concerned. But apparently that's the crux of the defense for Kermit Gosnell and his House of Horrors. Via the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Overcoming this pile of evidence may seem insurmountable, but that is the job defense attorney Jack McMahon begins Monday. …
It is not known if Gosnell will testify. The Constitution does not require a defendant to testify or present evidence, and a jury may not consider that fact in reaching a verdict.
But given Gosnell’s past behavior, it would not be a surprise if he does.
From his first court appearance in February 2009, Gosnell has maintained an amiable, courtly demeanor that belies his precarious legal situation and the anger of some antiabortion partisans who have attended his trial.
He has rejected several plea deals from prosecutors, the last before jury selection started March 4. The offer would have let Gosnell serve life in a federal prison rather than the grittier Pennsylvania system and his wife, Pearl, 52, keep their West Philadelphia home.
“You’ll know when I know,” McMahon snapped on Thursday when Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron asked for his list of witnesses, which he is required to file before beginning his case.
Doesn't sound like Gosnell's defense is too confident in his ability to defend someone who kept baby feet in jars, hmm? No. No, not at all. Honestly, though, how DO you defend a man who did the sort of things Gosnell did? Maybe it's because I have a conscience, but I just don't see how anyone can justify this kind of behavior.
And what about the lack of media coverage? Does anyone have anything to say about that? Jonah Goldberg does:
My fellow Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers wrote a USA Today column last week shaming the media for not covering the Gosnell case enough or, in many cases, at all. She got results. Suddenly everyone was talking about it. Though a dismaying amount of the coverage is about why there was a lack of coverage.
It’s an important issue, of course. But it’s not a complicated one. It seems obvious that most mainstream outlets are run and staffed by pro-choice liberals. But whatever the motivation, The Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger is surely correct when she says the mainstream media are generally locked into a single narrative about abortion: “reproductive rights under siege.”
Ironically, the same factors that might have discouraged the mainstream media from covering the story in the first place now give them an incentive to turn it into a story about the media. CBS News, for instance, broke its broadcast boycott of the trial by running a piece on the political firestorm over the lack of coverage.
Goldberg is a hundred percent right in that excerpt. The lack of coverage is quite simply a case of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." This was obvious to anyone with a brain from the very beginning. Though it is a bit ironic that the lack of coverage has itself facilitated the desire and the need for more such. Streissand Effect at work? You be the judge.