This hour in Gosnell horrors

As I’ve said before, here, about this case: the official line is now that Gosnell was the fault of – wait for it – right-wingers and anti-abortionists. Irin (sic) Carmon at Salon: “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?….Cost is also how women often get past the legal gestational limit, as they struggle to save up enough money — and Gosnell’s willingness to break the law was what made him their last chance. To everyone who thinks his case was a reason for more abortion restrictions: What he did was already illegal.*** ****” (Emphasis and snidey comments mine.)

*”travails”? Well zut alors.

**It’s pronounced “margarinized“.

***Yes, Einstein. Hence the trial.

****And yet something tells me she’s in favour of more gun control.

(And here’s the reliably insane Amanda Marcotte.)
To give this twit more time than she’s probably worth: Irin (sic) is confused. People who are horrified by abortion in general and Kermit Gosnell in particular tend to scorn “restrictions”. Our complaint, among other things, is that we think you SELECTIVELY enforce the restrictions which are in place. We see this as a feature, not a bug, of the “restriction” mindset. Additionally, it’s quite correct to imply that most of us would prefer abortion banned pretty much outright. Just like you would with guns. Thanks for that analogy, “Irin”.