Can We Talk about the Gosnell Case? Apparently Not

Yet another demonstration of why there is no common ground between pro- and anti-choice.

When Kermit Gosnell was convicted Tuesday in the deaths of three babies, it might have been a moment for anti-abortion and abortion rights groups to come together over something they both opposed: a doctor providing bad medical care to women.

Instead, it was another moment of dissension. Anti-abortion groups warned that Gosnell was just one example of many doctors who carry out troubling late-term abortions across the country, while abortion rights groups said women went to Gosnell's "house of horrors" Philadelphia clinic because they didn't know what other options were available.

"I would hope that we could both rally behind the prosecution of someone who was providing subpar medical care to women," says Leah Chamberlain, administrator of the Philadelphia Women's Center, one of the first abortion clinics in the city. "[But] this situation seems to be drawing clear divisions between the two camps and there's a lot of yelling at each other rather than listening."

Yeah, you'd think we could agree at least on that.

But no.

There is common ground, but it is occupied by pro-choicers. We already support all the family friendly, abortion-reducing things: affordable birth control, adoption, child care, comprehensive sex ed, financial and other support for pregnant women and families, and good health care for all.

There is no talking to, let alone compromising with fanatical fetus fetishists, and, thankfully at least in Canada, no earthly reason to.