James Delingpole

The lefty liberals may be losing their hold over the arts world

Right-wing creatives have much to gain from internet crowdfunding

26 April 2014

9:00 AM

26 April 2014

9:00 AM

If you happen to be reading this column at breakfast, I’d recommend you skip to something more agreeable like Dear Mary and save mine till a bit later. It concerns the ugly details of one of the most revolting mass murderers in US history.

His name is Kermit Gosnell — a doctor who ran a particularly dodgy clinic in Philadelphia specialising in late-term abortions for mostly poor black women. When police raided it in 2010, they encountered a scene of quite appalling horror. In a flea-ridden, blood- and faeces-stained basement, Gosnell had been operating on women using unsterilised equipment, killing babies well over the legal term limit, sometimes by sucking out their brains with a machine. In jars, milk jugs, even cat-food containers, Gosnell stored his grisly trophies: bits of old foetus, including, for some bizarre reason, a row of jars containing just the feet. Gosnell, who had no training in either gynaecology or obstetrics, and whose practice made around $10,000 to $15,000 a night from abortions and prescriptions, is now serving life in prison.

The Irish-born, US-based filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney thought this modern true-life horror story deserved much wider coverage than it had garnered in the US media. But they knew they were in for a struggle because of the subject matter.

It wasn’t the violence that was going to be tricky but the politics. In the US, much more than in Europe, abortion is a hot-button issue — one responsible for some of the most bitter divisions between left and right. Nor did it exactly help that the villain of this particular story is black. So — just as they had done with their previous politically incorrect projects (Not Evil, Just Wrong — presenting a sceptical view of climate change; Frack-Nation — a film in praise of shale gas) — they decided that rather than seek production money from the usual congenitally liberal Hollywood suspects, they would do so via internet crowdfunding.

First port of call was Kickstarter, the platform which claims so far to have raised in excess of $1 billion from 5.7 million donors for 135,000 projects such as films, albums, stage shows, comics and journalism start-ups. According to Kickstarter’s CEO Yancey Strickler, it’s ‘a place of opportunity for anyone to make their thing happen … a living breathing cultural institution that’s there to represent the interests of everybody.’

Well, not quite everybody, as the filmmakers discovered. Though Kickstarter didn’t immediately veto their proposition, it put all sorts of obstacles in their way — failing to respond to multiple emails and then demanding that they change the language of their pitching proposal because phrases like ‘thousands of babies stabbed to death’ were in breach of the site’s terms and conditions.

Which might sound reasonable, except that as McAleer noted, these terms and conditions didn’t seem to apply to any of Kickstarter’s other, less politically charged proposals. These included: 16 projects about stabbing; five about incest; one with the ‘C’ word in the project description; 44 projects about rape; 28 with the ‘F’ word in the title. McAleer’s bigger concern was that Kickstarter reserved the right to pull the plug on the fundraising at any moment. He decided to take his business to Indiegogo instead.

This week, the Gosnell project became one of the most successful movie crowdfunding ventures in history, having already raised $1 million of its $2.1 million target. Though it’s some way from the movie record — over $5 million raised for the neo-noir mystery comedy-drama Veronica Mars — what’s different about the Gosnell film are its politics. Unashamedly — and very unusually in crowdfunding project terms — it is aimed at mainly conservative audiences.

‘We got off to quite a slow start because conservatives are not natural joiners. They don’t join mobs — that’s for lefties. But support has grown steadily for this project and what makes us different from say, gimmicky projects where Spike Lee crowdfunds his new movie, is that we’re not being bailed out by a handful of rich celebrities. Over 12,000 people have pledged to our project so far, ordinary folk making small donations just because they care,’ says McAleer.

If he’s right in his analysis — and I think he is — the Gosnell project could mark a major turning point in arts funding. For generations, a left-liberal-dominated creative establishment, from Hollywood and National Public Radio to the BBC and the Arts Council, has largely dictated the kind of films, plays, even art shows we are and aren’t allowed to see.

I had a taste of this myself, only last year. A veteran producer and screenwriter went to Hollywood to try to raise funds for a movie he wanted to make of my anti-environmentalist book Watermelons, which he intended to recast as a conspiracy thriller. Now there may well have been many sensible reasons to reject the idea — such as its similarity to Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. But that wasn’t the one offered. In every meeting the response was the same: the science is settled; the debate about climate change is over.

Now I’ve no problem with projects not being made for sound commercial reasons: that’s capitalism. But if they’re turned down for reasons of political correctness, that looks to me much more like a case of soft fascism. And up until now there has been very little those of us on the right have been able to do about it. The BBC and Hollywood are swarming with intolerant, controlling lefties and that’s the way it is. Or rather — praise be to the mighty liberating powers of the internet — the way it was…

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

To donate go to www.indiegogo.com/projects/gosnell-movie#home

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Realpolitik

    Why do you suggest “right-wingers” are purely concerned with making money? I know plenty of artistic, cultural junkies.

  • Cooper1992

    This is a great article.

    I have always wondered why there was little in the way of conservative minded art out there in Britain (or America) now.

    I’m not the biggest film goer, but as a fan of British rock music it is such a shame that so much of it is left-wing socialist cr@p that the likes of the NME and the Observer Music Monthly froth over. PJ Harvey kind of rubbish. And of course they all love The Smiths.

    Hopefully we can see some more conservative minded art. Such a shame that not one band in this country has attempted to put the damning truths about multiculturalism into a song, but yet they all still love whinging about Thatcher.

    • mikewaller

      Try it yourself and see if you can come up with anything. My guess is that you can’t. The left wing bias of the News Quiz often annoys me but, for the life of me, I cannot think how a right-wing comic could find a regular angle. The only exception I can think of is the wonderful Rab C. Nesbitt whose portrayal of the Govan working class can hardly be described as a paean of praise. However, the middle and upper classes are no more kindly represented. Perhaps the reality is that we all fall very far short of the people we would like to be but demonstrating this in respect of the powerful occasions a lot more fun.

      • JoeDM

        A TV version of VIZ is what is needed !!!

        • Adaadat


          The Fat Slags, Roger Mellie, the Man on the Telly, The Modern Parents, Millie Tant…ah, the memories!

      • neilcraig

        ” I cannot think how a right-wing comic could find a regular angle”
        Jim Davidson, Bernard Manning.

        OK granted neither of them ever became popular enough to be on the legally “balanced” BBC 1% as often as Jo Brand :-).

      • Danni Ashcroft

        “conservative” comedy doesn’t really work as comedy though, with lefty stuff it’s nominally the underclasses punching upwards, whereas the well-to-do/leaders taking the piss out of people worse off than them just seems mean rather than funny.

        Obviously the counterpoint to this argument is Nigel Farage, who despite being a fairly powerful chap is still a joke.

        • mikewaller

          I think that you are very much on the money. There is a story in the Arabian Nights in which a carpenter has made a very elaborate piece of furniture consisting of a series of man-sized cabinets, one on top of another. He also has a very beautiful wife. Whilst he is away, the king comes to pay court to her, then somebody like his chamberlain, down to a common labourer. As each comes in, the one before hides in cabinet, lowest first. The labourer takes the highest having been forced to do so because the husband comes back and stays, The upshot is that each of the imprisoned men is driven to urinate, with the urine seeping down onto the guy below. Clearly there is more fun to be had with this inverted social hierarchy than would have been possible had the cabinets been filled up in reverse order.

      • global city

        Critical theory does not come naturally to the freedom loving right… it is inherently positive in outlook…… ironically. The only subject open to the right is hard left dogmas and tropes, which do not make good subjects for repeated airing.

    • Guest

      Oh look, NO ONE below agrees with you yet you get all the votes.
      Why does the Spectator allow yet another form of blatant ‘postal voting’ on its very own pages, now that paid moderator trolls such as MRP have been terminated?

  • ChristinaDunigan

    Remember, don’t just agree. Do something! Even a $1 donation sends a message. And prayers and spreading the word are both crucial kinds of help this project needs.

