Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gosnell Not the First to Do Live-Birth Abortions, Meet Kenneth Edelin
Life News ^ | Sarah Terzo

Posted on 05/02/2013 1:08:19 PM PDT by Morgana

Philadelphia, PA (LiveActionNews) — The Kermit Gosnell trial has shocked many in the pro-life movement and in the general public. But as shocking as the Gosnell situation is, this is not the first time a doctor has been brought up on charges after killing a baby born alive after an abortion. In fact, it is happened twice before – and in both instances, the doctor was never punished.

Dr. Kenneth Edelin was a member of the National Abortion Federation. The National Abortion Federation, or NAF, is an organization of abortion providers. Facilities endorsed by the NAF are supposed to be the best facilities - cleaner, more professional, and with higher medical quality standards. In many cases, however, NAF facilities have had serious problems despite their endorsement.

In 1973, Edelin was an abortionist at Boston City Hospital. A 17-year-old girl came in for a routine abortion. She claimed she was 17 weeks pregnant. One doctor examined her and said that she was closer 20 weeks. Later she was estimated to be 24 weeks along. Yet another doctor estimated her pregnancy as 22 weeks. Despite the confusion, Dr. Edelin and Dr. Penza (the abortionists on staff) chose to perform a saline abortion on her. A saline abortion is performed by injecting caustic saline solution into the woman’s uterus. The solution burns and poisons the baby over a period of several hours, and then labor is induced, with the woman “giving birth” to her dead child. This abortion procedure is seldom used today because of its risks to the mother and the large number of live births that were attributed to it.

The abortion went wrong from the beginning. Dr. Penza was to perform the saline abortion. After two attempts to inject the saline solution Dr. Penza gave up. Edelin took over and decided to perform hysterotomy. A hysterotomy is a little used abortion procedure which is performed like a cesarean section – the womb is cut open, and the baby is removed. What happened next is still in dispute.

Edelin’s legal team made the case that the baby was killed while still inside the uterus. According to pro-choice author Marion Faux:

“He [Dr. Edelin] “had run his finger around the uterine wall to separate the fetus from the placenta and then stood looking at a wall clock for three minutes before removing the fetus from the uterus.”(1)

In this way, Faux said he suffocated the infant. Other witnesses, however, claimed that the baby was born alive and then suffocated. After an autopsy of the baby, a medical examiner and pathologist testified that the baby could have been born alive after examining the baby’s lungs to determine whether or not he had taken a breath outside the womb. Edelin’s defense produced experts to contest their estimation. One claimed that the condition of the lungs was caused by the saline solution that was unsuccessfully injected before the hysterotomy attempt. However, since witnesses claim that the saline solution never penetrated the amniotic sac, such a claim is unlikely. Edelin himself was quoted saying that he’d had no intention of delivering a live baby “”It would have been contrary to the wishes of the mother.”

In the end, Edelin was convicted of manslaughter. Many jurors claimed that the picture of the aborted baby was pivotal in their decision. According to one report, a jury member said:

“The picture helped people draw their own conclusions. Everybody in the room made up their minds that the fetus was a person.”

Edelin was found guilty of manslaughter. The verdict was delivered amid accusations of racism – an all-white jury had convicted in African-American doctor. One alternate juror claimed to have heard a jury member making racist remarks.

A year later, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overturned the verdict and exonerated Edelin. It seems that the crux of the argument against his conviction was the conflicting testimony and the fact that experts claimed that the baby was not “viable.” They claimed that the baby could not survive outside the woman’s womb, and, therefore, any steps taken to kill the child should not be prosecuted. Edelin’s career was not damaged by the trial. Only three years later, he became the Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Boston University medical school. Many years later, in 1990, he became chairman of the board at Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

1. Marian Faux Crusaders: Voices from the Abortion Front (New York: Carol Publishing Group) 1990 p 4

TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionists; edelin; gosnell; prolife

1 posted on 05/02/2013 1:08:19 PM PDT by Morgana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morgana

One thing that baffles my mind.... when you bring a pet in to be euthanized, it’s usually done very gently. The pet gets a little injection and passes away quietly.

Why do the unborn have to be subjected to such brutality? I’m in no way in favor of abortion, by why do these doctors choose to perform these unthinkable acts with such barbarism?

2 posted on 05/02/2013 1:14:40 PM PDT by diamond6 (Lord, please have mercy on us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Distorting the definition of “viable.”
Viable means can live with the normal care - milk, changing, love.
Obviously if you leave a normal newborn on a table without milk he or she will die.

The country has ALREADY reached the point where after birth murder is OK, because it is not being prosecuted.

The underlying reason is raging man-hating feminazis who want their abortion, and if it fails, they want the baby dead so they can have their sex but not be punished by a baby.

We are in deep $hit.

3 posted on 05/02/2013 1:16:54 PM PDT by I want the USA back (Pi$$ed off yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
Our collective horror over this fellow is a sign of our societal moral depravity.
How does his clinic of death differ from every other one since 1973? That we have lived
passively jeek-by-jowl to auschwitz, inc. in every neighborhood has sent our culture into immoral freefall.
4 posted on 05/02/2013 1:23:24 PM PDT by jobim (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jobim

Apologies for the fractured syntax in my post.

5 posted on 05/02/2013 1:25:08 PM PDT by jobim (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jobim

Seems many expect moral/ethical behavior from abortionists. Talk about a disconnect.

6 posted on 05/02/2013 1:26:37 PM PDT by CityCenter (No matter how good your PR is, you can't outsmart the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter
Quite right. Would that every abortion murderer were as honest in his butchery as old Gosnell.

That pizza deliverymen, vaccuum cleaner salesmen, painters, drywallers, phone companymen,
Girl Scout cookie salesgirls, roving would-be politicians, the mailman: all
had caught glimpses of blood on the thresholds, on the typewriters, under the fingernails
of disheveled clerk/assassins, all had whiffed the afterbirth/afterdeath, all
were absolutely confronted with the true horror, not of slaughter by tyranny -
as history has shown to be a commonplace - but of slaughter by freely-arrived-at,
mundanely sterile, personal decisions of convenience.

Mistah Kurtz, he not dead - no siree. He be Everyman.
7 posted on 05/02/2013 1:55:17 PM PDT by jobim (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Can we here, at least, stop using the twisted terms that our opponents use? There is no such thing as ‘live birth abortion’. It is nothing less than killing a baby.

8 posted on 05/02/2013 3:03:21 PM PDT by OldNewYork (Biden '13. Impeach now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: diamond6

“Why do the unborn have to be subjected to such brutality?”

This is just my opinion but I have pondered what you have asked. The only reasonable conclusion that I have come up with is that there is some sort of joy/satisfaction by doing it that way. Sort of like how a serial killer will “get off” by inflicting pain and torture on his/her victim. I know we throw around the word “sociopath” but in these cases it fits. No empathy, no sympathy, no compassion.... no soul.

9 posted on 05/02/2013 3:29:15 PM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

Well that makes alot of sense.

Can you imagine the outcry if we did the same thing to animals?

This is merely proof that Satan exists and has a stronghold on this world and it’s citizens.

10 posted on 05/02/2013 6:28:44 PM PDT by diamond6 (Lord, please have mercy on us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson