It's the serial-murder trial you've probably never heard of

This week, a wealthy Philadelphia doctor has been on trial for the murder of eight people. The case has numerous elements that each by itself could make the trial a big news story: infanticide, the apparent gross incompetence of government oversight officials, a clear tie-in to a hot-button political issue, unlicensed medical practices, body parts found in a refrigerator, incredible amounts of cash found in a raid on the defendant's home, accusations of prosecutorial lynching, even an undeniable gross-out factor. Yet chances are — unless you happen to pay attention to Philadelphia-area news media or read certain niche online journals such LifeNews — that you haven't heard of the trial. It's as if there were a media blackout against it.

The trial: Dr. Kermit Gosnell, operator of a women's clinic, is accused of third-degree murder for the death of a 41-year-old patient as well as murders for seven instances of infanticide, all (according to the grand jury) related to live births after induced delivery in what were supposed to be late-term abortions.

It's as sensational of a case as can be; if you want nightmares while in bed tonight, try reading the grand jury report. It is certainly more interesting than the Jodi Arias trial going on in Arizona and countless other criminal cases that are covered ad nauseam by the national media until the next one comes along. Yet a study a few days ago found that the trial hadn't even been mentioned on NBC, ABC or CBS, and that it had barely been mentioned on Fox and CNN. Coverage of major newspapers has been almost nonexistent; only in the last few days have the major news purveyors been saying much of anything — and those have been opinion pieces questioning where the coverage is rather than news coverage itself.

Partly because they see the trial has highlighting the lack of a clear moral line that separates infanticide from at least some abortions, some anti-abortion activists have been pressuring media in recent days to give the trial the coverage it deserves. But I'm not convinced that the reason for the news "blackout" has much to do with undeniable sympathy among journalism's elite for legalized abortion. After all, the politics of the trial cuts both ways: If anything, the existence of clinics such as the one Gosnell ran could be used to argue the case that he could do his dirty business only because these women didn't have ready access to earlier, safer procedures.

I'm not saying that the media aren't gun-shy about covering the trial because of the abortion connection. What I am saying is that I believe a much bigger reason for the lack of coverage is simple racism and classism: Dr. Gosnell's patients, and therefore the his purported victims, were primarily nonwhite (usually black or Asian) and/or drawn from Philly's struggling immigrant community.

I can't help but think of the woman Gosnell (through his staff) allegedly murdered: 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, a Nepalese immigrant. To be blunt about it, pictures of Mongar show her as being not only nonwhite, but also not meeting our cultural standards of beauty. Imagine, instead, that a doctor had been accused of murdering an attractive, young white woman — say, someone who looked like Natalee Holloway or Chandra Levy or Elizabeth Smart. Would the major news media stay silent? I doubt it. It's easy to imagine seeing the woman's family and friends on TV talking about how great of a person she was. But who has there been to speak for Karnamaya Mongar?

No, Mongar was just one of those all-but-nameless immigrants that we, and the major news media, tend to look down on. And Gosnell's other alleged victims were literally nameless, and were conceived to women who were every bit as unimportant to society as Mongar was.

According to the grand jury, Gosnell provided his white patients with better facilities than those in which Mongar and the seven babies (or fetuses if you prefer the term Gosnell's attorney uses) died. By all indications, Gosnell lavished attention on his white patients but didn't give the lowly nonwhite and immigrant women who came to see him the dignity that they deserved. By ignoring this case, neither are the major news media.

Fight over abortion is far from over

And you thought the fight against abortion was no longer a viable issue.

Tonight's 240-194 vote in the House to impose a quite restrictive ban on subsidized health coverage in the comprehensive health reform package should delight anti-abortion activists — and infuriate those on the other side. It's probably the most meaningful congressional vote on an abortion matter in at least a dozen years.

So what happened? First is that this vote was on using tax money to pay for abortion; presumably, an outright ban would have had less support. Also, in recent years, it has become acceptable within the Democratic Party to be leery of abortion; in contrast with a few years ago, when anti-abortion Democrats were barred from speaking at their national convention, several visible leadership positions have gone in recent years to moderate anti-abortion politicians.

