Dr. Kermit Gosnell Avoids Death Penalty, Waives Appeals

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue May 14, 2013 at 07:09:29 PM EST
Tags: abortion, Kermit Gosnell (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell agreed today to two life sentences and waive his appeal rights in exchange for the state taking the death penalty off the table.

Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder on Monday in the deaths of three babies who were born live and then killed by severing their spinal chords with scissors. As part of the deal, Gosnell, 72, will serve two life sentences without the possibility of parole or the opportunity to appeal.

Sentencing is set for tomorrow. [More...]

As I wrote at the time the Indictment was handed down:

This clinic should have been shut down years ago, not because abortions were being performed, but because of the squalid conditions, risk to the lives of the mothers and lack of medical personnel.

Seeking the death penalty was overkill:

Since Dr. Gosnell is 70 years old, if convicted, he would likely get a sentence that amounts to life in prison. That is, for all practical effect, a death sentence: the only way he comes out is in a pine box. If sentenced to death, his appeals would take years, and likely outlive him. Insisting that he be executed is a waste of the state's judicial and financial resources.

This case should strengthen, not weaken, the case for legal abortions. As Harry Reid said today, it is restrictions on legalized abortions that force women to turn to doctors like Gosnell.

< "Expert" Reports in George Zimmerman Case Disclosed | AG Holder Recused Himself in AP Toll Records Case >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell Avoids Death Penalty, Waives Appeals | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

As you wrote - (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by lentinel on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:07:46 AM EST

It was also reported that this clinic had not received an inspection by the State in years.

Why not?

Who is responsible for that lapse?
The Pennsylvania Department of Health was derelict in its duty, but who allowed it to be so?

Is there any punishment for this lapse?
There should be. If Gosnell is a murderer, as I believe he is, the State is an accessory to murder.

Had the State done its job, those two babies might be alive today.

What this case shows (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:45:46 AM EST

What this case shows is the political power of the abortion industry to operate without effective, or more specifically in this case any regulation.

BTW, this is another example of the death penalty saving the taxpayer significant resources.

No, the Gosnell clinic is a preview (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Anne on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:57:48 AM EST

of what awaits women if further restrictions are placed on a their right to make their own reproductive choices.

I am horrified by what went on there, but I do not in any way lay it at the feet of pro-choice proponents.


Yes exactly, Anne. As a couple of colleagues (5.00 / 5) (#20)
by Peter G on Wed May 15, 2013 at 01:56:15 PM EST

from the ACLU of PA (a staff member and a fellow Board member, who is a doctor) wrote in an op-ed published today in the Philadelphia Inquirer (I helped review and edit before submission). It was Planned Parenthood and the other legitimate providers and women's health advocates, by the way, who lodged the complaints about Gosnell's clinic with the State and were ignored, not any anti-abortion groups. (The "right-to-lifers" were apparently too busy picketing Planned Parenthood to notice Gosnell.) So it can hardly have been the so-called "abortion industry" that the DA claims had the political pull to prevent inspections and enforcement of PA's supposedly stringent regulations. Not that I necessarily believe what some Assistant DA wrote in a so-called "grand jury report" about the reasons for lack of enforcement anyway. So far as I know, the grand jury did not actually investigate the failures of the State Department of Health; they only investigated Dr. Gosnell and his staff.


: Excellent and powerful op Ed (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:08:00 PM EST

Thank you for your work and for posting it.

BS (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Yman on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:59:33 AM EST

What is your source for the claim that abortions in Pa are unregulated?


The source is the grand jury report. (1.00 / 2) (#4)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:59:26 AM EST

...Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for
political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all.

...

Yet not one of these alarm bells - not
even Mrs. Mongar's death - prompted the
department to look at Gosnell or the Women's Medical Society.

Yes, regulation existed on paper but were not enforced, and complaints were ignored by the so called "regulators." This is a crystal clear demonstration of the political power of the abortion industry.

WTF? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Dadler on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:00:16 AM EST

There is an "abortion industry" in the same way there's a powerful "left wing" in this country.

This is about making abortions so hard to come by safely that women have to resort to coathanger "doctors." And that is so obvious it's comical.

Why the lack of regulation? One can only guess, but unless you can point me to records of all the lavish campaign money given by the "industry" to pols, then your "industry" accusation is complete bullsh*t.

Unsafe and barely legal is no way to provide reproductive services to women.


The little bit of the Grand Jury report (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by Anne on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:25:06 AM EST

that I read is a scathing review of the Pennsylvania Department of Health's abject failure to inspect and make sure these types of facilities were properly staffed and maintaining the legally-mandated standards.

There is mention that how the Dept. of Health dealt with these facilities varied from administration to administration, but the bottom line is that the DOH's failures are at least partially responsible for why this clinic was allowed to continue to be licensed and was able to operate for as long as it was.

