Obama, Clinton, Planned Parenthood, truth, lies and videos

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!”

Whatever one thinks of Walter Scott’s 19th Century epic poem perhaps best remembered by that line, you have to give him and his writing credit for pithy insight.

Enduring insight, given the politics of our time. Take this Wall Street Journal column by William McGurn, for instance.

‘When the science is inconvenient, when the facts don’t match up with the ideology, they are cast aside.”

So charged Sen. Barack Obama in a Planned Parenthood speech in 2007. The line was a dig at George W. Bush for his approach to abortion and reproductive rights. Eighteen months later, the new president repeated his snipe in his inaugural vow to “restore science to its rightful place.”

Today President Obama is the one finding the science inconvenient. In the past, the president hasn’t hesitated to weigh in on other controversies while they were in progress—from an altercation between a black Harvard professor and a local white cop to more recent comments about the rape allegations against Bill Cosby. Suddenly, however, he has nothing to say about two [now five] secretly recorded videos that include one Planned Parenthood doctor talking about a “less crunchy” abortion technique that would leave fetal organs intact for harvesting.

Nothing.

Then again, for all Mr. Obama’s talk about restoring science to its proper place, his promises made clear that, if elected, he would not only be the first African-American president but have a good claim to be deemed as the first Planned Parenthood POTUS as well. The price was jettisoning the soothing Bill Clinton language—“safe, legal and rare”—for a more militant approach in which no abortion is beyond the pale.

In the process, President Obama has had to overlook the contradictory approach to science among his own allies. Take sonograms, or ultrasounds. In the first video, Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Deborah Nucatola describes using ultrasound to help those doing the abortion “know where they are putting their forceps.”

On “Fox News Sunday” last weekend, Carly Fiorina underscored the contradiction. Planned Parenthood lobbies against laws requiring women to have an “opportunity to look at an ultrasound before she makes an incredibly difficult choice to end the unborn life within her,” said the Republican hopeful. “And yet they are using that same technology to harvest body parts.”

Just follow the logic. And the story line.

At other times when the facts don’t match up with his ideology, Mr. Obama retreats to silence. In 2013, when Kermit Gosnell’s abortion horrors were before the American people, Mr. Obama’s then-spokesman Jay Carney told reporters the president couldn’t comment on an ongoing trial.

The reporter pressed for an answer, noting that the president’s position had special relevance for this case. As an Illinois state senator, he pointed out, Mr. Obama had opposed a bill that would have provided medical care “to babies who would be born after a botched abortion” like those that Dr. Gosnell was accused of killing.

That’s worth pausing on for a moment, since it was so overlooked during both election cycles. This was all foreseeable, for those who paid attention.

Two weeks after that White House news conference, Mr. Obama made history as the first sitting president to address Planned Parenthood. Two weeks later, Dr. Gosnell was convicted of murdering three babies. Still, the president has said nothing.

Now we have two Planned Parenthood docs on film [and five videos so far] talking about the value of human organs in a fetus whose humanity they would deny. In private the euphemisms disappear. “When they talk to the public or to women about to get an abortion they talk about ‘tissue,’ ” says Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life. “But when they talk to someone buying body parts, it’s about intact hearts, livers and lungs.”

Tuesday, the WSJ Opinion page carried this response from Gail Finke.

William McGurn’s “The Political ‘Science’ of Planned Parenthood”… about President Obama’s sudden ignorance of science when it comes to abortion doesn’t go far enough.

Abortion advocates say that a fetus is a baby only if the mother wants it to be. A woman is 10 weeks pregnant with a baby if she wants to be a mother; another woman whose “fetus” is exactly the same age but who doesn’t want to have a baby can pay a doctor to “evacuate” the “products of conception.” If four embryos are created in one round of in vitro fertilization and two are implanted in a woman’s uterus, they are much-wanted children. The other two, their biological siblings, are nothing more than “extra embryos” that can be frozen or otherwise disposed.