  • mikewaller

    I am convinced that JD sees himself as a latter day superhero – no doubt with his shirt neatly tucked into his underpants – courageously fighting to free the world from soft-left domination. Sadly, out here in the real world, things are a little bit more complicated. Hard hitting (and in the case cited, probably deeply exploitative) documentaries about abortion raise a number of very reasonable concerns. In the US at least, there are already enough loonies out there whose idea of freedom of expression extends to killing those involved in terminations. There are also millions who would find the envisaged documentary emotionally damaging to a very marked degree even if they did not watch it. This would include those of a naturally sensitive nature, those who have undergone abortions and those whose experiences of simply giving birth have been deeply traumatic in any number of ways. Of course, the case in question will have had to be dealt with in court and can usefully be discussed in general terms; but, say, giving it the full drama documentary treatment would, in my view, be the height of irresponsibility.

    Just in case that seems to be just a soft left cop-out, reflect upon what those opposing the killing of animals for food could do to the meat industry if allowed to broadcast “a warts and all” exposure of the worst possible practice in the worst possible slaughter-house. And let us not think that censorship in this area is exclusively left wing. I think the argument that abortion has been a significant contributor to the decline in crime across the Western world, is a debate worth having. Try it on the internet – as I have done – and your will find yourself assailed from every conceivable political perspective.

    • Warwick

      What a very confused comment.
      You reckon that people would be hurt by this movie even if they didn’t see it. Weird.

      You say that showing a movie depicting the worst practices of slaughter in abattoirs would turn people off meat eating. Fair enough, if the sight of animals being slaughtered makes you ill, maybe you shouldn’t be eating meat.

      Then you say that allowing abortion results in a fall in the crime rate. Steady on there. The natural implication of this argument is that compulsory abortion, or infanticide, would bring about an enormous fall in the crime rate.

      Something like 80% of crime in the USA is committed by young black males. You could start there. It would be easy to devise an abortion algorithm that takes into account the training, employment record and other indicators of stability on the part of the mother (or the father, if the father is hanging around). This would ensure that no child with even halfway decent prospects would get the chop, but the crime figures would plummet. A combination of compulsory abortion and infanticide would reshape society in a way that even Marx never contemplated.

      • mikewaller

        Careful reflection and close reading obviously aren’t your forte. I have never seen “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” yet I have an excellent idea of its content.

        Regarding abattoirs, you blithely sail past my double “worst”. So for the benefit of other slow learners, my point was that producing a film dealing with the extreme end of animal slaughter (= a film about the extreme end of abortion by the kind of back street operator that would again proliferate were it to be made illegal) would be considered by the meat industry as a very crude attempt to traduce their industry. They would therefore attempt to prevent it being made i.e. censorship of this kind comes from many quarters, not just the liberal-left of JD’s fantasies.

        Regarding abortion and crime, my sole point was that it is almost impossible publicly to debate the relationship, if any. I am most certainly not advocating abortion as a crime reduction policy; nor would any other decent human being. But as there is now so much interest in why crime has fallen across the Western world, it is a variable that should be evaluated. Such is the emotion in this area, it can’t be.

        I am old enough to have studied “Comprehension” as an aspect of English Language. Giving you 10% would be generous.

        • jack

          The Texas Cain Saw Massacre is a masterpiece. One of the top horror films of the 20th century. You must see to believe. Cannibal backwoods incestuous clan of hillbillies invite group of sexy young college students to dinner. Hilarity ensues.

        • Warwick

          You should be careful, Mike.
          You are revealing your inner eugenicist.
          Much better to keep it hidden.

          • mikewaller

            I suppose if somebody has taken the kind of intellectual drubbing you have, he/she will say anything – no matter how stupid – in a futile attempt to mask their failure.

          • Warwick

            Is there an intellectual around here somewhere?
            Someone with a subscription to New Statesman, perhaps?

            Do you think that constructing clumsy phrases like “it is a variable that should be evaluated” makes you an intellectual?

            You seem to have a knack for bureaucratese, there’s no doubt about that, but you are still revealing your eugenicist leanings.

