Dr Kermit Gosnell’s House of Horrors was well-known to the local community of West Philadelphia.

His reputation was as sleazy as it comes. He was the “go-to” doctor if you wanted a late term illegal abortion. But you had to pay cash … and lots of it. This was sketchy but not cheap.

Before we go on to the details of the case, it is important to remember a couple of points. Firstly, abortion is totally legal in the United States and is openly available in the state of Pennsylvania up to and including the 24th week of pregnancy. Secondly, after that an abortion is still possible, if the life of the mother is threatened in any way.

What we’re talking about here is a doctor who was outside this regime. A rogue doctor, in truth.

Testimony in the case showed that in the distant past, Dr Gosnell had been a very conscientious doctor. His records were well kept and the clinic was apparently run in a reasonable fashion.

But as time went on, the doctor appeared to become greedier and greedier and he was prepared to go way outside the law to keep himself in the luxury, to which he had become accustomed.

It all started to unravel with a raid at the clinic by the Federal authorities. They weren’t initially interested in abortion-related activities. They were chasing allegations that the doctor was effectively selling prescriptions to drug addicts.

What they found horrified them.

The clinic was filthy. A flea-ridden cat had free access to the entire building, including the operating “theatre”. Everywhere was grim: dirty linen, disgusting instruments and evidence that the mean doctor re-used cheap disposable instruments.

They could hardly believe what they found and as they gave evidence in the courtroom in Philadelphia, they were clearly revolted by what was found.

In the end the jury agreed with almost all of the prosecution case. Dr Gosnell was a monster. When botched late term abortions were performed and the babies were born alive, he took a scissors and “snipped” their necks in three cases. He murdered the babies, when it was his clear legal duty to try to revive them.

Those who spoke up for Dr Gosnell pointed out the lack of proper medical services in the poor part of Philadelphia he served. They said he had been a careful guardian of the local community, although even his most ardent supporters seem to concede that he went astray in recent years. And how astray! It may cost him his life.

Some readers may find the contents of this blog disturbing

By Richard Downes in Philadelphia

The courtroom in Philadelphia is jammed, with standing room only at key times. But strangely the case has not ignited the imagination of the public or the big networks.

CNN isn’t there. Nor is ABC or CBS. Just little old RTÉ. When you spend some time in the courtroom, you quickly get to understand why.

The case is nauseating. On occasion I had to breathe deeply, just to avoid heaving. The big question in one’s mind at all times is: how to report the case in a sensitive manner within the boundaries of acceptable taste. American television networks would find reporting this almost impossible, I would imagine.

As the evidence mounted of the practices and procedures (if you could call them that) of Dr Kermit Gosnell, it was difficult not to be shocked. The sheer filth and disgusting practices in the clinic were revolting. What are we talking about? Dozens and dozens of frozen foetuses, stored in a gigantic freezer, some in lemonade bottles. Yes, lemonade bottles. Filthy equipment. Not just dirty. Absolutely filthy.

But that is not the real reason this case is generating heat in the United States. Anti-abortion activists view the case as a turning point in public policy. They want to use the case to push home their views on abortion. Pro-choice advocates believe the case is a warning for what would happen if abortion laws were more restrictive. They see it as a throw-back to the days of the back-room abortion.

But it is the anti-abortion activists that are seizing on the Dr Gosnell case. It’s not an exaggeration to say that it has become the centre-piece of the pro-life campaign in America. The vast majority of the spectators in the court are pro-life activists, some of whom have come a long distance to attend. Stephanie Gray and Jonathon van Maren drove more than eight hours from Canada to watch proceedings and they agreed that it was a very significant case.

“This is the place to be”, Stephanie told me. “It’s a very important case.”

“I wouldn’t be anywhere else,” Jonathon said.

Fr Frank Provone, Director of Priests for Life, says it is not just Dr Kermit Gosnell who is on trial but a key issue. “Abortion is on trial”, he told me. “They may be arguing over the narrow legal issue of when an abortion was performed and whether that was legal, but it is a matter of killing. In other words was the child killed inside the womb or outside?”.

Abortion is legal in the United States and in the state of Pennsylvania up to 24 weeks. After that late term abortions are only allowed when the mother’s life is in danger. That was not the case in the four instances at issue here. Dr Gosnell is charged with performing abortions after the 24-week limit and then delivering the babies alive and killing them by cutting the spinal cord of the delivered babies. This is gruesome stuff indeed.

The prosecution and defence have made their case and now it is up to the jury to make a decision. After weeks of evidence and more than fifty witnesses, that is not an enviable task.

In his final blog from Washington DC,  RTÉ News Deputy Foreign Editor Anthony Murnane reflects on the events of voting day and looks ahead to the second term for President Barack Obama.