The only difference between the thing being discussed (the person being discussed) is what the woman wants. You can call that many things, but one thing you can’t call it is science.

The tangled web is unraveling.

The fifth video was released Tuesday, involving negotiation of harvesting and selling body parts of five month old babies. More on that in the next post…

Mollie Hemingway lays out the different major strands of this sequential eruption of truth that is happening beyond the reach or control of the power elite who have controlled the message for so many years now, until now. She tells you that Planned Parenthood sought and got a temporary restraining order against the release of more videos, but that the injunction was not constitutional. Two more videos have been released since then.

She reports that Planned Parenthood hired a crisis communications firm to help manage its public relations crisis. The background is interesting.

There’s the suspicious claim that Planned Parenthood was hacked  in “an attack by extremists”, an intriguing account Hemingway unravels.

And the diminished attention major media outlets have given this major story.

The reaction last week by Hillary Clinton is very interesting, and Hemingway notes that, along with the link to Clinton’s interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader piece in which the Democratic front runner for the presidency called the videos “disturbing”. But since I first read that piece last week, it has been updated to read differently, giving Planned Parenthood a good deal of cover.

“Planned Parenthood is answering questions and will continue to answer questions.

(No, they’re really not.)

I think there are two points to make,” Clinton said. “One, Planned Parenthood for more than a century has done a lot of really good work for women: cancer screenings, family planning, all kinds of health services.

(Another myth. “In 2013, abortions made up 94% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services, while prenatal care and adoption referrals accounted for only 5% (18,684) and 0.5% (1,880), respectively”, according to study findings by the Susan B. Anthony List.)

Hemingway continues on Hillary Clinton’s remarks:

And this raises not questions about Planned Parenthood so much as it raises questions about the whole process, that is, not just involving Planned Parenthood, but many institutions in our country.”

(Actually, the video series is about Planned Parenthood’s practices in our country.)

“And if there’s going to be any kind of congressional inquiry, it should look at everything and not just one part of it,” she said.

How about both/and. It indeed should look at everything in the abortion industry and ideology and the whole abortion culture. And it should look at Planned Parenthood’s harvesting and marketing of baby body parts in particular, and whether that breaks the law, as some of the videos seem to reveal. Like the latest one.

Captured on video is Planned Parenthod Gulf Coast Director of Research Melissa Farrell discussing with a potential buyer about the best way to harvest organs from aborted babies. Farrell states at 8:05 in the video that at Planned Parenthood, “if we alter our process, we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers.” She also notes that they are willing to modify the abortion procedure to collect body parts, saying, “We deviate from our standard in order to do that.” Modifying an abortion procedure to obtain organs is prohibited under federal law.

And let’s put that claim of screenings, at least mammograms (number 10 in Hemingway’s piece), to rest finally.

No…97 percent of Planned Parenthood’s work is not mammograms. In fact, zero percent of Planned Parenthood’s work is mammograms because Planned Parenthood doesn’t do a single mammogram. Planned Parenthood falsely made the claim that they did during their campaign to shame the Komen Foundation into continuing to fund them, and some media asserted it as well. President Obama has regularly made the claim during his War on Women messaging.

The only problem is that it’s just not true. From a Washington Post fact check a few years ago:

“The problem here is that Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms or even possess the necessary equipment to do so.”

So let’s get to the truth. And stop the deceptions.

Study on premature babies’ survival provokes thought

It stated the obvious.

But on Thursday, this story appeared on the cover of the New York Times, prominently, above the fold, with a photo to help illustrate the point. First of all, look at the photo and read the caption. That pretty much sums up the story. Which became much more difficult to access online the very day it appeared.

Here’s the opening paragraph:

A small number of very premature babies are surviving earlier outside the womb than doctors once thought possible, a new study has documented, raising questions about how aggressively they should be treated and posing implications for the debate about abortion.

