Abortionist Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of murder and manslaughter. The NY Times says this:
“Justice was served to Kermit Gosnell today and he will pay the price for the atrocities he committed,” Ilyse Hogue, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said in a statement. “Anti-choice politicians, and their unrelenting efforts to deny women access to safe and legal abortion care, will only drive more women to back-alley butchers like Kermit Gosnell.”
I don’t understand the logic of how the above statement is supposed to work; Gosnell was supposed to be the sort of thing legalized abortion prevents.
The logical conclusion in any other situation would quite clearly be to increase regulation, to punish those who failed to inspect the premises – to respond the way we always respond when inadequate regulation and/or lax enforcement cause this sort of horror. But this argument says exactly the opposite: that the existence of an out-of-control monster is proof that we should continue to have no restrictions.
What confuses me is not why they make the argument.
It is why people accept such a blatantly ridiculous argument.
The Times mentioned the babies whose spines he “snipped”, but this particular article at least made no mention of the female patients who received – to put it nicely – “substandard care”.