Philly abortion doctor's trial moves to closing arguments
PHILADELPHIA — Philadelphia prosecutors predicted two years ago that the indictment of an abortion provider charged with killing babies would be exploited by both sides of the nation's polarized abortion debate.
The seven-week murder trial, which moves to closing arguments on Monday, has proved them right.
Abortion foes have accused the media of underpublicizing the trial out of fear it would weaken public support for abortion rights. Abortion-rights advocates have said the grim testimony points to the need for the procedure to be accessible, safe and legal.
“The case is not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants,” prosecutors wrote in the 2011 grand jury report. “We find common ground in exposing what happened here.”
They accuse Kermit Gosnell, 72, of operating “a house of horrors,” where desperate women sought late-term abortions they could not get elsewhere. And he got rich doing so, they said, making millions during a 30-year career.
Prosecutors say Gosnell killed viable babies born alive after putting a steady stream of often low-income, minority women through labor and delivery.
Former employees have testified that Gosnell taught them to “snip” babies' necks after they were delivered to “ensure fetal demise.”
“Why would you cut a baby in the back of the neck unless you were killing them?” Assistant District Attorney Ed Cameron argued last week, as he asked a judge to send all seven first-degree murder charges to the jury.
Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Minehart, though, threw out three of those counts for lack of evidence they were viable, born alive and then killed.
Gosnell also is charged in the overdose death of a patient, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, of Woodbridge, Va.
The jury must weigh the five murder counts, along with lesser charges that include racketeering, performing illegal abortions after 24 weeks, failing to observe the 24-hour waiting period and endangering a child's welfare for employing a 15-year-old in the procedure area.
Defense lawyer Jack McMahon has argued that there were no live births at the clinic, and he found some support from a prosecution witness, Philadelphia's top medical examiner. Dr. Sam Gulino, who examined 47 aborted fetuses stored in freezers at the clinic and said he could not definitively say whether any had taken a breath because the lung tissue had deteriorated.
The prosecution's other evidence to support the live birth argument is from former employees, who testified that they saw aborted babies move, breathe or even cry. McMahon challenged them on cross-examination, questioning whether they had instead seen post-mortem spasms.
“You have to have definite, voluntary movement,” McMahon argued.
The jury has seen a graphic photograph of some of the aborted babies, and a worker testified that Gosnell joked that one was so big “it could walk to the bus.”
Lynda Williams, Adrianne Moton and Sherry West, all untrained clinic workers, and unlicensed doctor Stephen Massof, who grew up in Mt. Lebanon, have each pleaded guilty to third-degree murder charges and testified against Gosnell. Four others have pleaded guilty to lesser charges, including Gosnell's wife, Pearl.
Gosnell did not testify but could take the stand in the penalty phase if he is convicted of first-degree murder.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
Prosecutors say Gosnell is a misogynist for the way he treated female patients while the inner-city doctor described himself as an altruist in a 2010 interview with the Philadelphia Daily News.
“I wanted to be an effective, positive force in the minority community,” Gosnell said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pennsylvania investigators get truck to aid in finding child predators
- Newlyweds guilty in Craigslist killing
- State workers paying less than most for health benefits
- LCB’s biggest store opening in Shadyside neighborhood