Evidently, Carmon believes that since these women are poor and desperate and have no alternatives that they should be excused from any semblance of personal responsibility for their own sex lives, and from taking any measures that would prevent pregnancy. Carmon apparently believes that poor women are inferior to better-off women who can  pay for their own abortions or who take precautions when having sex — a shockingly racist view considering that in the Gosnell case, we are talking about mostly black and Hispanic women.

Carmon dismisses the notion that the Gosnell story isn’t being covered:

No, they aren’t right about the Gosnell story. If you’ve never heard of the Gosnell story, it’s not because of a coverup by the liberal mainstream media. It’s probably because you failed to pay attention to the copiouscoverage among pro-choice and feministjournalists, as well as the big news organizations, when the news first broke in 2011. There would be something rich, if it weren’t so infuriating, about these (almost uniformly male, as it happens) reporters and commentators scrambling to break open this shocking untold story. You know, the one that was written about here, here and here, to name some disparate sources.

I can’t speak for big news organizations like CNN and the networks, but let’s think about this question another way:

Alert: Change of subject coming:

How often do such places devote their energies to covering the massive health disparities and poor outcomes that are wrought by our current system? How often are the travails of the women whose vulnerabilities Gosnell exploited — the poor, immigrants and otherwise marginalized people — given wall-to-wall, trial-level coverage? If you’re surprised that in the face of politicized stigma, lack of public funding or good information, and a morass of restrictive laws allegedly meant to protect women, the vacuum was filled by a monster — well, the most generous thing I can say is that you haven’t been paying attention.

Carmon deals with the issue of “women’s health” in a vacuum, safely removed from the personal choices and responsibility of individual women. But how does lack of “coverage” of the issue of health care for the poor play into non-coverage of the Gosnell trial? It doesn’t, of course. Carmon has raised a straw man to distract from the issue she is supposedly addressing.

The issue of health care for the poor is a public-policy question. Trial coverage of Gosnell is a media-responsibility question. Carmon’s hobby horse that excuses poor women and makes them victims of their own bad decisions has nothing to do with why most of the mainstream media isn’t covering this trial. The examples she cites above — including a couple of blogs that no one reads (or certainly don’t have the reach and influence of many media outlets who aren’t covering the story) — are from two years ago. I suppose you could argue that since it was covered before, the case doesn’t need to be covered now. Go ahead and make that argument — it sounds silly.

I don’t know — and neither does Carmon — if Gosnell would have been operating within a system that paid for poor women’s abortions. I suspect he would have, given the incompetence of government shown in Pennsylvania. But to posit the notion that it is the fault of pro-lifers that Gosnell existed is politicizing infanticide, and even those who violently disagree with anti-abortion foes should condemn the actions of the abortionist as well as the lack of major media coverage of the trial.