‘Gosnell,’ Like Its Namesake, Faces a Media Blackout
"Reviews are withheld and ads rejected for fear of facing up to what ‘abortion rights’ mean in practice."
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
“Gosnell” is a difficult film to watch, not because of what appears on the screen—it’s rated PG-13—but because of what is left to the viewer’s imagination. This might explain why the theater where I caught the film Friday was mostly empty. But other explanations are worth considering.
Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of murder following a two-month trial in 2013, is currently serving a life sentence in prison with no possibility of parole. He was an abortion doctor based in Philadelphia, where state law prohibits the procedure beginning at 24 weeks gestational age. By his own admission, Dr. Gosnell regularly performed illegal late-term abortions, mostly on low-income minority women. In some cases he would induce labor, deliver live babies, and then kill them by snipping the backs of their necks with scissors.
Nick Searcy directed the film, based on a book of the same title by a married couple of investigative journalists from Ireland, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. In an essay last month, Mr. Searcy explained why he was drawn to the subject. “It is nearly impossible to find an adult person who does not have an opinion on the issue of abortion,” he wrote in National Review, “and yet how little we all know about it—how it is done, what the laws are surrounding it, how it is regulated, legislated, and practiced. I wanted to share that knowledge.”
Dr. Gosnell’s story may not change a single mind about abortion, yet the movie and book make an important contribution to a debate that continues to rage 45 years after Roe v. Wade. They offer a better understanding of what “abortion rights” mean in practice and a renewed appreciation of the tragic consequences that can result when politicians, public-health officials and the media put blind ideology ahead of basic human decency.
Once Dr. Gosnell’s trial began in 2013, it was the national media’s turn to ignore him. Fox News gave the trial significant attention, but few other major outlets did the same. The liberal press knew the story would cast a negative light on abortion, and that concerned them much more than bringing to justice a doctor who committed infanticide and routinely risked the health of women.
Tags
Who is online
209 visitors
I don't understand the so called media black out. I've seen the movie advertised. I would not spend any money on watching it though
They can't justify the promotional costs based on the projected box office receipts for a 1 week run at 600 theaters. It's advertised heavily on media outlets where those costs are low cost and/or subsidized by the likes of FRC and ADF. With the small targeted audience it appeals to, expect it to be screened for free at evangelical churches before the war on xmas starts.
Its rather sick that the creep and his actions are being glorified and used and pointed to in the abortion debate.
He wasn't performing legally.
2 dimensional minds won't see the distinction
Haven't heard of the movie. I can't imagine the subject matter producing a stampede to the box office though. It sounds quite depressing. I'm sure it will show up somewhere for viewing on conservative media before long. Maybe Fox will dedicate a Sunday night bloc to it.
... as a thumper documentary.