Several things about that. The photo shows a thriving young girl who was born ‘very prematurely’, illustrating the full humanity of life at all stages. The opening sentence in the piece emphasizes “a small number of very premature babies”, planting the idea that these babies are “very premature’ (so what?), and that only a “small number” of the them survive outside the womb if delivered that early (so…we should disregard them?). Oh, and another thing downplayed in the lead. It was documented in “a new study”.

What was buried deeper in the Times story was that this study was produced by the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine.

There’s a lot to say about this report, a lot to unpack. But for now, the clear and delightful humanity of the little girl on the swing in the photo accompanying the story says it all. And the implications this has on the debate about abortion…no question. After the Gosnell trial there were enormous implications. Truth has a way of coming out in spite of efforts to suppress it.

Across America, states are introducing bans on abortion after 20 weeks. That’s a five month old baby. This New England Journal of Medicine study will certainly add information to that heated debate, which is nothing more than a radical, ideological drive in the first place.

How the abortion movement has sustained power and influence after these many years is the bigger story.

Sound and fury in Texas late-term abortion fight

The Gosnell abortion trial was so graphically revealing of what abortion is and does, it made some pro-choice people re-think their beliefs. And others redouble their efforts to ensure it’s available on demand at all times, no matter what.

They came out in force last week in Texas over a proposed law to outlaw abortions after 20 weeks and make abortion clinics safer. That should make sense to anybody who’s reasonable. Which puts what happened around the statehouse in perspective.

It was a circus. First act.

An “anti-abortion” bill [terminology used by big media, hence the quotes] was defeated last night in Austin and President Obama tweeted that it was “something special.”

That, alone, calls for attention.

The eleven-hour filibuster circus, involved a cheerleading squad led by Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards, daughter of the late Texas governor Ann Richards, and the Twitter hashtag #StandwithWendy, which made an overnight celebrity of a Democratic legislator wearing pink sneakers (this was the most frequently mentioned fact).

Vice-president Joe Biden’s wife Dr. Jill Biden got into the act and tweeted this, strangely and sadly:

If this bill passes, women will have to hold monthly funerals for their periods, like when you flush a goldfish.

Seriously? Our president and the wife of the vice-president are tweeting these things about this legislation, that seeks only to stop Gosnell-like late term abortions and regulate clinics for women’s safety? Really?

This is the seriousness with which we take debates about late-term abortion in America?

So a bill trying to protect unborn children after 20 weeks has been defeated, and we’re celebrating a victory for “women” and “health” and “freedom”? When do we get tired of this?

We already have. It’s happened. Women Speak For Themselves don’t ‘stand with Wendy.’ In fact, because the abortion industry has made Sandra Fluke and now Wendy Davis the faces and voices of their strong-arm campaign to demand the indefensible and distract an already complicit media away from the real point of their arguments, more and more women    in groups and individually are speaking out for the other ‘choice,’ the one the alleged ‘choice’ movement won’t tolerate. Or at least for laws and social policies that stand for women’s health.

What does ‘standing with Wendy’ mean?

Had you listened solely to Davis’s bevy of supporters, you would presumably not have known what it was that she had taken to the floor to protest. In the course of their hysteria, the usual suspects rolled out the usual rhetoric, focused on irrelevancies…

The fatuous charge that opponents of abortion use the issue as a way of “controlling women” was quite popular. But dress it up as they might, the truth remained ghastly: What Wendy and her team of protesters were trying to do was block a bill that would have made it illegal to deliberately kill an unborn child after 20 weeks of pregnancy. And that is a disgrace.

The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson wrote that, during the filibuster, Davis explained “how a pregnancy unfolded — all points on which, she noted, her male colleagues seemed vague.” Perhaps Davis is right that many of her fellow human beings know embarrassingly little about how they grew. I’d venture, though, that this is to her advantage: It is precisely the knowledge of how babies develop that informs my revulsion at their execution.

Follow this through. The whole fiasco in Texas was over whether or not it should remain legal to kill babies in the womb after 20 weeks. What, exactly, does that mean, beyond a ‘choice’?

