No, “Kermit Gosnell” is Not a Reason to Ban Abortion

In the wake of Wendy Davis’ filibuster against Texas’ abortion bill, conservatives have been grasping at straws for reasons to justify this latest abortion ban.

One popular rationale is the case of Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortionist who was recently found guilty of three counts or murder for running an abortion clinic that engaged in illegal late-term abortions and running afoul of hygiene standards and causing the death of one woman due to drug overdose, according to the Grand Jury report.

Since then, conservatives have using the Gosnell case to argue for more restrictions on abortion. After all, if patients are being mistreated at abortion clinics and abortions are being preformed, then how can we stop them? We need a new law to stop them!

Only, we already have laws to stop these kind of practices. Kermit Gosnell is now serving life in prison because he violated the law. If anything, the Gosnell case shows us that abortion law is already suitable to prevent people from running unsafe abortion practices like the one Gosnell ran.

Of course, it’s silly to make a broad generalization on the basis of one case. The Kermit Gosnell case doesn’t really prove anything either way because it is anecdotal evidence. If LeBron James misses a free throw, can we say he stinks at basketball? If a kid shoots up a school with an assault riffle, should we ban assault riffles? The NRA would say no, but, on the other hand, they would have us consider banning video games.

Using Gosnell is a cynical ploy, because anti-abortion rights activists try to play up his abuse of women’s health in order to go after abortion. The Texas bill not only bans abortion after 20 weeks, it also required abortion clinics to meet higher standards.

John Nolte of Breitbart writes:

The Texas Bill will Make Abortion Safer: After the horrors discovered at the clinic of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell (which the media all-but ignored), many of which were only possible due to the local government’s politically motivated lack of oversight towards abortion clinics, Texas decided to act to make abortion safer. One of the primary objectives of the bill Davis filibustered is to ensure that women who seek a legal abortion are properly cared for.

Abortion rights activists argue that those regulations will force many clinics to shut down. It would be a happy coincidence (nor non-coincidence) for anti-abortion rights activists if their safety standards just happened to cause clinics to close, reducing abortions. At any rate, the Gosnell case happened in a completely different state, and the laws on the books in that state were already sufficient to convict him and sentence him to life in prison.

Moreover, if this bill is only about making abortion safer, why does it include a ban on abortion after 20 weeks? Because the main reason for the bill is simply to reduce abortions. Making it safer is a convenient excuse to throw in in pursuit of that goal.

Edited and published by CB