Megan McArdle weighs in. I notice that she tepidly admits that the media - and keep in mind, we're talking collectively about the national media nearly as a whole here - has refused to cover the story largely because of their pro-choice leanings. She tries limp-wristedly to turn the whole thing into a pro-choice cause: 'This is the very thing being pro-choice is supposed to keep from happening!' - but I think she knows it's a strained narrative at best.
I'll offer my own estimation: yes, the media at large has avoided the story because they fear it can't be spun in a way that does anything but make abortion look horrible. But more than that, it's because it's a story where the realities of abortion are front and center. You can't talk about Gosnell and, in a sterile-fashion, reference 'a woman's right to choose' (and always leaving out what is chosen) or 'reproductive rights' so easily. At the end of the day you have babies getting killed at a mother's whim, by the morally depraved. And this time, you have to talk about that.
That won't do. That is the absolute last thing you're ever supposed to actually discuss when pro-choice. Abortion is supposed to involve, you know.. a hysterically sobbing 12 year old black girl who was raped by her white stepfather and now is terrified and also if she has the child she will die, and also she's halfway through her first trimester at most. That's supposed to be what people think of when they think of abortion. A dead infant in a toilet with its throat slit? No, we're not supposed to think about that. Not yet, anyway. Not until the Singerisms and Cult of Gnu beliefs become more acceptable.
Still, the Gosnell incident does have one silver lining: it's provided some more evidence that the national media is corrupt. At this point you have to be goddamn blind, stupid or dishonest to claim otherwise.