            Why don’t you write a post, in at least 500 words, employing all the most ponderous jargon you can muster, explaining why very late term abortion is a great social good, especially if it is carried out by black people devoid of any appropriate medical training.

            Then you can construct another post, also littered with jargon, explaining the necessity for shielding this operation from any publicity.

      • Terry Ballard

        “Something like 80% of crime in the USA is committed by young black males. You could start there.”

        That’s not true, the real figure is that 50% of crime in the USA is committed by black people (not just young black males).

        • StephanieJCW

          Do you have a link to your stats that 50% of crime (all crime) is committed by black people? I am pretty sure you pulled that figure out your arse, but happy to retract if you have something behind it.

          • Warwick

            The statistics are not easy to simplify, and I made a mistake by attempting to do that.
            But the fact remains that if you go to google and type in “percentage of crimes committed by people of different colour in the USA” you will find amazing statistics.

            But the point I was making is that Mike was producing the fact of the fall in crime in those places where abortion is allowed as evidence to support abortion.

            Well, firstly, the movie to be made was not about a conventional, medical practice where things are done according to best medical standards and the procedures can only be carried out up to a certain stage of pregnancy.
            The suggested movie is about a filthy charnel house where the abortions are very often carried out when the fetus is so well developed that there is practically no distinction between this and infanticide.

            But Mike says this reduces the crime rate.
            The only person who would use this argument in this context is someone who would say that it’s a good thing to kill babies who are likely to grow up to commit crimes.
            This is eugenics.

            A non eugenics approach would be to try every possible measure to see that unwanted children are not conceived in the first place, and to ensure that those babies who are conceived are born into a situation, (preferably with two parents around) where they would be cared for in every way possible.

            And I repeat that Mike is mad when he says that if this movie were made it would cause suffering to people who don’t see it.

            Even the most extreme advocates of censorship don’t go that far; they claim that the books and movies they target will corrupt and damage the people who see them, but they never suggest that such movies have a mysterious, metaphysical property that allows them, like evil spirits, to enter the minds of the good folk who refuse to see them.

          • TimeandtheRani

            The link between abortion and crime I would think almost certainly comes from the book Freakonomics. I’ve not seen it anywhere else, and that book is rather sensationalist and “look at the crazy conclusions we can come to with statistics!”

          • Warwick

            Thanks, T&R,
            I’ll see if the library has a copy

          • windskisong

            I believe that particular claim is from the sequel, Superfreakonomics.

          • mikewaller

            You really are a bozo. I gave up responding to you because it seems a waste of time. But the nonsense about the abortion/crime rate linkage just being a bit of fluff from Freakonomics demands a response. Check (as you and others damned well ought to have done), and you will find that that suggestion does not withstand 30 seconds on Google. Having looked again, the first thing I found was a neat little Wikipedia entry citing several big studies in support of the abortion/crime-rate hypothesis; and the next offering was a major Harvard study of which I already have a copy, again generally supportive of the idea. There are, of course, other studies that reach different conclusions, but it ain’t just a chapter in Freakanomics.

            Indeed, the hypothesis has always seemed to me a non-brainer as unwanted children are likely to get a poor childhood and that will tend to predispose them to crime to a disproportionate degree.

            But, given your capacity to misread and misunderstand, I needed to stress (a) that does not mean that all aborted foetuses would otherwise have grown up into criminals, just that a more than average percentage probably would and, if so, that would be reflected in the statistics as appears to be happening; and, (b) even if this is one of the practical effects of abortion that does not impact one way of another on the issue of whether or not abortion is morally acceptable. .

            Now having had to go to all the trouble of explaining that, can you not see why I consider exchanges with you largely a waste of time? You don’t even do the basics with regards to fact checking and seem far more concerned about protecting your sad little ego than getting to grips with the topic in hand.

          • Warwick

            Nothing here adds up to anything. Just more toxic drivel.
            Since you are such a termination enthusiast, why not terminate your own sorry life, caught up as it is in a loop of malevolence and vitriol

          • mikewaller

            I think I can safely leave it to others to judge whom that particular cap fits. As an act of kindness might I suggest an anger management course?