And so the ‘longest night’ comes to an end.

It was a 24 hour period that saw 130m Americans queue, some for as long as three hours, to exercise their right to vote.

A time frame that saw the polls close and the count begin. Then the time came for the electorate and political junkies to settle in for the night and watch the election results unfold.

We knew it was always going to be close, and for some time it was.

We watched as swing States like Florida returned results of 50/50 with the hundreds of thousands of votes for both sides exactly the same down to the last vote.

Then something began to happen. States like the all importantOhiostarted changing from swing to likely Obama. And then it just kept happening. The incumbent won enough swing states to secure a victory.

There was an outpouring of emotion. Thousands of Obama supporters in DC poured onto the streets, they gathered outside the White House. When we joined them to film the scenes it was a reminder of the joy that spread onto the streets that night four years ago when Barack Obama won his first election.

But the celebrations will be short-lived. Barack Obama must now deal with the economic and other problems he promised to solve, all with a Republican controlled House of Representatives and the tensions that bring.

Republicans will be regrouping and asking themselves how victory in this Presidential election slipped away from them.

Anthony Murnane, Deputy Foreign Editor, is in Washington where he assesses the situation facing the country’s 133 million likely voters on Election Day.

Washington is a bustling city around election time. The world’s media has descended in ‘the Nation’s Capital’ even though the candidates for the White House are usually in another place, their home states watching and waiting for the result.

We congregate on rooftops overlooking the White House where banks of cameras are trained on presenters and reporters as they bring the latest news of the election to the country and the world.

The last minute opinion polls released here within hours of my arrival from Dublin yesterday are giving the incumbent Barack Obama a slight edge with 48% support to Republican Mitt Romney’s 46%.

But those figures are within the margin of error allowed by the polling companies so everything is to play for today.

Both men realise the importance of the swing states in Election 2012 – as many as 14 could be in play – as they criss-crossed the US visiting states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado which hold crucial votes in the electoral college.

Mitt Romney is so serious about this challenge that he is adding campaign stops on Election Day itself.

The polls begin to open in the main at 11am Irish time on the east coast, although two small New Hampshire towns compete to be the first votes cast on election day in Dixville Notch and Hart’s Location at 5am Irish time.

The first indications of how it is all playing out will come between midnight and 2am Irish time on Wednesday morning with full coverage from RTÉ News on TV, radio and online.

By Robert Shortt in Virginia

It’s quiet, cold and the sun is shining. Washington DC is eerily calm.

It’s a professional city, full of ambitious people caught up in the cut and thrust of politics and all of its attendant courtiers in the lobbying and policy worlds.

But the two tribes of American politics have migrated to the seven or so battleground states where this closest of elections has been fought.

Some think they may even stay there for a while longer, if a close vote leads to challenges over the validity of certain ballots.

And it is that close.

Going into polling day, there’s less than a percentage point between the two candidates in the national vote across polls tracked by the Real Clear Politics website.

When it comes to the battleground states, the arithmetic of the electoral college system favours Obama. But even that lead is close.

Nowhere is the race closer than in the state of Virginia. Just south of the Potomac river from Washington DC, it was one of the major surprises in the 2008 elections.

Before that, it hadn’t voted Democratic since Lyndon ‘Landslide’ Johnson’s victory in 1964.

Republicans want it back and Mitt Romney needs it to secure his path to the White House.

Venturing onto the campaign trail can lead to some interesting encounters.

On a cold morning in Virginia’s northern suburbs, a crowd of around 100 Romney supporters wait for the arrival of Tagg and Ben Romney, sons of the Republican candidate.

When they arrive, the Romney sons fire up the volunteers to get out the vote.

Their grandfather, George, was the governor of Michigan in the 1960s and lost out to Richard Nixon for the Republican nomination in 1968.

Tagg –who looks remarkably like his father – is not about to mark a third generation in his family’s political dynasty. He stays diligently on message extolling the merits of his Dad and what he stands for.

Just before he climbs back into a waiting black SUV (complete with secret service detail) he tells me about his life in Dublin. Yes, I realise it’s not quite a Moneygall moment, but Tagg and his wife lived in Dartmouth Square in Ranelagh for two years while he worked for Elan in the late 1990s. He has fond memories. One of their daughters considers it home.

I’m not sure if this will secure Virginia’s Irish American voters.

But perhaps it showed the natural instincts of a politician to make a connection just waiting to emerge.

Robert Shortt will be reporting for Prime Time fromVirginiaon Tuesday. He will be co-presenting RTÉ’s election night coverage and morning results programme fromWashington.   

By Cian McCormack in Virginia

It’s been a gruelling campaign, not just for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but also for the armies of volunteers working tirelessly behind the scenes.

In Virginia, the Democrats are getting to the doorsteps by busing in young “surrogate” canvassers from Washington DC.

Lynn Schneider, an attorney from California, based herself in Norfolk for the election. She says: “Every vote is precious for every citizen, but especially in a state like Virginia.”

The Republicans are pushing hard too. Romney is calling for his supporters to “reach across their yards” to convince their next-door neighbours to vote for him.

There’s a common philosophy on both sides – you’ve got to get your voters to the polls or your candidate won’t cross the line first.

That’s why over the weekend – and even during the last day of the 2012 campaign – Obama and Romney have frenetically dipped in and out of swing states at break-neck speed.

Both candidates are greatly aware they need to motivate and electrify their base to gain voting advantage.

So, in an election like this one – where polls are putting both candidates at 48% in the swing states – you’ll see canvassers, both surrogate and local, swarming through the swing states in great numbers knocking on doors, calling to neighbours, doing everything they can to get their people to the polling station.

There’s a good reason for this: Turnout.

Quentin Kidd, Professor of Political Science at Christopher Newport University, says it’s all down to demographics and getting the right people to the polls.

It’s simple. A voter may promise to vote for a candidate, but it doesn’t mean they’ll actually turn up to vote on the day.

Professor Kidd knows this and he expects turnout to be lower than in 2008.

“It was 61-62% last time. I don’t think it will be that high this time. It’ll be in the upper 50s,” he said.

It’s expected that African-American voters will turn out in great numbers as they did before.

“They feel very proud of [Obama]. They feel very defensive of him. They want to turn out and be supportive of him,” Professor Kidd said.

There could be an advantage to Romney though.

Younger voters may not drift to Obama in the same numbers as they did before.

Professor Kidd says in 2008 Obama sparked the young person’s imagination, but this time he’s not new.

“He’s got four years worth of scars,” said the professor. “He’s got grey hair. They are also four years older and they’ve also suffered through this bad economy. I think that they are also a little demoralised.”

With an eroded youth base, the Obama campaign will be hoping to capitalise on the growing Latino vote in some swing states – Virginia, Nevada, and North Carolina.

Professor Kidd expects that vote to be twice what it was in 2008.

In a state such as Virginia that makes a big difference as 8% of eligible voters are Latino.

“Last time they turned out at 2%,” says Professor Kidd. “This time if they turn out at 3, 4 or 5% that makes a big difference. I think the Obama campaign is banking on that.”

By Anthony Murnane, Deputy Foreign Editor, who is en route to Washington DC to help cover the US elections for RTÉ News special programmes output. In his first blog, he wonders what mood awaits him in the US.

At immigration clearance in Dublin Airport a photo of President Barack Obama looks down over the US officers checking travellers’ passports, visas and immigration forms.

Making this journey four years ago it was a photo of President George W Bush that was in that frame. His presidency was in its dying days. His Republican administration had left a disenchanted electorate eager for change.

Arriving in Washington back then there was a palpable desire for something new. Street vendors sold Obama/Biden badges and T-shirts, baseball caps and even toys.

On election day the queues to vote stretched around the street corners from early morning. People who had never voted before came out to cast their ballot for a politician from Chicago who promised change and so much more.

He convincingly defeated his Republican rival John McCain, but now four years later it is Barack Obama who is under pressure.

Opinion polls reflect how close this vote is likely to be. Obama and Mitt Romney are neck and neck with only hours to go. There is widespread unhappiness with the Obama administration. It centres on the economy highlighted by the 8% unemployment rate but those seeking an alternative will point to the failure to close Guantanamo Bay, inactivity in the Middle East and an awaited troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

This election night will be a very different event to four years ago. The expectation is the result will be far from clear cut and it could be well into Wednesday morning at the earliest before we find out whether its President Obama for a second term or President Romney reclaiming the White House for the Republicans.

By Richard Downes, Washington Correspondent

Everybody – it seems – loves a battle; a contest. Be it the All-Ireland finals, the World Cup or Wimbledon. We all love the head to head match between the two strongest teams or individuals. And the American Presidential election has all the qualities of one of these epic encounters, which is why so many of us find it so compelling.

And because there are generally only two combatants, the battle is all the more easy to follow. I wouldn’t be the first to point out that you have more choice in terms of numbers of candidates in voting for Roscommon county council than you do in the United States, with 330 million people.

Only two national figures will appear on the ballot, which means that millions of Americans will be shoe-horned into choosing one candidate that only vaguely reflects their own philosophy, or is at least somewhere in their field of opinion.

Take Mitt Romney. During the Primaries, which chose him as the Republican candidate, he portrayed himself as a severely conservative governor of the state of Massachusetts. It was not true.

He portrayed himself as anti-abortion. But that was a recent conversion on his part. He had been pro-choice all the way along. But he won the Republican nomination anyway.

He was the strongest in a very weak field. At an unguarded moment one of his advisers let us see behind the veil of the campaign. In an interview Eric Fehrnstrom said after the primaries, there would be an etch a sketch moment, when Romney’s image would be remade.

You probably remember the etch a sketch from when you were a child, infuriating things that I have to say, I never managed to master.

And you know what … I’m not sure the Republicans ever quite got the hang of it either.

They seemed to have pulled the political masterstroke of this campaign in the first head to head debate, when Mitt Romney came out and presented himself as a moderate, someone firmly in the middle of politics, someone who has the needs of the country’s middle class at heart. He wasn’t going to cut taxes for the rich or destroy the welfare programmes. It was all untrue. He was just like Jim and Sue, an ordinary American.

To say this flatfooted Barack Obama, would be an understatement. I remember counting him losing 7 of the first 8 debating points. He was on the ropes. The new energized Mitt Romney had him on the back foot in what was the most surprising week of the campaign. And it seemed to be working. Mitt Romney rose in the polls. Some surveys had him 4 points ahead.

The Obama campaign hit back with everything. The President himself was a different character in the second and third debates. He won those. Campaign ads pointed out the glaring discrepancies in the Romney campaign. Gradually Barack Obama seemed to claw back lost ground.

And then came Hurricane Sandy. For three days, Mitt Romney did not figure on the news. President Obama rubbed shoulders with Republican governors and mayors and showed his best qualities. 8 out of 10 voters surveyed thought he was doing a good job.

The slight turn that the Democrats were counting on had come.

But opinion polls still show one of the closest races in American history. You have to go back to 1960 to find two candidates so close in opinion polls before polling day.

But in the swing states, where the election will be determined, the polls show a slight advantage for Barack Obama. This is where the Democrats have concentrated much of their fire power. This is where they have spent the money.

This might well pay off for a campaign that has been utterly and brilliantly ruthless and professional in its execution. They have used every trick in the book to get their candidate over the line and on the eve of the election, they are exuding an irritating confidence that they were right all along: Barack Obama was the better candidate and if they win, they will put everything down to that.

The Republicans have a different problem. Their campaign took forever to catch fire. They rarely reached beyond their core base of white males, one of the fastest shrinking groups in America.

And ultimately the lesson they may draw will be: when you rely on flawed tactics and children’s toys, you get the result you deserve.

By Richard Downes, Washington Correspondent

We were almost writing off Mitt Romney’s chances of taking the Presidency only a couple of weeks ago. His campaign was plagued with errors and was running out of steam rapidly. Then came the October surprise. Romney took to the stage in Denver and demolished a lacklustre Barack Obama.

The President looked distracted and failed to perform. Another factor was the way American television covered the contest. They adopted a split-screen format, which showed the two candidates on screen at all times. Mostly what you saw was Barack Obama fidgeting and taking notes and occasionally wincing, as Romney riffed through his well-prepared routine and when the President spoke, he was hesitant and halting.

What a turnaround! Since then, the opinion polls have shown that, at least in this race, the television debates matter. Obama’s poor showing and Romney’s strong appearance have turned this into a knife-edged affair.

According to most polls, the candidates are either exactly even or Romney has a slight advantage. In swing states, the story is subtly different. Florida is leaning towards Romney, but Ohio is still providing good news for Obama. Romney’s team knows that no Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio, so there’s no surprise that Romney and his junior, Paul Ryan, are hitting the hustings in Ohio at ever opportunity. You can’t take your eyes off it!

By Richard Downes, Washington Correspondent

The first Presidential debate is one of those key moments in this campaign. Both candidates have been preparing intensively for it.

Mitt Romney has been holed up in various hideaways to hone his skills with Senator Rob Portman, a close associate, playing the role of debate opponent.

President Obama has come to debate preparation late. He has been staying at an exclusive resort near Las Vegas, while his surrogates have tried to play down his chances.

They appear to be saying that he is the underdog in this contest. That is almost certainly stretching the truth to breaking point. Barack Obama is the president and that comes with advantages.

Mitt Romney, as the challenger, has started the campaign at a disadvantage. But the debates have a levelling effect. We will all be watching to see how this works out. Independent commentators have consistently said that Romney has to win and win convincingly to make up the ground he has lost against the incumbent.

That could make for an explosive debate. But others in the Romney campaign have said that this approach could be a mistake and could lead to Romney over reaching himself. He is a stiff character with little of the ease and word-mastery of Obama.

A ‘bull in a china shop’ approach by Romney might not help him. For Obama, success might be more difficult to define. The independent view seems to be that he needs to go back to the ‘No drama, Obama’ mantra. Steady as she goes, would be sufficient for him.

But debates always throw up something unexpected and we will all be watching for those, won’t we?