There are lots of very smart people posting here. Why do you think the Washington Post chose not to cover the Gosnell trial but provided over-the-top coverage of the totally phony “Republican War on Women” and Sandra Fluke? What could possibly be the reason? Because it was a local news story with no national policy implications? Kind of like the murder of school children in Conn.? I see.

I’m afraid that the story is much more painful than that. The Gosnell trial rubs the faces of abortion rights supporters (including me, within limits) in the very ugly fact that there is no difference between a baby born alive (as the result of a botched late-term abortion) and a baby killed in utero (as the result of a successful late-term abortion). It won’t to do pretend that late term abortions are not all about killing babies. This very ugly fact makes the abortion rights premise - that it’s only about removing unwanted “fetal matter” from autonomous women - unsustainable. That argument might work for very early term pregnancies, but it just will not do otherwise.

IMHO, that’s why the NYT and WashPo didn’t send any reporters to cover the Gosnell trial.