We might recap: By the time that a baby has been in utero for one month, blood is pumping around the body. In the second month, facial features develop, including the growth of ears, eyes, arms, legs, toes, and fingers. At six weeks, the baby’s brain, spinal cord, and central nervous system are all pretty well formed — in outline at least. By the two-month mark, sensory organs begin to develop and bone replaces cartilage.

Three months in, arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes are fully formed, and the baby can grab with its fists as well as open and close its mouth. Teeth are on their way, as are reproductive organs. In month four, the baby is fully formed, and eyelids, eyebrows, eyelashes, nails, and hair develop. At this point, a baby can suck his thumb, yawn, hiccup, stretch, and make faces. At 18 weeks, the baby can move around, and experience REM sleep, including dreams. At 20 weeks, some studies show, it can recognize its mother’s voice.

At each of these stages, had the bill been passed, it would have remained legal in Texas to kill the child. The law that Wendy Davis and her fellow “pro-science” acolytes so bravely stood against would have rendered it illegal to kill the child after this point.

Emphasis added.

And when I say kill, I mean kill. I mean break bones, rip apart limbs, crush skulls, drain fluids, still a beating heart, annihilate a brain that is capable of dreaming, and crush a nervous system. I mean: Kill. As David Freddoso put it yesterday, “Wendy Davis can now say, When the moment came to stand up for smashing the life out of a baby 6 mos into pregnancy, I was up to the task.” This is not an accomplishment of which she should be proud.

Former Clinton administration staffer Kirsten Powers agrees. In a Fox News discussion on this story, Powers said “I think it’s sick.” In her Daily Beast column, she declared “I Don’t Stand With Wendy Davis.” Nor, she says, would most women.

It’s amazing what is considered heroism these days.

A Texas legislator and her pink sneakers have been lionized for an eleventh-hour filibuster against a bill that would have made it illegal for mothers to abort babies past 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of severe fetal abnormalities or to protect the life or health of the mother.

And that ‘health of the mother’ loophole includes anything, stress or depression or change of mind or anything in a highly elasticized category under the ‘health’ label.

But the fight is not over. The bill will be reintroduced, and supporters of the ban are optimistic it will pass. For now, Wendy Davis has achieved the dubious victory of maintaining a very dark status quo. Texas women will still be able to abort a healthy baby up to the 26th week of pregnancy for any reason, as the current law allows.

This is a call for clarity, and it’s about time. We’ve had too few bold voices saying these things in big media, or voices getting access to media to say it. Now, ‘gatekeeper’ media don’t matter as much and they certainly can’t mind the gate. It’s unhinged.

If the majority of Americans oppose elective late-term abortion, why do we have Davis complaining to CBS’s Bob Schieffer that the male politicians who are championing the late-term abortion ban are “bullying women”? Maybe it’s she who is bullying the rest of us into supporting a view that is mocked by scientific advancement; namely 3-D sonograms. Maybe we should be thankful for the men and wonder what is wrong with the women who think protecting the right to abort your baby for any reason up to the 26th week is a “human right.”

Right. Now we’re talking.

Human-rights movements have traditionally existed to help the voiceless and those without agency gain progressively more rights. Yet in the case of abortion, the voiceless have progressively lost rights at the hands of people who claim to be human-rights crusaders. Abortion-rights leaders have turned the world upside down. They want us to believe that a grown woman is voiceless, that she has less agency than the infant in her womb who relies on her for life. A woman has so little agency, we are told, that she is incapable of getting an abortion before the fifth month of her pregnancy. To suggest she should do so is a “war on women.” It’s an insult to women dressed up as “women’s rights.”

There it is. Exposed.

Which is probably why there’s such desperation in the pro-abortion movement. And that’s getting chilling. The abortion movement is huge, powerful, very well funded and backed by some of the most powerful people in the country. But they’re now on the defensive.

Because the truth of the abortion logic is out, in so many glaring ways.

Equivocation on human life

One accuses Fox News host Bill O’Reilly of intellectual dishonesty cautiously and only with substantial reasoning. But for the third time, I think it’s warranted.

This week, he once again referred to unborn children in the womb as “potential human life,” which is just flat wrong.

It was in his ‘Talking Points’ Monday, captured here on The Blaze.

O’Reilly hammered the president’s secular progressivism, claiming that Obama is “the poster guy” for the anti-traditionalist movement.  After showcasing statistics and information surrounding births out of wedlock, abortion and other societal issues, the host noted that secular progressives have done little to curb these phenomena.

“Abortion is settled law in the USA, but it should be discouraged, because human DNA is present upon conception,” O’Reilly said. “Thus the situation becomes a human rights issue.”

The host asked if Americans want to live in a nation “where potential human life…is terminated for convenience.”

This fails the test of reason, which struck me immediately and other bloggers have noted.

What on earth is he talking about here? There are a lot of problems in what he is saying.

First, abortion is not “settled law” any more than the Dred Scott decision “settled” the slavery issue.

(Good point.)

Secondly, O’Reilly says abortion “should be discouraged, because human DNA is present upon conception.” “Thus the situation becomes a human rights issue.” Notice he avoids the use of the word “person.” He seems to be making the case that we are not talking about a full “person” here but a partial person because “human DNA is present” and that there is no just argument for banning abortion completely. The “human DNA is present” idea he has come up with to describe the new person in the womb reminds me of the “3/5 person” in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. The Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the rights of every “person,” and presumably O’Reilly knows that. So he’s come up with a “human DNA is present” characterization so that he can argue that abortion should be “discouraged” while offering no legal protection for what we pro-lifers know to be a person in the womb. O’Reilly’s position, then, is closer to the “3/5 person” argument than to any other legal argument that I’m aware of.

O’Reilly then switched to marijuana and rightly pointed out that “legalizing marijuana sends a message that it’s fine to use it.” It makes no sense that he does not apply this same reasoning to the legalization of abortion. Legal abortion encourages abortion just as legal marijuana encourages the use of marijuana. How can O’Reilly say that abortion should be “legal” but “discouraged” and then, in the  next breath, say that legalizing marijuana encourages people to use it? He is not applying his reasoning equally to both subjects. Why?

The “folks at home,” as O’Reilly refers to his audience, should know that this is an example of incompetence on making one’s case regarding abortion law.

Just as with the slavery issue, either we are talking about a “person” here (with the rights of every other person) or we are not. There is no such thing as a partial person. You’re either a person or you’re not. We all now see that the Constitution was tragically flawed in referring to some as “three-fifths” of a person. So, why would anyone accept that flawed reasoning in regard to abortion? Further, if you understand that legalizing something acts as an encouragement, as O’Reilly notes in regard to marijuana, then how can you say with a straight face that something should be both legal and discouraged, as O’Reilly claims in regard to abortion?

It’s more of the same in terms of capitulating for the sake of staying in the discussion. If this election taught us anything, it’s that instead of equivocating on values for the sake of acceptance, people who see the essential values of human life and dignity and universal human rights as inalienable have to hold that line. And instead of talking about it less, or in culturally diluted terms, we have to talk about it more. With clarity and truth.

The slaughter unseen

The global community is intervening in certain geopolitical hotspots where a humanitarian crisis looms. But there’s a place that’s hidden in plain sight where massacre is an everyday occurrence, and it goes unnoticed by the power elite.

A friend of mine made this comment today: “I think Gaddafi did atrocious things to his citizens, and I’m always for the protection of life. However, I would respect our Commander in Chief more, and I think the world would too, if he did not support the mass slaughter that takes place in our country everyday.”

Excellent point. She was referring to President Obama’s speech Monday night on the Libyan crisis, and to one specific line. But read in full, it’s all remarkable when read in another context: the regard for human life.