It's a stretch, though, to make the claim that this is all because the so-called abortion "industry" was so powerful. I don't know of a single pro-choice organization or advocate that would have found what was happening at this clinic to be acceptable on any level, or would condone the deaths of women or be able to rationalize the killing of late-term fetuses born alive.

But, no one's ever accused Abdul here of ever missing any opportunity to accuse and indict "the left" even if he has to twist the facts to do so. I don't know why we continue to respond to him, other than not wanting what he writes to be assumed to be the truth.


Evidence (1.00 / 2) (#11)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:42:38 AM EST

Making a decision for political reasons is evidence of political power at work. That is always true, not just in this case.


: The (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by lentinel on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:14:53 AM EST

term you have placed in bold, "for political reasons" is vague unless you want to go to the trouble of telling us who you have found to be the political interests pulling the strings for this negligence on the part of the State - and your proof or sources for your conclusion.
In other words, if you are making the charge that people running legitimate clinics, or in favor of them, were behind the State's obvious negligence, I think you have to offer proof of your assertion.

: It is (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Yman on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:22:55 AM EST

Making a decision for political reasons is evidence of political power at work.

Unfortunately for you, it is NOT evidence that the decision to stop inspecting abortion clinics was due to the influence of the "abortion industry", which is what you are claiming.

Of course there is an abortion industry (1.00 / 2) (#6)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:17:41 AM EST

Of course there is an abortion industry. Abortions don't happen by magic or for free. There are hired staff, vendors to be paid for both goods and services, prices charged, payments received, and services provided just like every other service industry.

Like the Powerful... (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by ScottW714 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:39:59 AM EST

...root canal industry ?

At what point in time did medical procedures become industries ?


Industry (1.00 / 2) (#13)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:56:18 AM EST

Yes, that service is provided by industry. You will note that the folks performing that root canal expect to be paid for the service performed.

noun: the organized action of making of goods and services for sale

noun: the people or companies engaged in a particular kind of commercial enterprise


: Just like any other "industry" - heh (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by Yman on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:34:11 AM EST

So your use of the term "abortion industry" is not intended as a pejorative term used to impugn the motives of legitimate/ethical abortion providers, but merely a way you'd refer to anyone providing a service while being paid.
Sort of like how you refer to your pastor as a member of the "organized religion industry".
Heh.

They're like every other industry??? (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Dadler on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:41:48 AM EST

Sure they are, I can go get a medically safe abortion as easily as I can go to WalMart and get sweatshop made clothes.

Oy.


: Good grief. (1.00 / 3) (#12)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:46:58 AM EST

.
The abortion industry does not deliver packages.
The package delivery industry (FedEx, USPS, UPS, et al) does not perform abortions.
Nevertheless, they are both service industries.
.

Abortion is a medical/surgical (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by Anne on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:13:41 AM EST

procedure, no different from an appendectomy, a caesarean section, a coronary bypass, a hip replacement, or a tonsillectomy.

Are these all separate industries? Subsets of the medical industry?

Have you been following at all the controversy over orthopaedic surgeons owning diagnostic facilities and getting a financial benefit from referring their patients to those facilities?

While proponents of choice believe strongly that we do not need more regulations that further restrict the choices available to women, I would challenge you to find me any instance where a pro-choice advocate or organization has supported the kinds of conditions that existed at this clinic. You can point to the Grand Jury conclusion that the failure to inspect and hold accountable these facilities was a deliberate political decision, but where is the so-called abortion industry defending anything that was happening at that clinic?

The thing that people like you never seem to acknowledge is that making it harder for women to get the care they need doesn't mean they will stop seeking that care - it just means they will be forced into unsafe facilities and treated at the hands of incompetent doctors, with the result that more women will die or be seriously harmed.

If you think that's what pro-choice advocates want, you're even more clueless and dishonest than your comments indicate.


Good to See... (5.00 / 5) (#8)
by ScottW714 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:32:19 AM EST

...your new found belief that enforced regulation is a necessity to ensure industry operates in the best interest of the public. Your contempt for a non-regulated 'industry' is commendable.

There is not a person on the left defending this kind of place, as a matter of fact most want well regulated and funded clinics that match, if not exceed the professionalism and cleanliness of any clinic that performs medical procedures.

The right wants to close them all down without acknowledging the demand will remain, which guarantees a black market, aka an unregulated market, the kind you condemn above.


You're contradicting yourself (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Yman on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:19:28 AM EST

You first claimed that there was no regulation of the "abortion industry":

You then cite the Grand Jury Report which clearly indicated there is regulation of the doctors and facilities which perform abortions, but alleges the enforcement of these regulations was poor (under Gov. Casey - a staunch pro-life governor) and/or ceased entirely (in the case of facility inspections) because it would "put up a barrier to women seeking abortions" (under Gov. Ridge - a pro-choice Republican).

So now you're acknowledging the obvious (there is regulation), but blaming it on the "power of the abortion industry") - once again without the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims.

Do you think adding the words "crystal clear demonstration" will magically turn a specious claim int a fact?
