Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor in west Philadelphia, entered his fifth week of trial earlier this week for charges of first-and-third degree murder, illegal prescribing of drugs, conspiracy related to corruption, illegal abortions and related medical malpractice offenses.
Some of you may be familiar with this story; others may have just now heard about the trial. Perhaps some of you haven’t heard about this case at all. What seems like a front page news story – abortionist arrested on eight counts of murder, seven of them being newborn babies – has been eerily muted compared to other heinous crime coverage we’ve seen this year.
   Kristen Powers, a columnist for The Daily Beast and contributor to USA Today, was one of the first to break the media silence about the Gosnell trial. The first few sentences of her article published in USA Today present a harsh reality: “Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven’t heard about these sickening accusations? It’s not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page,” she wrote.
   The media covered the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for weeks. The Sandra Fluke -Rush Limbaugh controversy made front page news. Why are we just now seeing proper media coverage in the fifth week of such a gruesome trial? Why wasn’t this worthy of front-page coverage from the beginning?
Because exposing this trial would make everyone question the concept of personhood. 
I consider myself to hold moderate political views, staying away from words like “conservative” or “liberal.” If you want to give me a label, I’m a big fan of human rights. I want to be a voice to the voiceless, help the needy, comfort the hurting and stand up for others when they cannot stand up for themselves. I think everyone deserves a chance for a life of liberty and a pursuit of happiness.
   Some individuals who support abortion believe a woman’s right to choose whether or not to end her pregnancy protects her human rights. Others against abortion speak in defense of the unborn child, claiming the baby has human rights in need of protection.
To me – with the complicated exception of rape, abuse or incest – a woman shares her human rights when she becomes pregnant.
   If I could have my way, I’d do away with the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” I’d like everyone to be “pro-humanity.”
Personal beliefs aside, I’m appalled at the lack of media coverage with this trial. Journalists have the responsibility to seek and share the truth – and even though stories like Gosnell’s trial may seem over-exaggerated (I wish it was), journalists don’t have the option to put their hands over their ears, close their eyes and hum “la-la-la-la” to make the stories go away.
  Pro-choice writer Megan McArdle explained why she avoided the subject in an article from The Daily Beast.
“Gosnell is accused of grisly crimes that I didn’t want to think about… I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists of being selective – of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories – if the sick-making was done by ‘our side.’ Exposing Gosnell’s trial may seem like a victory in the eyes of pro-life supporters because the public will be forced to hear about the horrors of that abortion clinic the “ugliest possibilities of abortion rights,” in the words of McArdle. 
  Hearing of severed baby feet in jars, decapitated infants and a baby’s cry during an abortion procedure should make you sick. I don’t care what political belief you hold. But all abortion clinics aren’t like Gosnell’s. Most clinics provide women with a quick, safe procedure in a clean environment. But Gosnell catered to women with limited options – poor minorities and immigrants who were able to afford his services. Exposing this trial will also expose what happens when women don’t have the financial means to have a proper procedure done.
   I think a bigger issue is presented in the midst of this mess. An issue that is not about health care, family planning options or a woman’s rights.
   We simply cannot deny that life begins at conception – but when does a person gain human rights? Since the babies killed in Gosnell’s clinic were obviously unwanted, why charge him with eight counts of murder instead of one? Are those infants given human rights even though they were the product of an abortion?
How is a mangled wad of tissue different from an object that looks like a baby and cries like a baby when it dies? I promise I’m not being condescending, but for a baby to be born – for a person to become a person – a pregnancy must occur.
Gosnell’s trial exposes the complications of trying to define when a person can have rights, and it’s going to be a nightmare for the media to try to explain.