Gosnell Another Example . . . Resisting Damage Pounding Away At Foundations Of Family

By DEXTER DUGGAN

When rap artist and entertainment entrepreneur Kanye West showed up at Donald Trump’s big house on October 11 to praise “male energy” and proclaim a sense of having acquired Superman’s power, he had the potential to topple a lot of shivering pillars that support the temple of secular irrationality.
Dominant media dissed Kanye right away for repeating his admiration for Republican earthquake Trump. It’s only okay with them for entertainment stars to support leftish Democrats, as singer Taylor Swift did a few days earlier, breaking her political silence on October 7, and journos squeaked with pleasure.
Not only did West’s star power pose the threat of attracting more black voters away from the Democrat plantation. He also obliquely put the forbidden topic on the table of the damage done to the family for decades by theories from radical feminism.
Facing Trump across his White House desk, West, who looks like a self-sufficient, strong guy, recalled the emotional deprivation of being raised in a home lacking a father. Wearing a famed red MAGA cap, West said that because his parents had separated, “I didn’t have a lot of male energy in my home” and couldn’t play much catch with his Dad.
But when he put on the cap of the no-nonsense, masculine Trump, “it made me feel like Superman.”
It’s not that West hoped to make enemies by expressing political affections — “I love Hillary, I love everyone” — but now he had “a Superman cape” to face life with.
West encouraging black empowerment had to strike fear among Democratic Party honchos who had punched their meal tickets by telling blacks that rascally racist Republicans wanted to snatch the food out of their mouths.
Hmmm. What will the nation see at the #WalkAway March of former Democrats heading for Washington, D.C., on October 27 (walkawaycampaign.com)? Its media kit says, “It is a Facebook video campaign movement, dedicated to sharing the stories of people who can no longer accept the current ideology of liberalism and what the Democratic Party has become.” Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, those who saw the evolution of current radical feminism from its beginnings in the 1960s didn’t have to look far to find its resentment and even anger at men and masculinity — even as it aspired to make women more like men in freedom from pregnancy and romantic commitment, and hungering more for power achievement in the daily capitalist workplace.
Feminism saw women as having equal dignity. But radical feminism saw men as insufferable enemies.
Men were replaceable, superfluous, an encumbrance. Why, the radicals chuckled, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” as illustrated with a poster of a foolish fish trying to balance from the seat of an old-fashioned high-wheeler.
A woman-only family was as good as a mom-and-dad one, or most probably better. This has been the automatic assumption since then, finally transmuted into the advent of spreading transgenderism, where any inclination may be as good as another, and can be changed as inconsequentially as socks.
Democratic Party leftism and radical feminism became twin battering rams against the integrity of the family, with poor families perhaps more vulnerable. But what did it matter if Democratic politicians and the social-managing class grew more powerful at the expense of weakened blacks?
And how did it make any sense that a radical feminism claiming to champion women’s dignity was seduced by a cause that mercilessly slaughtered tens of millions of female babies? What dignity was there to tossing these little females into the trash? What reason was there for a media that fancied itself speaking truth to power to clamp its jaws shut at this gendercide?
Making sure to put abortion clinics and the anti-family militancy of artificial “family planning” into poor neighborhoods was another link in knitting the chains of modern slavery, as the recently released movie about Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell demonstrates.
Preying on vulnerable infants and their mothers was his way of life, but the ending of theirs, in low-income neighborhoods.
In a movie that has plenty of appalling aspects, one of the strongest scenes may occur when the so-called respectable abortionist Dr. North, coldly pretty and fashionably attired, takes the stand to testify about medical standards of practice.
Dr. North has done more than 30,000 abortions but she’s not charged with any crime because she does them the Supreme Court-approved way. Goodness no, she doesn’t do abortions by slitting live-born babies’ necks, one of Gosnell’s alleged crimes.
The jury learns that the undesired pregnancies subjected to her techniques have their limbs removed, or their brains sucked away, or have poison injected into their hearts.
Using a large sonogram image of a preborn baby, Gosnell’s defense attorney asks Dr. North to show where she would inject the poison through the long needle of the syringe. And how about babies born alive? What would she do with them? Dr. North replies that she doesn’t have survivals.
But, the defender asks, what if one survived? The baby would be given “comfort care,” she replies, meaning set aside to die.
The defense attorney hopes he has made his point with the jury. Gosnell is barely any different than other abortionists, except he doesn’t leave the babies suffering for hours before they expire. Indeed, at another point in the film, as Gosnell confers with counsel, his attitude is that he’s helping women without getting tangled up in silly details.

Gianna Jessen

A legal abortionist testifying on standards of practice is something I saw back in the late 1970s when I covered my first assignment for The Wanderer, the trial of William Baxter Waddill Jr., a busy southern California abortionist accused of killing Baby Girl Weaver in a Westminster, Calif., newborn nursery after nurses took her there when she survived one of Waddill’s saline abortions.
Whether babies survive abortions was a courtroom issue. Waddill said he couldn’t conceive of it because saline abortion creates such a toxic environment.
An even busier California abortionist, Edward Allred, MD, was called to the courtroom to testify on how he did his job. He had had four survivals, Allred said, although only one of the infants, a girl, had continued to live.
She and another baby girl who survived a different abortionist were brought into the courtroom as living evidence.
Allred’s survivor grew up to be Gianna Jessen. Decades later Gianna asked me how her abortionist looked in court. I don’t know if she expected me to say someone villainous. I said he looked like a guy from the country club. Quite a nice tan — back in the days before skin cancer was such a worry.
Blogger Matt Walsh posted at The Daily Wire site on October 12 that the Gosnell film, which dominant media mainly avoided reviewing, makes the point that the same media mainly avoided the trial itself.
Simply, these media love permissive abortion while knowing fully well what it involves. But they know people in general would rise up in revolt against what the elitist Supreme Court did back in 1973 if they realized. So for decade after decade these media have lied, propagandized, and covered up, to keep this slaughter of innocents going — getting close to a half-century now!
In the meantime, enough people’s minds had been poisoned by the propaganda that now the Democratic Party openly supports widespread, unrestricted abortion, even though back in the relatively recent Bill Clinton presidential years, he knew it wasn’t safe to say that.
The human longing for perfect justice suggests it’s out there somewhere, if not on this side of the door to eternity, then on the other side. What if the souls of aborted babies are the doorkeepers when media biggies who promoted their deaths try to saunter through? Now there’s an interesting scene for a movie.