Journalists were happy to see the movie “Gosnell” slip out of view, but then something happened that they couldn’t ignore: President Trump had arranged a screening at the White House with director and star Nick Searcy in April. Now it was time for liberals to pounce.

Suddenly it was the progressives who were pearl-clutching prudes. POLITICO called it “graphic” (it’s not, at all), and Searcy called out the Slate writer who said “gory” was “a factual description of this movie,” challenging her to tell her readers “the exact time code at which @gosnellmovie ‘depicts second- and third-trimester abortions in gruesome detail,” as she’d written in her piece.

In short, practically no one reporting on the bloody, graphic, gory, and gruesome “Gosnell” had actually seen it.

It took The New Yorker a while to get around to covering it, and writer Jia Tolentino described it as “the transparently racist, repulsive criminal-justice movie that was recently screened in Donald Trump’s White House.”

Yes, the movie was about criminal justice — Kermit Gosnell is a convicted criminal — but “transparently racist”? Searcy must be amazed in retrospect as the movie’s director to have missed all the gore and transparent racism.

Was it racist because it depicted the black guy as a bad guy? Just because a couple of black women died in his clinic, whose basement was stuffed with the remains of 47 babies who’d been delivered and their spinal cords cut? Because he cut off babies’ feet and kept them in jars?

Seriously, is “racist” a word writers just throw in there to bump up the word count or what?