'All Murders Aren’t the Same'

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others,” – Orwell.

“Yes, that is correct… All murders aren’t the same”, responded Rep. Janice Schmidt (D) Hillsborough 27 – Nashua to a comment asking her about the comparison of the killings in Newtown and those in the Gosnell trial.

She wrote this on a comment to my last blog. The subject of the blog noted how the media covered, or didn’t cover, the two killings.

For those that still do not know about the Gosnell trial, it’s finally breaching the news coverage with its gory and lugubrious details, so I’ll sum it up quickly: it’s about an abortionist, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who allegedly killed women and delivered babies only to, again allegedly, impale them with scissors and snip their spinal cords. The Grand Jury Report stated over the years there were over “hundreds of snippings.”

My blog’s point was that the lack of coverage of the Gosnell trial, especially when juxtaposed with the media gusher of the Newtown tragedy, is the product of extreme liberal media bias.

Apparently, I piqued compassionate Janice and she did what Janice does, and sounded off. It occurred on the Patch, so naturally others called her on it. The following is a comment in response to Janice’s initial comment and her glib reply:

Proud Conservative

So, according to Jan Schmidt the liberal democrat, there is a huge distinction between the types of murders. A crazed man shooting kids in a school is a horrible tragedy deserving of immediate legislation that restricts lawful gun owners’ rights, while a doctor murdering young, innocent, defenseless babies is such an insignificant event that it doesn’t even warrant news coverage. Way to go Jan!!! Better to kill the kids before they get to school age, eh?

Yes, that is correct… All murders aren’t the same

Stunning. What does she mean by that? And why aver so cavalierly?

Obviously, as with fingerprints, the fine details of every murder are unique. Duh, the victim is always different so of course “All murders aren’t the same” in that sense, but that’s a distinction without a difference and too inane even to be Janice’s intent. So, what did she mean?

Let’s look at her initial comment and see if we can dig out any clues as to her real meaning behind that awful statement. Please ignore her tone; she’s addressing me and she really doesn’t like my stuff; she even puts me in the same category as Dr. Gosnell. I wonder if she occasionally thumbs through Abortion Today articles penned by postpartum puncturing practitioners while on the commode… Anyway, that’s for another day.

Here’s her initial comment on my blog (emphasis mine):

Jan Schmidt

Can it be that creating a false equivalency is all you’re trying to accomplish?

Because the man who is breaking the law and butchering women is doing it under the guise of being a trusted person, he is abusing women for money and should be retired to his own hell for eternity.

He’s not a mentally ill boy with a mother who supplied him with not just the means to kill, but the training and the tools. He doesn’t belong to an organization that uses his tools of the trade to kill… His club is pledged to heal.

The case is sickening, but equating it with Newtown is truly disturbing, and demanding the press cover it like a mass murder of living breathing adults and their charges? I think this puts you in the same category and the doctor.

Doing something despicable for your own advancement., yet again.

OK, now we see her distinction:

• One is a man who breaks the law, butchers women, and doesn’t belong to a killing organization*, and Jan implies that his case shouldn’t have press coverage like the other.

First, notice her vulgar elision of newborns being killed by the case she intimates is less worthy; they must not count. She also cunningly didn’t mention “children” in the Newtown case either and used “charges” in its stead but did single out “living breathing adults.”

Which brings us to what I think she means by “All murders aren’t the same”.

Look at the breakdown of her words used to distinguish the two trajedies. I think any honest reading would conclude that at least both should be covered. But not to her because the Gosnell case shines a ghastly light on an extremely unpopular and controversial abortion procedure that has the potential to hurt Democrats/Liberals/Progressives politically. And that. Won’t. Do.

That’s what she means by, “All murders aren’t the same.” She means some murders are politically beneficial or expedient, so exploit them (e.g., anything that can help the anti-gun movement; see also “never let a serious crisis go to waste”, whether the crisis in manufactured or not). If they are politically beneficial ignore them, like with the Gosnell case or with black on black crime plaguing Democrat controlled cities. There’s really nothing to be gained by doing anything about them so. Move on. (Oh look, now I know what that means.)

Now it makes sense. I don’t agree with it and think it’s pathetically shallow and twisted, but I understand it.

I need to thank Janice because she did provide empirical support (in the very same blog no less) to the overarching point of my last blog. That is if there’s nothing to be gained politically for the liberals/Democrats. They’ll ignore it. The converse is also true.

Oh, and one more thing. Note to Jan’s husband Atlant: it might be advised that you periodically stay abreast of where husbandicide falls on the politically beneficial murder chart, wouldn’t want you to be caught off guard.

* A quick note on: “He doesn’t belong to an organization that uses his tools of the trade to kill.” This is just factually incorrect, see the Jury Report. The antecedent to “He” in her sentence is the abortionist. The entire trial is about him using tools of his trade to kill women and newborns. Hey, Nashua, nice job on picking your State Rep!

You've just read Democrat State Rep. Janice Schmidt: All murders aren’t the same" by Scott Morales originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home).