Cheryl Sullenger

Gosnell still facing 380 criminal charges, including five murder charges

Cheryl Sullenger
By Cheryl Sullenger
Image

Philadelphia, PA, April 24, 2013 (OperationRescue.org) – In a surprise move, the defense in the Kermit Gosnell murder trial has rested without calling a single witness. The news comes on the heals of a clarification by Judge Jeffery P. Minehart about a mix-up in the dismissal of one of the murder charges yesterday.

Closing arguments are set for Monday.

Yesterday’s dismissal of nine criminal charges against accused murderer Kermit Gosnell stunned many who have followed this macabre case involving babies born alive during illegal late-term abortions then intentionally killed amid squalid conditions at Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” abortion clinic.

Today, Judge Jeffery P. Minehart clarified that he did not intend to drop the First Degree Murder charges for Baby C, a baby witnesses said was breathing for 20 minutes before it was stabbed in the neck by Lynda Williams in Gosnell’s presence.

Instead, murder charges should have been dismissed in the death of Baby F for which there was less compelling evidence.

Nevertheless, the dismissals are expected to have little effect on the trial’s outcome. Court records show that Gosnell still faces over 380 criminal counts, including five murder charges. A conviction on any of the First Degree murder counts would mean he could still receive the death penalty or life in prison without parole.

After heated arguments by Defense Attorney Jack McMahon and Assistant District Attorney Ed Cameron, Judge Minehart dismissed the following charges without explanation:

• Three counts of First Degree Murder in the deaths of Babies Boy B, Baby G, and Baby F (after correction by the judge).
• Five counts of Abuse of Corpse related to the discovery of five jars containing the severed feet of large aborted babies.
• One count of Infanticide in the case of Baby Boy B

However, according to court records, Conspiracy and Solicitation to Commit Murder charges for Baby G remain active and were not dismissed with the murder charges.

Also dismissed were were six counts of “Theft by Deception” against former Gosnell employee Eileen O’Neill, sho is standing trail with Gosnell. She is accused of billing for medical services provided as she was masquerading as a license physician. Three remaining counts will go to the jury.

Victims’ Cases Won’t Go to the Jury

Baby Boy B was discovered during the original 2010 law enforcement raid of Gosnell’s abortion clinic frozen in a red biohazard bag along with the remains of 46 other aborted babies. The medical examiner told the grand jury that he estimated gestational age of Baby Boy B to be 28 weeks. This baby was intact and bore the now-familiar neck wound that indicated his spinal cord had been severed. However, there was no testimony presented during the trial that this baby ever moved or breathed. Gosnell had been charged with infanticide related to the death of Baby Boy B.

Baby G was of an unknown gestational age. An unlicensed abortionist who worked with Gosnell testified before the Grand Jury that he helped Gosnell deliver Baby G and observed a “respiratory excursion,” or a breath. He said Gosnell then turned the baby over and severed his spinal cord with scissors.

Baby F was estimated to be 25-27 weeks gestation when Steven Massof, an unlicensed abortionist employed by Gosnell, assisted his boss in the abortion and delivery of the intact baby. Massof testified that he saw a leg “jerk and move” after which he saw Gosnell sever its spine.

Other Charges Also Dropped

The five abuse of corpse charges dismissed by Judge Minehart related to five jars of severed feet seized from Gosnell’s clinic. McMahon argued that they were kept for possible DNA sampling and as proof of gestational age, but medical professionals who testified all said that there was no known medical reason or precedent for such behavior.

While those charges have been dropped, it is estimated that over 380 other criminal charges remain, including four counts of first degree murder for the deaths of Baby Boy A, Baby D, Baby E, Baby F and one count of Third Degree Murder for the death of patient Karnamaya Mongar.

Four Remaining First Degree Murder Counts

Baby Boy A was the biggest baby that Kareema Cross had ever seen delivered at Gosnell’s abortion “House of Horrors” clinic in the four years she worked there. He was delivered to 17-year-old Shaquana Abrams at 29.4 weeks gestation, according to an ultrasound record. Baby Boy A was so large, he did not fit into the plastic shoe box that Gosnell tossed him in. Cross said she saw the baby pull in his arms and legs while Gosnell explained the movements as “reflexes” telling her the baby really didn’t move prior to cutting the baby’s neck. Baby Boy A was so large, Gosnell joked that “this baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.” Cross and fellow employees Adrienne Moton and 15-year old Ashley Baldwin were all so “startled” by the size of the baby that they all took photos of the baby with their cell phones.

Baby C was an intact baby of over 25-weeks gestation. Kareema Cross testified that she saw Baby C breathing and described the up and down chest movements she observed for 20 minutes. She told the court she saw Lynda Williams lift the baby’s arm and watched as the newborn drew it back on its own power. Afterwards, Williams inserted surgical scissors into the baby’s neck and “snipped” the spinal cord. Gosnell was said to be in the room at the time. This baby’s murder charges were unintentionally dismissed in the place of Baby F, but were reinstated after Judge Minehart discovered his error.

