“They stated that, while some might see the issue and case through the lens of pro- and anti-abortion politics, it was in reality:
‘not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants...’”
It is a very small step to go from a pro-abortion position to disdain for the lives of infants. For example, those at DU hold Gosnell up as a hero.
He is either a butcher or a hero, depending on where you draw your line in the sand for the respect for life. There is no gray-area with Gosnell. For the pro-abortion crowd, that line in the sand has always been wide and fuzzy over the entire spectrum of abortions...and it makes them deeply uncomfortable to have to narrow the focus of that line. I suspect that this is why MSM coverage of this trial has been so sparse...they know their pro-abort readers/viewers prefer to avoid defining their morals to any set standard.
The court may choose to avoid the abortion controversy, but it is impossible for someone who is pro-abortion to know about this case and not apply moral absolutes to their life of relative morality.
What is so ironic is that the pro abortion people pushed legalized abortion as a way to eliminate back alley abortion clinics, which were horrible and unsafe. Now we have Kermit Gosnells practicing all over the country. He was caught “by accident”?? This is breathtaking.