Attorney Changed Stance After Watching ‘Gosnell’, Says ‘At Some Point It’s Not Abortion, It’s Murder’

The film “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” brought the shockingly true story and trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell to the big screen for the first time.

The film illustrated how Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortionist, was initially investigated and raided by the DEA, FBI, and local law enforcement agencies for illegal prescription drug sales. During the raid, they found something that would forever change the abortion debate in America: Gosnell was a murderer.

It was discovered that the doctor had been conducting countless illegal, post-birth abortions in what was dubbed his “house of horrors.” The film depicted the horror coming to light and Gosnell’s own legal defense to justify his actions.

The graphic account undoubtedly affected viewers and Missouri lawyer Adam Mill said his views on abortion were changed entirely.

Mill wrote in an op-ed for the Federalist that he identified as “agnostic” about the issue of abortion before he saw the film, but now says the actions depicted were nothing less than murder—no longer a choice, but the death of a child.

“If you haven’t seen the movie ‘Gosnell,’ it is required viewing for Americans like me who avoided the abortion issue because I lacked the moral courage to really think about it and form my own opinion,” Mill wrote. “The movie works very hard to avoid smothering an important philosophical question with scenes of gore. In fact, it depicts real and nuanced questions that go well beyond our abortion debate that seems stuck in impasse.”

“’Gosnell’ is not about an abortion doctor committing ‘murder’ by aborting fetuses—the movie is about a doctor killing delivered babies who breathe, move, and sometimes even cry before abortionist Kermit Gosnell used a pair of scissors to ‘snip’ their spinal cord,” the attorney continued. “Be outraged and shocked by that. But hold your outrage long enough to confront how Gosnell defends his actions, because that’s the real crux of the issue.”

And:

Gosnell’s defense at trial was to point to the arbitrary legal line between what he did and what the law sanctioned. His attorney argued that even if he had followed proper procedures in a sterile clinic using the most advanced medical equipment to terminate pregnancies, the fundamental moral character of what he was doing wouldn’t change.

Although Gosnell’s technique sometimes resulted in birthing the child before terminating it, he argued that, from a medical point of view, it’s sometimes more dangerous to the woman to do the procedure while the child is still inside the woman. So, to Gosnell’s way of thinking, birthing the baby sometimes improves abortion’s health outcome for the mother.

At the end of Gosnell’s procedure, he considers it a success if the woman is no longer pregnant and there is no baby. Is it really murder outside the womb, but legal when a doctor completes the procedure inside?

Gosnell’s legal defense argued that he, as a doctor, could determine whether the baby fit under a legal definition of “murder” or whether it was legal abortion.

The line in the film stuck with Mill, who wrote: “So who decides if a fetus is too advanced to abort? ‘I do,’ Gosnell responded.”

And: “After seeing Gosnell sneer at the line, I see the urgency of public participation in the question. If it is left up to the advocates for unfettered abortion rights, would there be any line at all?” He added, “Where will the line between abortion and murder be drawn if we leave it to bumper stickers and profit-seeking doctors like Gosnell to draw that line?”

At the end of the piece, Mill plainly wrote: “at some point it’s not abortion, it’s murder.”

As the Faith Wire reports, “In May 2013, Kermit Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of three of the infants. He was also convicted on several counts of illegal late-term abortion. He is currently serving a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.”

H/T: Life News