Baby D was described by witnesses as 12-15 inches long with the head the size of a “big pancake” when he was delivered into a toilet. Kareema Cross testified that she saw the baby struggling, using swimming motions in an attempt to get out of the toilet bowl. Adrienne Moton pulled the baby out and “snipped” the neck, as Gosnell had taught her to do, while the mother watched. Gosnell has also been charged with Criminal Solicitation of Moton to commit murder of Baby D.

Baby E was estimated to be at least 23 weeks gestation and maybe more. After Baby E was delivered, teen Ashley Baldwin heard the baby cry and called Kareema Cross for help. Cross described the baby’s cry as a “whine.” Baldwin said that Gosnell when into the room then came out with the baby — which now had an incision in its neck — and tossed it into the waste bin.

Mongar Murder Count Still Active

Gosnell also still faces one Third Degree Murder charge in the drug overdose death of second-trimester abortion patient Karnamaya Mongar. Witnesses testified that Mongar was not breathing right but Gosnell completed the abortion before attempting to revive Mongar. A defibrillator present in the room at the time was broken and unusable. Gosnell also faces several other charges related to the death of Mongar, including Murder by Drug Delivery Resulting in Death.

Other Active Criminal Charges

Gosnell faces a massive amount of other charges related to his corrupt abortion organization, including several violations of the Controlled Substances act for sloppy or improper drug handling and administration by unqualified employees. He also faces numerous Conspiracy and Solicitation charges related to the murder of newborns and illegal distribution of drugs. Gosnell faces a whopping 310 counts of violating Informed Consent laws, 33 counts of abortion at more than 24 weeks, and 10 counts of Theft by Deception, and three counts of Corruption of a Minor. He is also facing charges of running a Corrupt Organization and Racketeering.

Below is a full listing of his active charges, all of which will go to the jury:

• Murder (Karnamaya Mongar), 3rd degree, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c)
• Murder, drug delivery resulting in death (K. Mongar), 18 Pa.C.S. § 2506
• Controlled Substances Act, 35 P.S. 780-§113(f)(30), F-1
• Controlled Substances Act, 35 P.S. 780-§113(f)(14), F-1
• Conspiracy (Controlled Substances Act), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Solicitation (Controlled Substances Act), 18 Pa.C.S. § 902, 2 counts, F-1
• Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5105(a), F-3
• Obstructing Administration of Law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5101, M-2
• Murder (Baby Boy A), 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502
• Conspiracy (Murder of Baby C), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Solicitation (Murder, Baby C), 18 Pa.C.S. § 902, F-1
• Murder (Baby D), 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502
• Conspiracy (Murder of Baby D), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Solicitation (Murder, Baby D), 18 Pa.C.S. § 902, F-1
• Murder (Baby E) 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502
• Murder (Baby F), 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502
• Conspiracy (Murder of Baby F), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Conspiracy (Murder of Baby G), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Solicitation (Murder of Baby G), 18 Pa.C.S. § 902, F-1
• Conspiracy (murder, generally), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Infanticide (Baby Girl A), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3212, F-3
• Abortion at 24 or more weeks (33 counts), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3211, F-3
• Conspiracy (Abortion, 24 or more weeks), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-3
• Informed consent violations (310 counts), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3205, M-3
• Theft by deception (10 counts), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3922, M-1
• Conspiracy (Theft by deception), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, M-1
• Controlled Substances Act (Massof), 35 P.S. 780-(§113(f)(30), F-1
• Controlled Substances Act (Massof), 35 P.S. 780-(§113(f)(14), F-1
• Conspiracy (Controlled Substances Act), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Corrupt Organizations, Racketeering, 18 Pa.C.S. § 911(b), F-1
• Corrupt Organization, Conspiracy,18 Pa.C.S. § 911(b)(4), F-1
• Corruption of Minors (3 counts), 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301, M-1
• Obstructing Administration of Law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5101, M-2
• Tampering with or Fabricating Evidence, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4910, M-2

Gosnell also faces numerous Federal drug charges for the illegal distribution of narcotics that ended up on the streets of Philadelphia. He is expected to be tried in that case sometime later in Federal Court.

“The prospect of Gosnell being completely exonerated seems highly unlikely, but when a jury is involved, anything can happen,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “While the spotlight shines on this horrific case, we remain acutely aware that abortion clinics across America are operating in Gosnell-like conditions committing violations that Gosnell also committed. We continue to pray for justice in the Gosnell case and that all abortionists of his ilk will soon be brought to justice. May the Gosnell case speed the day when abortion is abolished in this country for good.”

Operation Rescue plans to be in the courtroom for closing arguments.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook