Jack McMahon’s Interview with Megyn Kelly






At the end of an interview between Megyn Kelly and Kermit Gosnell’s defense attorney, Jack McMahon – that at times became pretty heated – Jack said something that everyone needs to hear (or in this case read).

Jack: I’ll tell you what. I’ve come out of this case realizing that 24 weeks is a bad determiner. It should be like 16, 17 weeks. That would be a far better thing because the babies would not be even arguable viable at that point and time. And I think the law should be changed to that. I think pro-choice would have still the right to choose but they’ve got to choose quicker. And I think that’s something that should come out of this. I think more regulations should come out of these locations.

Megyn: I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

Jack: I’m not sitting here saying this was all done right.

Megyn: Well, actually I shouldn’t say that because NARAL pro-choice America and other pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood are disputing some of the regulations that have been proposed.

Megyn began the interview stating, “I want to make clear from the onset that we don’t tar the attorney for the sins of the client. That’s not the way this system works in this country.” And from there the interview continued and as it did it got more and more contentious.

Not being an attorney myself and not having sat in the courtroom for every part of this trial as Jack did, I for one respect Jack in his handling of what seemed to be a very difficult situation.

As a defense attorney he defended his client with zeal to the best of his ability as the justice system requires of him. The fact that he says that Gosnell was “a dream client . . . a gentleman, polite, understanding, fully appreciative of the work that I’ve done for him. A complete gentleman. A soft spoken man, an intelligent man,” does not mean that he agreed with what Gosnell did nor does he think that his client did nothing wrong. It only means that Jack his client, Gosnell, as a fellow human being as we all should.

Why Jack sees him in that light is anyone’s guess but we should see him in the same light because he was created by God as you and I were. As such, he has a soul worth saving. Did he do despicable things: Absolutely! Should he be in prison? Absolutely! Is he a monster as many have described him? What I do know is that God did not create a monster. So how did he become this way. Fr. Frank does a good job of explaining in his column, Why is Gosnell Smiling?

Jack is Gosnell’s defense attorney and as such he is answering questions asked of him from that perspective. I don’t know what his personal views are on abortion. What I do know is that as a defense attorney he had to do the best job possible for his client. Even now he seems to be answering questions honestly and directly according to what come out in court without the emotional response that most of us have.

Maybe if Jack could step out of the “attorney” roll we would see a much different man as it seems we got a glimpse of at the end of the interview.

I also want to share a story that a good friend of mine, Georgette Forney, related to me:

A friend of mine knows a nurse from in the late 1960s; her (the nurse’s) husband was training to become a doctor in Philadelphia. She was talking about the fact that back then Gosnell offered the nurses OBGYN services because he knew they couldn’t afford it.

She was a nursing student at the time, in a sorority that had a piano in the front room. When young Dr. Gosnell found out what sorority she was in he would go play the piano and the sorority women really liked the guy. They said he was just very kind and he didn’t charge the nurses for the free medical exams. He provided free OBGYN services to them because he said he wanted to help struggling nursing students. He also provided prescriptions for birth control. He was trying to be helpful. She talked about the fact that he was very professional and very well respected.

Here was the interesting thing that she said. “I googled his name a couple of years back (this is the 21st century by now) because I had thought of him and I expected him to be the head of a medical school OBGYN department. He was so well respected and he was so charismatic that I thought he would leader in the medical profession. So when I googled him and found out that he was an abortionist in Philadelphia, I was shocked.”

Her story reminded me of what late term abortionist said to me the time I visited his abortion mill soon before he was shot and killed. I went to tell him that I was post abortive and that he was doing harm to women and babies. His response that he sent to me via his security guard was this: “Tell Dr. King that we both care about women, we just have different ways of showing it.”

There is something very wrong with this picture. Doctors who think they start out trying to do good become murderous monsters in the abortion industry. All of this makes one wonder what the real motivation must be for Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America and their communities of death must be. As they continue to oppose sensible legislation that would require enforcement of laws for safety and care, inspection of facilities and other measures to prevent other abortion facilities from deteriorating to the point that they become the type of torture chambers that Gosnell’s ‘House of Horrors’ was.

Could the real motivation be money instead of safe and rare?

We can see that something went terribly wrong with Gosnell. Please continue to pray for his soul and that we’ll uncover the dark things that cause people to go off track.






One Response to “Jack McMahon’s Interview with Megyn Kelly”

  1. Ronald Richards says:

    Ms King: I was a prosecutor for a number of years and talked with many defendants, many of whom committed very bad crimes. Sitting in the courtroom, most of them were polite, many were friendly and chatted with me amiably. I knew, as anyone of common sense should know, that meeting them in the courtroom (or in a law office) is a completely different experience than meeting them when they have the advantage. In other words, I wouldn’t want to meet them on a lonely street on a dark night.

Leave a Comment

*