Good 'Served' Two Ways

Last week, I had an article published at on it's "Public Square" Channel.  I encourage you to go read the entire thing, but here's a teaser: 

. . .
To use Marcotte’s undefined analysis, Gosnell was very good. He provided a service to women that no one else would.  He was efficient, minimizing his time with patients and maximizing his profits. He was good at being willing to break the abortion laws of Pennsylvania to give women the very immediate and inexpensive abortion that Marcotte suggests would benefit our country. Women that went to Gosnell were not slowed down by insurance companies or waiting periods. Gosnell was so good at what he did, that, according to Marcotte, his practice actually drove down the overall prices of the supposedly more reputable clinics.
Indeed, under Marcotte’s own standard, Gosnell was not good, he was great because he could be accessed for abortion immediately and at a reasonable price. That leaves me wondering why Marcotte thinks everyone – including her – is thinking, “How can we prevent future tragedies like this?”  Future tragedies?  Why is it a tragedy for Gosnell to provide immediate access to abortion, at any time, for any reason, all on a reduced cash-basis?
. . .

Read the rest at


Jeremiah DysComment