Secular Pro-Life
  • Home
  • About
    • Meet The Team
    • Mission and Vision
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Stances
      • Abortion
      • Religion
      • Contraception
      • The Rape Exception
    • Privacy
  • Content
    • Index
    • Blog
    • Presentations
      • A Secular Case Against Abortion
      • Building Bridges
      • Deconstructing Three Pro-Choice Myths
      • Overlooked Findings of the Turnaway Study
    • Research
      • Abortion Law and Abortion Rates
      • Abortion Law and Pregnancy Rates
      • Later Abortion
      • Embryonic Hearts
      • Abortion Views and Gender
    • Collections
      • For the biology textbook tells me so
      • They can hear you
      • Parents can hear you
      • Our children’s heartbeats
      • Becoming Pro-Life
      • Ask An Atheist
      • Fixed that meme for you
    • Print Materials
      • 100 Pro-Life Sign Ideas
      • Overview Brochure
      • FAQ
      • Why Secular People Should Care
      • Tell People You’re Pro-Life
      • Bridges
      • Presentation Overview card
    • Store
  • Contact
  • Get Involved
    • Why support SPL?
    • Donor Opportunities
    • Volunteer Opportunities
    • Volunteer Survey
    • More Surveys
      • Why do you support SPL?
      • Best and Worst Abortion Arguments
      • “Ask An Atheist” Interview
      • Non-Traditional Pro-Life Survey
      • LGBT Pro-Life Survey
      • Parents experiences with prenatal screening
  • Donate
  • Menu Menu

Defending the Indefensible: Closing Arguments in the Gosnell Trial

April 30, 2013/1 Comment/in Uncategorized /by Kelsey Hazzard

[Today’s post originally appeared on the Americans United for Life blog.]

Jack McMahon, the defense attorney for Kermit Gosnell, is a friendly guy. Before the trial began, he chit-chatted with pro-lifers in the gallery. He couldn’t discuss the case, of course, but he shared funny stories and talked golf. He seemed like a nice man.

Only he knows his motives for taking this case. Maybe he’s in it for the money. Maybe he truly believes in Gosnell’s innocence. Or perhaps he felt that he could handle it emotionally, and therefore had an obligation to take the case. (If no attorney were willing to represent Gosnell, the court would have conscripted someone, to fulfill Gosnell’s right to counsel.)

For whatever reason, when the court session began, he proceeded to defend the indefensible.

At the core of his closing argument was the assertion that no babies were born alive; they were all injected with the lethal drug digoxin in utero. But this raises an obvious question: if the babies were dead, why would Gosnell’s employees “snip” their spinal cords?

McMahon’s answer was confused: “Maybe to end the pain, some remote pain left in there.” Apparently the jurors are supposed to believe that dead babies can feel pain.

And why, if the babies were born dead, did Gosnell’s co-conspirators plead guilty to murder? McMahon had an answer for that, too: they were terrified by the “tsunami” of public opinion against them. (How this tsunami comports with the media’s month-long absence from the trial remained unexplained.) He also accused the government of “manipulating” the jury and alleged that the case was an “elitist, racist prosecution.”

The commonwealth’s closing argument was thorough. Prosecutor Ed Cameron carefully reviewed the evidence presented by the fifty-four witnesses in the case.

Medical testimony showed that the newborn babies’ movements and whines were not “cadaver spasms,” but signs of life.

Eyewitness testimony showed that, contrary to the defense argument, Karnamaya Mongar’s death was not a freak accident. Her death could have been prevented if there were trained medical professionals at the scene and the clinic was well-maintained. Instead, she was cared for by a woman with an 8th-grade education, a woman with serious mental health problems, and a 15-year-old girl, in an unsanitary house of horrors.

Most important, the prosecution reviewed voluminous testimony showing that digoxin was not used, or was improperly used, as a matter of course. The four infant victims were born alive.

Americans United for Life is hopeful that justice will be done, and that this case will bring public attention to the need for born-alive infant protections and abortion clinic regulations. The profit-driven abortion industry cannot be trusted to police itself.

Related Posts

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png 0 0 Kelsey Hazzard https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png Kelsey Hazzard2013-04-30 16:46:002021-11-08 12:37:10Defending the Indefensible: Closing Arguments in the Gosnell Trial
1 reply
  1. LN
    LN says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:13 am

    Ah, I was waiting for the racism card. Honestly at this point it's like admitting you have no argument. Good riddance.

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow via Email

* indicates required

Categories

  • Ableism
  • Abortion pills
  • Administrative
  • Adoption & Foster Care
  • Biology
  • Bodily Rights
  • en español
  • Later Abortion
  • Legislation, laws, & court cases
  • Miscarriage & Pregnancy Loss
  • Personhood
  • Philosophy
  • Pro-Life Demographics
  • Rape Exception
  • Religion
  • Research
  • Speeches, Discussions, Presentations
  • SPL Emails
  • They Can Hear You
  • Top SPL Articles
  • Top SPL Graphics
  • Uncategorized
  • We Asked You Answered
  • Year In Review
  • Your Stories

Archive

It’s crucial that we demonstrate that anyone can–and everyone should–oppose abortion. Thanks to you, we are working to change minds, transform our culture, and protect our prenatal children. Every donation supports our ability to provide nonsectarian, nonpartisan arguments against abortion. Read more details here. Please donate today.

DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
© Copyright 2025 Secular Pro-Life. All rights reserved. Website Design by TandarichGroup

Related Posts

“We don’t use the word ‘kill.'” A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson’s A Defense of Abortion, Part III
Scroll to top
Want to receive our email newsletter?

We’d be happy to keep in touch. Subscribe for access to our newsletter and other updates.