      • StephanieJCW

        “Something like 80% of crime in the USA is committed by young black males. You could start there”

        There is an interesting saying about the number of statistics made up on the spot. Where did you get this figure from? I would be interested to know the veracity of it. Considering all things that are considered crimes it would be pretty mind boggling incredible if less than 10% of the population were responsible for 8 in 10 in every crime committed in the US. From drug dealing/taking, to fraud, to speeding, to mugging, to embezzlement, to tax evasion…

        Hmm.. sorry I read further:

        “A combination of compulsory abortion and infanticide would reshape society in a way that even Marx never contemplated.”

        You’re quite mad.

        • windskisong

          Quite right – it’s closer to 50% of specifically violent crimes. Mostly black on black, mostly gang related. It’s not hard to get. FBI, DOJ, even CDC has some.

      • windskisong

        Closer to 50% of violent crime. And there is a direct and very visible correlation to the spread of Concealed Carry laws, especially “Shall Issue” or “Constitutional Carry” laws, and the reduction in violent crime, with no corresponding increase in suicides or accidental deaths. This is far more compelling than the abortion rates, although the American abortion industry is almost exclusively focused on inner city minority neighborhoods and progressive bastions.
        I think your argument about abortion would be supported by data if the parents in question didn’t continue having children – but they do. We have a lady at our church who recently got out of the welfare dependency lifestyle thanks to some awesome volunteers at the (now banned by Google) Crisis Pregnancy Center. She had 8 children (3 with her, rest in foster homes), but may have more (lots of drugs and alcohol does not add up to a good memory), but knows that she aborted at least 5 times.

        • Warwick

          when I wrote that “A combination of compulsory abortion and infanticide would reshape society in a way that even Marx never contemplated,” I was being ironic.
          I was mocking the eugenicists.
          My argument about abortion is what I put forward below;

          “A non eugenics approach would be to try every possible measure to see that unwanted children are not conceived in the first place, and to ensure that those babies who are conceived are born into a situation, (preferably with two parents around) where they would be cared for in
          every way possible.”

          I do not know what point you are making in relation to

          “the spread of Concealed Carry laws, especially “Shall Issue” or “Constitutional Carry” laws, and the reduction in violent crime, with no corresponding increase in suicides or accidental deaths.”

          Will you enlarge?

          • windskisong

            Basically I was saying that I’ve seen or heard of no correlation with the change in rate of minority abortions (specifically black male) and violent crime.
            There is a solid and consistent pattern of correlation between the implementation of concealed carry laws and a near immediate and lasting decrease in violent crime.
            Thanks for clarifying your irony. I kinda thought you were, based on your thoughtful comments elsewhere, but many others had not picked up on that. Cheers!

          • Warwick

            Thanks, WSS.
            I hadn’t read about the correlation between the implementation of concealed carry laws and a reduction in crime figures.
            I’ll do some googling.

    • windskisong

      There are several documentaries that cover exactly what you describe – the worst practices in the meat industry and food industry. I didn’t eat fast food for months after watching Food, Inc.

      I agree – the abortion argument is worth having, which means that you need to have as much information as possible to have the argument. The movie should be made, and those sensitive folks you mention above should not watch it. There are crazies on the right, left, and middle – that doesn’t stop NAACP from publishing the addresses of those they disagree with in articles designed to drum up emotional responses. That doesn’t stop the left from calling for the assassination of former President Bush and others.

      The argument is worth having, and the movie should be made. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gosnell-movie#activity

      • mikewaller

        Can you explain to me how a film about the very worst kind of back street abortionist – by definition criminals who are routinely prosecuted under still current legislation that nobody serious is considering repealing – would inform the debate over legal abortions? Indeed, other than in the minds of the very, very stupid, for anti-abortionists such a film would be a massive own-goal. After all, such people are precisely the kind of creeps into whose hands those denied a legal termination, would be driven.

  • ohforheavensake

    Erm- nope.

  • StephanieJCW

    It is amazing the reductionist stupidity some people display whereby everything, EVERYTHING must be seen through the lens of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative.

    Even an issue of abortion sees people take sides based on their personal allegiances.

    What would be interesting to see is why some women risked life and limb and certainly their health (physical and mental) to go to a butcher like Gosnell. Particularly in this day and age.

    “Nor did it exactly help that the villain of this particular story is black.”

    Oooh Delingpole playing the race card. Again. That’s unusual.

    • windskisong

      The point is that the crowdfunding AND arts crowds both approached this project as a “conservative” project, and thus not worthy of support, despite it being a truly compelling story about a newsworthy and horrifying series of actions by multiple parties. Just the political story about how the local establishment ignored repeated calls to investigate Gosnell and whitewashed his “inspections” is worthy of more treatment than it has received.
      While it is interesting to explore why someone would go to seek an abortion from a butcher like Gosnell, what’s also interesting is why he chose to locate his facility where he did. But the POINT is that this is an interesting story worthy of attention and the political left is determined that it not be discussed because it hurts their narrative.
      In my humble opinion, this should be discussed just like abortion clinic bombers are discussed, just like Muslim suicide bombers are discussed, just like… it’s newsworthy, and the movie should be made to aid the discussion.

  • Nathan Bennett

    Conservatives don’t mob? are you okay?

  • Dan Grover

    I’m not sure one can simultaneously decry the political nature of the funding of documentaries as if it should be free of such things, whilst saying that this is aimed at conservatives and that aiming it at such is difficult because of X, Y and Z. Is this a story everyone should hear, or just people to whom it reinforces their opinions?

    Besides, is anyone who is against abortion really against it because they think it’s a bit dangerous? Surely it’s all about the nature of when life begins and whether that life should be able to be ended at the whims of its parents – not whether the particular place it’s done is sufficiently free of grime.

    • Thomas Keningley

      The point is that it includes infanticide and late-term abortion, which are a reductio of the abortionist position. Sometimes showing people the logical consequences of their positions may shock them into reconsidering them.

      • Dan Grover

        I’m not convinced that they are a reductio of most “abortionists” position. I think that, for most, it comes down to when you think life begins. Some believe it’s at conception, some believe that it’s when the baby could technically survive outside the womb, etc. There are all manner of points at which one could morally decide that this is when they consider life to have “begun” – so I think infanticide is really only a reductio of those who believe that late term abortions are already right because the baby isn’t yet alive. I don’t think there are too many like that.

        • Thomas Keningley

          What is a “moral decision”? Surely morals are not something we decide but something objective, outside of ourselves (otherwise why even bother with this conversation?)? You give two possible points and then say etc., but I’m not sure there are any other points when people suggest life begins. In any case, the question is to what extent are those points non-arbitrary; after all, how can it make sense that it used to be moral to kill a foetus at 26 weeks because it wouldn’t survive, but now with improved medical technology it is no longer justifiable? The foetus is the same entity, there is no fundamental difference to it, so how can it be morally different to kill it? Also, in what way is survivability a morally relevant characteristic? How does that not extent to full independence, thus permitting infanticide?

    • Warwick

      Dan, I beg to differ here. If a fetus aged three days is aborted, either spontaneously or artificially, then, in the normal course of events, no-one is very bothered. At this stage the fetus is something of a blob.

      If the pregnancy has progressed to the stage where the fetus has hands and feet and eyes that are clearly visible with a scanning device then abortion is a different matter. Mothers who desire this child can be devastated. And apart from the suffering of the parents and other adults concerned, it is a terrible thing, that something so wonderful can be destroyed, either naturally or artificially. That’s why respectable medical practices refuse to carry out an abortion after a certain stage of development. And infanticide is not a reductio of controlled abortion.

      And it is terribly important that abortions, like any other procedure, are not performed in filthy surroundings by untrained ghouls who are mostly in it only for the money but who are also sufficiently mentally sick as to keep jars of baby feet, or whatever, in their offices.

      • Dan Grover

        Of course you’re right that it’s important that they not be conducted in dirty surroundings but those untrained – I couldn’t agree more, and the actions of this person are clearly deplorable, but I don’t think they have much role in the debate and discussion surrounding abortion, which is based almost exclusively on the morality of it and not the medical practicalities.

        As for the rest, I think we’re more in agreement than you think; I must have been unclear! I agree with you on basically all points. I think it does, ultimately however, come down to when we believe life begins – the reason why parents can be so devastated when it happens at a later stage is because they’ve already begun considering it alive – a potential human full of possibilities, going to school and doing a paper round and bruising its knees etc. So when it sadly doesn’t happen, they feel like that life has gone. As you say, this isn’t the case when it’s a few cells bubbling together after three days so yes, I think the crux of it comes down to when one considers a life to begin.

        • Warwick

          When does life begin?
          Well, I think the life begins when the sperm unites with the egg.
          So why don’t I consider that it is out of bounds to terminate the pregnancy , (I suppose I would have to say, “kill the fetus”,) at this very early stage?
          It is because not all life is the same. Sure this fetus is alive but it is so unformed that we can kill it without too many qualms.
          It is not the same as killing a fetus that already has limbs and an intestine and can move her limbs.

          Have you seen very young, newborn babies?
          Aren’t they wonderful, physically?
          And their mental and psychic being – isn’t their innocence wonderful?
          When they sleep, can’t you feel the wonderful peacefulness surrounding them and inside them?

          And to go back to the very young, undeveloped fetus; if you were a woman who had been trying desperately to conceive, a woman who had perhaps been given in vitro fertilization, and then you learned that the fetus had spontaneously aborted, you would be very unhappy, even if the fetus were only a few cells bubbling in the womb.

          I don’t think there is a one size fits all answer, as you have pointed out, but I am certain that it would be good to let the world know about the activities of the Gosnell monster.

  • you_kid

    Is this another article for five year olds?
    Art is either good or it isn’t.

    • paradise 33

      But not when it comes to arts funding bodies – in which case art either ticks the ‘right’ boxes or it doesn’t.

  • therealguyfaux

    Remember that Gosnell was convicted of the deliberate homicides of three babies who somehow managed to be born alive despite his best efforts, and of the homicide by negligence of a mother (in addition to all his administrative offences, relating to non-licenced staff, etc.). Set aside the abortions he performed that went “well,” i.e., thankfully without incident or complications to the mothers. Such a story would still need to be told as a cautionary tale, I should think.

    One would need to know that a recurrent meme in US politics is a supposed conservative “War Against Women,” which would seem to show a wilful blindness on the part of Lefties when there is evidence that an atrocity against women (poor and minority, to boot!) was being perpetrated by someone that no one could by any stretch term “conservative,” being sought to be exposed in all its horror, squalor and sordidness, not to mention its disgust-inducing properties, is purposely being ignored. Gosnell’s case, contemporary with the Trayvon Martin killing, received nowhere near the coverage.

    The hypocrisy of the Left may be seen in the fact that a doctor doing a lawful and obviously more sanitary and less sadistic version of Gosnell’s practice, a Dr George Tiller of Kansas, had been held out as a martyr for having been murdered by a so-called Right-To-Life extremist, with the FOX commentator Bill O’Reilly singled out for allegedly having precipitated the murder with his editorializing “Tiller the Killer” references in relation to what Dr Tiller was doing– which, from the standpoint of the terminated viable foeti not born alive, was no different to Gosnell.

  • 1498

    This film raises an important question, about the fairness and impartiality of the mainstream media.
    The Gosnell story was a major one, and a major human rights issue also. The mainstream media did not cover it for days, until they were virtually shamed into doing so. But for the Pro Life groups in the US, this story would never have gotten into the public domain.
    It would have been completely buried and forgotten about.
    This begs the question, if we cannot trust the mainstream media to report on this story – can we trust them on the reporting of other issues?

  • global city

    The problem in Britain is that all the gatekeepers are left wing institutions, and the might of the BBC weighs heavily on the wider creative sector here.