Media ignores Pennsylvania abortion trial

  • Article by: Jennifer A. Marshall and Sarah Torre
  • Updated: April 24, 2013 - 8:52 PM

Melissa Ohden went through an abortion and lived to tell about it. That might not sound noteworthy in an era when more than 3,000 women a day have an abortion.

  • 19
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
myob_STApr. 24, 13 9:31 PM

I unequivocally support a woman's right to choose whether to carry a fetus - until the point of viability. As modern medicine moves that point earlier and earlier in a pregnancy, so does that 'decision point' move with it. Any aborted fetus that survives must be dealt with as a living creature with a right to its independent life, with all the medical services dedicated to saving a wanted, prematurely-born child. Make the decision, and live with the decision. But if the child lives, you're a mother with a child to support.

barefootpaulApr. 24, 13 9:51 PM

If abortion were criminalized altogether, there would likely be many more Gosnells. This sounds like the disgusting back alley abortion trade that helped lead to the Roe v Wayde decision. Better to have it in the open where there is some accountability. Any fetus that survives should have full rights and protection, but the mother should have the option of adoption.

imperatorgApr. 25, 1312:04 AM

I don't know what media outlets the authors follow but I have seen continuing coverage on multiple media sites including sites derided by some as being liberal (to quote a favorite movie "You use that word but I do not think it means what you think it means.") and even using the phrase "house of horrors.".

luzhishenApr. 25, 1312:18 AM

The media hasn't ignored this.

herby2013Apr. 25, 13 6:13 AM

It is only natural that a politically-slanted media would ignore the truth when it does not work in their favor. Abortion is a brutal, heinous act and while I personally am opposed to abortion, I understand in some cases it is medically necessary or maybe even justified in cases when a fetus is deformed or whatever. What this case does is shine a light on just what an egregious act abortion is and how only a truly heartless person could make a career out of butchering and killing babies. And speaking of heartless people, there is a reason one political party supports abortion the way it does. The right to choose? It has nothing to do with choice.

wa0tdaApr. 25, 13 6:29 AM

This story has been covered. What I take from this piece is that the authors assert that outlawing abortion will mitigate the problems associated with clinics like this. Who can possibly take that seriously when the whole thing is about law breaking in the first place?

william16Apr. 25, 13 6:47 AM

Re the "story ignored" angle: a quick check of the Strib's own database shows the paper's first story on Dr. Gosnell (an AP story) appeared on April 4--3 weeks after his trial began on March 18, and more than 2 years after Gosnell was arrested in January 2011. It's only been in April that the Strib (and most other major news outlets) have begun covering this story in earnest, perhaps due in part to being asked why they had ignored it for so long.

davehougApr. 25, 13 7:02 AM

a) Pro-choice may be an anti-coat hanger view. b) The choice IS a moral decision, hopefully a hard one. c) Few want abortion to be a casual method, like a condom. d) A ruling from the Supreme Court doesn't stop moral views from being expressed.

pumiceApr. 25, 13 7:08 AM

Re: "I don't know what media outlets the authors follow but I have seen continuing coverage on multiple media sites including sites derided by some as being liberal." Exactly, imperatorg. AP has had a reporter on the Gosnell trial from the outset. The Phila Inquirer, CNN, Reuters, WaPo, NBC10, Phila Mag and others continue covering the trial. The NYTimes is covering highlights. Just yesterday NPR had a segment on the trial as did MSNBC's evening crew. One wonders what would satisfy Jennifer A. Marshall and Sarah Torre....

nkeithApr. 25, 13 9:50 AM

The authors use pejoratives and misinformation to try to make their point. Actually, the media hasn't ignored this, and the term 'abortionist' has been entirely made up my the so called 'pro-life' set. If the procedure were to be criminalized, we would see much more of this illegal activity. It is precisely because of legalization we don't. People forget that prior to Roe v. Wade 10,000 American women a year died from this type of stuff.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters