I don't usually reprint a whole article, but this one deserves it... sick, just sick. Our country really needs to get back on track.
Between the Lines
Posted: September 25, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
I told you so.
I hate to say it, but I told you so.
Back on Aug. 9, I told you about the case of Christy Freeman, an Ocean City, Md., mother suspected of killing her newborn, or possibly unborn, baby in 2004 along with three others.
The remains of the children were all found at her home last month.
At first, investigators didn't know what to charge her with. Finally, they decided murder was the appropriate crime.
But, though the bodies of these victims were found in her possession, how could it be proved she killed them after birth? That was the question. If she killed them one minute before they were born, she was home free because Maryland, like many other states, expressly protects women who murder their own unborn children for any reason or no reason at all.
(Column continues below)
Also, it was unclear to prosecutors whether there was any crime in keeping the remains of dead babies.
Welcome to the world after Roe v. Wade.
Do you really want to make the argument this activist judicial ruling didn't cheapen life in America?
The case began when Freeman, a taxi driver and mother of four offspring who survived her household, went to the hospital after giving birth. Police searched her home for the baby and found a recently deceased infant under the bathroom sink. They also found three more sets of older baby remains, two in a trunk in the living room and one in a recreational vehicle parked outside the house of horrors.
When an examination found the fresh remains were from a stillborn, prosecutors dismissed murder charges. But they also charged her with killing one of the other children found in the trunk. Investigators believe she gave birth to twins on a toilet in 2004 and allowed one of them to die.
But now that charge, too, has been thrown out.
No crime, no punishment. Presumably, Freeman will be permitted to play devoted mother to the four surviving children.
The case hasn't received much publicity outside the area. No wonder. I don't think most journalists know what to make of such a case. After all, there weren't supposed to be people like Freeman anymore – not after abortion was made "safe and legal." Contraception was supposed to free women of unwanted pregnancies, and taxpayer-subsidized abortions were supposed to ensure that messiness like this would never be necessary.
Yet, here it is – staring us in the face.
There's a slight chance you might see Freeman's face flashed on the news. But there's no chance you will ever see the gruesome images of those four little ones whose lives were snuffed out.
And that's why it remains so easy for America to tolerate this national crime, this national shame, this national sin known as abortion on demand.
As I wrote last month about this case: "God knows what possessed Freeman to do what she did. Men and women have always done evil things and always will. It's their nature. And that is why government has a responsibility to rein in the worst of man's excesses – to keep us, at a minimum, from killing one another, to protect the innocent."
I also wrote: "It will be interesting if it turns out that no crime was committed. It's quite possible that four dead babies in your house is nothing more than, say, a health code violation, thanks to Roe v. Wade."
About this, I was wrong. It's not even a health-code violation. It's not even a reason to remove children from your care.
It's simply a non-event.
I really hate to say it, but I told you so.