The Gosnell Paradox

Still consumed with the abortion debate that has taken the nation by storm since last week's standoff in Texas, my fellow conservatives took a turn for the worse when invoking the crimes committed by Gosnell in Philadelphia as a reason for this renewed push against abortion.

We can start off by saying that what Gosnell did in Pennsylvania was not only illegal, but monstrous in every way, shape and form. However, as is pointed out by USA Today, he also broke the 24-week law already on the books. So you ask, how can this be? Small government conservatives, who attempted to ward off the creation  of new gun laws in spite of the Newtown and Aurora massacres ...are now advocating for more laws in the wake of other crimes?

This is exactly what is happening. When crimes are committed with guns, we claim we just need to enforce the laws on the books and not burden other, law-abiding Americans with more restraints. But with Gosnell, a man running an abortion clinic who repeatedly broke the law while conducting his practice, we argue for more laws on top of the ones Gosnell already broke, across the country no less. The logic is that is if you want to create another law on top of a law already passed, the issue is truly with enforcement of the law, not the law itself...right?

For example, let's see what John Boehner had to say on both subjects. Abortion (via the Huffington Post):

"No. Listen, after this Kermit Gosnell trial and some of the horrific acts that were going on, the vast majority of the American people believe in the substance of this bill and so do I."

Boehner on Guns (via The Slate):

“We’re not enforcing the laws that we have on the books today, and so if we’re going to have a background check that’s in the law, lets make sure we do a real background check, which in not all cases actually happens."

So when someone breaks laws on the books when conducting abortions, we need more laws. However, when someone breaks laws on the books when using firearms, we need restraint and are better off enforcing the laws we already have, not creating new ones.

Further damaging is the rhetoric featured by Washington Examiner Columnist David Freddoso:

"That reason, of course, concerns the lack of regulation that enabled the notorious Philadelphia abortionist and now-convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell."

"The grand jury noted that even after Gosnell's unqualified, unlicensed staff had (at his direction) given her a lethal overdose of local anesthetic..."

"...The grand jury concluded that, had Gosnell's clinic been regulated like other "ambulatory surgical facilities..."

"These are the kind of rules that Davis filibustered against."

But his stance on the size of government changes when rightfully defending the Second Amendment in 2010:

"Even within that framework, our government already prevents gun purchases by felons (deprived by "due process of law"), fugitives and illegal aliens."

Again, with abortion, we seem to throw logic out the window and clamor for more laws and regulations on top of the ones already in place. If Gosnell followed the law on the books, the point would be moot.Where is the argument for enforcing the laws already enacted?  As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is a hypocritical stance and is extremely damaging to the Republican Party. We are picking and choosing with small government and the results of the 2012 presidential election were a direct result of that. The prioritization of these social issues by the GOP is an albatross that has done nothing but damage the party's credibility. After all, it is rather awkward to be advocating for small government and large government at the same time. Small government is about tolerating other aspects of society that you may not agree with, but do so in the pursuit of small government. In today's tumultuous political climate, many Republicans seem to have forgotten that.

Finally, it is disingenuous to say that the Republican Party was compelled to act in the wake of Gosnell's heinous crimes. We make it seem as if we were some dutiful superhero, lurking in the dark and only finally being drawn to action in response to insurmountably despicable crimes against the public good.  This all sounds well and good, except for the fact that 2011 was a record year for abortion laws, with 43 more passing in various states in 2012.

Perhaps it is just yet another woeful case of pundits searching for real-life scenarios to embrace by taking advantage of public outcry in order to advance their biased agendas. Historically, the best way to counteract this political ax-grinding is to rely on the business professionals in these arenas and seek their guidance, you know like the Texas Hospital Association, the Texas Medical Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who oppose these bills. Listening to business interests, I thought what was what we Republicans used to be about? A paradox indeed.




References:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/if-only-kermit-gosnell-had-worn-pink-sneakers-like-wendy-davis/article/2532532
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/30/20-week-abortion-ban-editorials-debates/2477579/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/john-boehner-abortion_n_3460974.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/04/10/gun_control_compromise_house_speaker_john_boehner_will_wait_and_see_on_senate.html
http://washingtonexaminer.com/if-only-kermit-gosnell-had-worn-pink-sneakers-like-wendy-davis/article/2532532
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/david-freddoso-should-ted-kennedy-have-been-allowed-to-buy-a-gun/Content?oid=2129553
http://themiddlethirty.blogspot.com/2013/06/was-filibuster-rick-perrys-waterloo.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/state-abortion-laws_n_1684825.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/2012_was_a_banner_year_for_anti_abortion_laws/
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/wendy_davis_gears_up_for_round_two_of_texas_abortion_battle/
http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/economic_development/P30/