Then she goes on to prove us wrong by providing 2 year old links to stories about the arrest of Gosnell as proof that they've been right on top of it.
There is no Gosnell coverup
I suppose pointing out 2 year old stories about a trial that is happening now is supposed to elicit some kind of mea culpa on every ones part. As if that's supposed to excuse the incompetent no coverage of the trial as it goes on in real time.This week, the right wing has been working the refs, demanding to know why the press has been allegedly silent on the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia doctor who allegedly committed horrific acts against his patients with impunity for years. Fox News’ Kristen Powers kicked it off with an Op-Ed in USA Today, claiming, “The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.” Michelle Malkin has helped spearhead a Twitter campaign. Breitbart.com calls it “a full-blown, coordinated blackout throughout the entire national media.”And mostly, the campaign is working, generating a series of sheepish responses (and a near-instant BuzzFeed listicle). In an Atlantic piece headlined, “Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s trial should be a front page story,” Conor Friedersdorf admits, “Until Thursday, I wasn’t aware of this story … Had I been asked at a trivia night about the identity of Kermit Gosnell, I would’ve been stumped and helplessly guessed a green Muppet.” Slate’s Dave Weigel congratulated the tweeters for getting his attention and then filed a piece sympathetic to the coverup claim, lecturing pro-choice people that “You really should read that grand jury report,” and concluding, “Social conservatives are largely right about the Gosnell story.”
No, they aren’t right about the Gosnell story. If you’ve never heard of the Gosnell story, it’s not because of a coverup by the liberal mainstream media. It’s probably because you failed to pay attention to the copious coverage among pro-choice and feminist journalists, as well as the big news organizations, when the news first broke in 2011. There would be something rich, if it weren’t so infuriating, about these (almost uniformly male, as it happens) reporters and commentators scrambling to break open this shocking untold story. You know, the one that was written about here, here and here, to name some disparate sources.~snip~
But then, to insult our intelligence, she delves into a diatribe basically blaming the pro-life movement for forcing these women to go to a butcher because access has been restricted because #1 the "gubbermint" won't pay and #2 there ain't enough clinics.
After all, the question is not just why the state failed to respond to the complaints of women and advocates who visited the clinic, although that matters hugely. It’s why women kept going there anyway: because they felt they had no alternative.~snip~As if we are to dismiss the states responsibility to at least monitor Gosnell's clinic to ensure that it provided a legal, clean and safe environment to perform abortions. I mean I remember the whole Roe vs. Wade kerfuffle and one of the big selling points was to be able to eliminate coat hangers and dangerous "back alley" type abortions. To make them safe for "choice".
Gosnell's clinic failed miserably and so did the agencies that were supposed to provide over site.
Which means "choice" failed also which in turn means that the left wing media propaganda machine failed also.
The reason that it's not covered is because big media lied then and they ignore it now so as not to remind anyone of that.