"According to a Pennsylvania grand jury, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the wealthy Philadelphia abortionist now on trial for seven counts of murdering babies who had survived his late-term abortions, repeatedly sliced the necks of born babies in front of a teenage employee, and once told his long-time assistant (the teenager's mother) that a writhing born baby whose neck he had just severed was like a "chicken with its head cut off." "

There are several interesting things here, in the very first lines of the article.

1. According to a Pennsylvania grand jury. Let's stop there first. This is a factually incorrect statement. It makes it sound as if the jury has passed judgement on the man when that isn't the case at all.

What they've said is that, due to the eyewitness testimony, they believe there is enough proof to recommend a trial be held. The burden of proof is not high at all for gran juries and they often pass into being cases that are clearly without merit.

We can't tell which this is, in this case, but have the first words be incorrect doesn't show very good journalism.


2. Now on trial. Let's hold up here again. Now on trial? Possibly, if the grand jury has already ended and we're just hearing about this later. The timing is suspect however. It should probably read "Is not going to trial" but that seems weaker and doesn't push a given agenda as much.

Continuing on...

3. For seven counts of murdering babies that had survived his late term abortions. I actually have o problem with this statement in that it might be fact. However, the word choice is inflammatory. I really doubt that the legal term is "murdering babies".

That resonates with an attempt to control how we think about the topic. After all, who can get behind baby murder?

Again, we're kept from knowing the actual charge here.

Seven counts of murder? First degree? Manslaughter? What is it?

4. Repeatedly sliced the necks of born babies in front of a teenage employee.

This sounds a bit off. Born babies? That isn't even a term. It's mental control plain and simple. In the real world they'd be called "babies" that's all. No need for a modifier.

5. and once told his long time assistant.

Allegedly. The woman has no proof that the words were his, and more to the point, she can't claim honestly that she didn't mishear or misinterpret what was said.

Additionally, while the words are crass and tacky (if they were said at all, which we cannot have proof of at all) they aren't illegal.

So, what are we looking at here?

Two things.

The first one is a very creepy court case to come. There doesn't seem to be any proof of wrongdoing however, only the claims of two women that are related and that, as we all know, is a set up for many kinds of false claims. We don't know that however, but it's as possible as the mans guilt, if not more so.

The second?

That this article and by extension, the OP, is trying to use mind control techniques to control the debate on a secondary topic.

This case has NOTHING to do with legal abortion. The claim is that illegal things took place.

It's fine for people to work to change the law and even the opinions of others, but if you can't present yourself honestly and without manipulation, odds are you feel your point isn't a very strong one.