“You’re not disgusted enough yet.” UPDATED.

So says Robert Stacy McCain of the sociopath disguised as abortion provider Kermit B. Gosnell.

It’s not quite disgust.  Revulsion, maybe?

Long after everyone else was in bed last night, I encountered the graphic photos from the Grand Jury report of Gosnell’s fetish: baby feet.  Indelible images seared forever on my brain.  Instead of a footprint marking a birth certificate–like my child’s at “the President’s Hospital”–these baby feet float in ether, a testament to the evil Gosnell perpetrated for thirty years.  Another picture shows the gaping hole at the back of a baby’s head, where Gosnell “severed with scissors” the spinal cord.  If this man had perpetrated his crimes in his home without receiving money, he would rightly be called a serial killer.  But because he provides a service liberals clamor for and makes money providing said service, he’s called a doctor.

Something is wrong with our society.

McCain notes that the networks didn’t mention the story on Thursday’s morning news.  Why should they?  It runs counter to the daily agenda, no?  And even if they did, the articles would be so sanitized of the truth as to be unrecognizable of the grisly reality.

Michelle Malkin:

Echoing the same kind of dark euphemisms plied by Planned Parenthood propagandists who refer to unborn life as “fetal and uterine material,” Gosnell referred to his deadly trade as “ensuring fetal demise.” Reminiscent of the word wizards who refer to the skull-crushing partial-birth abortion procedure as “intact dilation and evacuation” and “intrauterine cranial decompression,” Gosnell described his destruction of babies’ spinal cords as “snipping.”

He rationalized his macabre habit of cutting off dead babies’ feet and saving them in rows and rows of specimen jars as “research.”

Malkin implicates the various state and national organizations charged with oversight of medical services and abortion clinics.  Every single employee should lose his job.  Local news reports that a former employee went to the state Medical Board with evidence of Gosnell’s wrongdoing:

the unclean, unsterile conditions; the unlicensed workers; the unsupervised sedation; the underage abortion patients; even the over-prescribing of pain pills with high resale value on the street

Nothing happened.

What shocks me most–why, I’m not sure at this point–is the reaction among those who feel abortion is a protected right.  Malkin linked to an abortion apologist at the University of Minnesota who’s reaction vindicates my original title Wednesday, “Murder? I thought it was all about the intent of the mother?”  “This is not about abortion,” he argues and explains: 

[Gosnell] has also been charged with the murders of seven babies, and there I have to disagree. There has to be a difference in degree, or the mothers of those infants would also have to be charged as collaborators (they were all willing volunteers for this medical procedure, and they knew the result would be termination of their pregnancy). They haven’t, and they shouldn’t. Much noise is being made about the “horrific” killings, but late term abortions, even the ones done in clean, properly maintained facilities with well-trained personnel, are always necessarily bloody and unpleasant affairs, like most surgeries. The important word there is “necessary”. Late term abortions should be carried out when it is essential for the life and health of the woman, who is the most important participant in these circumstances, and opening the door to accusing doctors who perform necessary operations as murder is a dangerous precedent.

The mothers intended for their offspring to die horrifically, therefore it isn’t murder.  

I still fail to understand why liberals cling to the notion that late-term abortions are, in fact, necessary. If it’s so “necessary” for a pregnancy to end in the third trimester, why not deliver the baby? It happens all the time in hospitals. Why persist in the “it’s essential for the life and health of the woman” lie when it’s so demonstrably untrue? 

I especially love the mental gymnastics required to conclude that Gosnell is precisely the reason abortion should remain legal:

Gosnell is precisely the kind of butcher the pro-choice movement opposes. No one endorses bad medicine and unrestricted, unregulated, cowboy surgery like Gosnell practiced — what he represents is the kind of back-alley deadly hackery that the anti-choice movement would have as the only possible recourse, if they had their way. If anything, the Gosnell case is an argument for legal abortion.

Of course.  Gosnell is a butcher of women–not the tissue masses the women intended to discard–therefore abortion must be legal to prevent more Gosnells from popping up.  Because the system did such a good job over the course of thirty years of preventing this massacre–of women and children–to take place.  Why?  In the words of the DA who charged Gosnell:

“I am aware that abortion is a hot-button topic,” said Williams.  “But as District Attorney, my job is to carry out the law.  A doctor who knowingly and systematically mistreats female patients, to the point that one of them dies in his so-called care, commits murder under the law.  A doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is committing murder under the law.”

The DA issued an apology for charging him with murder: I know this a sensitive subject, but I have to do my job.

Too bad so many others failed over the last three decades all in the name of choice.

UPDATE: No bail for the butcher.  Expect liberal outrage any second now.

UPDATE 2: I should have mentioned that MM has the text of the entire Grand Jury report.  I’m not sure I have the stomach for the whole thing.  The snippets up at Stanek‘s are haunting enough.

UPDATE 3: Dear God.   Via The Other McCain, the UM professor quoted above, Paul Z. Myers, doubles down.  In response to emails from pro-lifers asking if he sees the dead babies, he replies that he does not:

Secondly, the standard bullying tactics of waving bloody fetuses might cow the squeamish, but I’m a biologist. I’ve guillotined rats. I’ve held eyeballs in my hand and peeled them apart with a pair of scissors. I’ve used a wet-vac to clean up a lake of half-clotted blood from an exsanguinated dog. I’ve opened bodies and watched the intestines do their slow writhing dance, I’ve been elbow deep in blood, I’ve split open cats and stabbed them in the heart with a perfusion needle. I’ve extracted the brains of mice…with a pair of pliers. I’ve scooped brains out of buckets, I’ve counted dendrites in slices cut from the brains of dead babies.

You want to make me back down by trying to inspire revulsion with dead baby pictures? I look at them unflinchingly and see meat. And meat does not frighten me.

The vilest thing in the picture is the moron waving the sign and thinking they’re making an argument.

Oremus.  The inability to separate human life from that of a dissected cat’s.  After all, A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy, right? 

The moral relativist camp sure as hell has done a fabulous job.

UPDATE 4: linked as a Recommended Read by Pundette.  Merci!

UPDATE 5: linked at Wyblog. Thanks, Chris!