Harry Reid: The Real Lesson of Gosnell Is That We Need Cleaner Abortion Offices

Via Allah, who has more, but you'll have to go over there for that.

The spin from Planned Parenthood is that Gosnell was apparently convicted for Conspiracy to Keep a Dirty Office -- that is to say, the only conviction that "counts" is the 3rd degree murder charge of the woman he butchered in a botched abortion, and the general lack of hygiene of the place.

Gosnell was not convicted of Conspiracy to Keep a Dirty Office.

He was convicted of first-degree aggravated (capital) murder of three live-born babies, by method of snipping their spinal cords with scissors.

It's a pernicious lie that only an idiot could believe.

And yet the media seems okay with it. Oh, I'm not saying they believe it. But they don't mind propagating it.

It's helpful to their cause.

It's also a lie, but that has long ago ceased being any sort of concern to them.

Also linked below, Bret Baier's panel discusses whether or not this will "change the debate" on abortion. Kristen Powers notes that many pro-choice women erroneously believe that no abortions are permitted (absent extraordinary circumstances) after twelve weeks, which is why they're so chill on the subject of late term abortion. They believe it's already illegal, and, ergo, anyone wishing to tighten up abortion laws must have more in mind than that.

The media, of course, will not disabuse them of this false belief.

The public doesn't know it's a problem if they don't know it's a problem. Yogi Bera said that, or he would have, if he'd had a blog.

Steven Hayes and Kristen Powers then debate whether or not Gosnell will "change the discussion" on abortion. Hayes says it must, Powers says she's "skeptical."

Powers is correct. She's also in a better position to know -- she allies with liberals and understands how they think, and how they suppress information damaging to their cause. Given her late declarations that the media has a serious problem in how it reports stories (that is, given its excruciatingly obvious and blatant propagandizing function), she also has a more realistic appraisal of precisely how propagandistic the media has become than Hayes does.

Hayes seems to still believe that truth matters.

As Harry Reid just told you, this is just about cleaning instruments and occasionally giving the operating table a good wipe-down.

Who in the media will say differently?*

* In fairness, the reporters do seem to be less than satisfied with Reid's answer. It's hard to say, as the clip ends so shortly after his response. And yet, while they may be personally offended to have such unmitigated bullshit thrown right into their faces, they may be much less inclined to note it's bullshit for their audiences.

Update: That reporter unsatisfied with Reid's answer?

John W. McCormack of the Weekly Standard.

So my "in fairness" paragraph is simply wrong -- we have no evidence here that the leftist media has any problem with Reid's answer. The only person we know who was bothered by it is a guy working in the alternative media.

posted by Ace at 05:47 PM

| Access Comments