And I suspect, although I couldn't prove, that the strident position taken by many abortion-rights activists — refusing to even look at any compromise that many people in the middle would favor, such as reasonable parental-consent laws — have lost them sympathy with some middle-of-the road people from both sides of the political aisle. And I also suspect that there could be some sort of a backlash to recent gains from the left on social issues.

It's hard to say where it will lead. I don't foresee support for some of the more radical positions of some anti-abortion activists, such as granting all the rights of personhood to fetuses, or to prohibiting abortions in the most difficult cases, such as in the cases of rape and incest. But it's clear that, as bleak as things may have looked a few years ago for opponents of abortion, they are making some noticeable gains, even under a Democratic administration.

Winners and losers this week

It's difficult to find any clear conservative trends, or liberal ones, in voting on initiatives and referenda this week. There was a little of something for everyone. Even so, there were plenty of losers and winners.

Among the winners:

• Opponents of gay marriage: California's Proposition 8, designed to reverse a state Supreme Court ruling calling two-sex-only marriage unconstitutional, apparently was narrowly approved (there are still plenty of votes to be counted, but analyses suggest there aren't enough votes left to reverse things), making California the first state to make same-sex marriage illegal once it had already been recognized. Although California's constitutional amendment has received the most publicity this week, similar measures in Arizona and Floria also were approved; Florida's needed a 60% supermajority and got it. A measure that is in many ways more far-reaching, Arkansas Measure 1, was handily adopted, making it illegal for gay couples (or cohabitating couples, for that matter) to adopt children. California voters' apparent decision means that gay marriage has yet to be made legal in any state with by voter or legislative approval; so far, gay marriage in the United States is a court-ordered phenomenon.
  
• Backers of doctor-assisted suicide: Initiative 1000 easily passed in Washington, making it the second state to explicitly allow the practice. The only other such state is Oregon, whose law also was the product of an initiative.
  
• Opponents of affirmative action: Nebraska's initiative to end affirmative action was approved with 58 percent of the vote. A similar but more hotly contested measure, Colorado's Amendment 46, appears to be passing. An English-only measure was easily adopted in Missouri.
  
• Payday borrowers: Ohio voters upheld a law that put a 28% cap on the interest rate charged by payday lenders, those offices of legal usury that exist throughout the country to serve people who can't afford their services. As a result, at least two payday lenders, Cash America and Cashland, have said they are curtailing their operations, and others may follow. Also, in Arizona, voters rejected a proposal supported by the payday loan industry.

And some losers:

• Anti-abortion activists: It didn't come as much surprise that South Dakota voters rejected a far-reaching proposal to ban most abortions; even if it had passed, it would have been mostly symbolic as chances are that courts would have struck it down. But a less far-reaching measure in California, a parental-consent initiative also was rejected. So too was a radical Colorado proposal to redefine personhood as beginning at the time of conception. Michigan voters also passed a measure allowing embryonic stem cell research, although there are some restrictions on where the embryos can come from.
  
• Anti-tax zealots: Let's face it: None of us, even those of use whose benefit considerably from government services (and that's basically all of us), like to pay taxes. But some anti-tax efforts simply go to far, and Massachusetts voters obviously saw that Tuesday as they rejected Question 1, to phase out the state income tax, by more than a 2-1 ratio.

And some that were winners and losers:

• Gamblers: Maryland voters OK'd a measure to allow slot machines (but they're officially known as video terminals) as part of the state lottery, while Missouri voters repealed a loss limit in casinos. By winning the right to spend more, gamblers certainly will lose.
  
• The Mormon church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the most visible of the supporters of California's Proposition 8, although it was far from the only church supporting the proposal to ban gay marriage. After the election victory, though, the backlash has set in, which protesters appearing outside church temples in the Los Angeles area and Salt Lake City and others threatening a boycott of Utah (even though Salt Lake City has been gay-friendly enough to establish a "mutual commitment" registry to help gay couples qualify for employment benefits). Ironically, while California doesn't have enough Mormon voters to have made a difference in the final outcome, there have been no protests held in black and Latino neighborhoods, where voters backed the measure by as much at 70 percent.