Here’s a thought experiement. First, let’s snip:

But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act…

Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom…and terrorized innocent people…

In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.” …

Innocent people were targeted for killing…

And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right…

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action…

This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer.

Now, let’s read that with regard for every single human life, everywhere, at all stages. And for the people who take action every day to save them.

Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

And may God help us, and be merciful on us, all.

Teach your children well

This came out of the blue, or so it seemed. Last week, Green Bay Bishop David Ricken made the historic announcement that he has officially approved the Marian apparitions at the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help in Champion, Wisconsin. The approval was as stunning as the existence of this shrine was startling, even to many Catholics close by.

I heard the news from a priest friend before reading it anywhere. ‘And you know what her message was at Champion,’ he asked? Let’s see….Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, LaSalette, Akita, and others….it always seemed to be about prayer and conversion. Turn back to God, and pray that others do, too. “Her message to the young Belgian immigrant woman was to catechize the children, teach the children the faith, that was the message,” he said.

Suddenly, I heard Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s Teach Your Children Well, (in my head), recalling high school seniors who had chosen that as their theme to be played while marching triumphantly out into a radically changing world beyond the walls of their homes and schools and into endless possibilities. I was a youth in that auditorium, watching with wonder….

Like, wondering what it all meant. Students had completed the education their parents provided, under their care and direction, through high school, and now they were about to find themselves and whatever mattered to them and show their parents what influenced them most.

It continued to be just about anything but Catholicism, or at least the ‘Baltimore Catechism’, as huge numbers of these young people turned (or drifted) away in college and adulthood. The cultural floodgates opened by the Boomers swept them up. Relatively few survived the lure. And by the way, everything was relative.

Pope Paul VI urgently tried to reform consciences on the foundation Moses stood on… the sanctity of human life. That did not take, for vast numbers of Catholics. Pope John Paul II tried in his own way in the Gospel of Life. Throughout his pontificate, John Paul wove the theme of personalism into all his teachings. Joseph Ratzinger’s ‘dictatorship of relativism’ homily and its stunning impact on the college of cardinals installed a new era of preaching ‘the new humanism’ that continues the teachings of his predecessors….

Because the message doesn’t change, but the media do. As do the new youthful generations interacting with both.

Which gets back to the message of the newly approved Marian apparation. This is huge.

“I declare with moral certainty and in accord with the norms of the Church that the events, apparitions and locutions given to Adele Brise in October of 1859 do exhibit the substance of supernatural character, and I do hereby approve these apparitions as worthy of belief (although not obligatory) by the Christian faithful,” [Bishop Ricken] said on December 8.

“Today’s declaration makes Our Lady of Good Help at Champion the first and only site in the United States of an approved apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” according to a diocesan press release.

So what happened there to cause this extraordinary pronouncement, rarely given in Church history?

In 1859, Adele Brise, a 28-year-old Belgian immigrant in Wisconsin, reported that the Blessed Virgin had appeared to her and asked her to catechize children. “Gather the children in this wild country and teach them what they should know for salvation,” the Blessed Mother said. “Teach them their catechism, how to sign themselves with the sign of the cross and how to approach the sacraments.” In 1861, a chapel was built on the site, and in 1867, Sister Adele founded a school to educate children in the faith.

“Go and fear nothing”, she reportedly told Adele Brise. “I will help you.”

Just four years later, in the same year as the Great Chicago Fire, a similarly destructive inferno raged through the rugged countryside around Champion, killing 2,000 people and burning land up to the perimeter of the shrine. Sister Adele was inside with the local people, praying for their safety and protection.

Why this message and why now? Because, as BarbNicolosi keenly pointed out about young people in that blast of boomers

The Church must use all media to reach these new cultural power brokers, and to penetrate the commanding subconscious voices of their parents; she must teach them that the breakdown of the Boomers will require patience, heroism, and long-suffering.

And she must teach them what their parents may or may not have taught them. The basics, and why inestimable human dignity is at the core of everything.

“This is a baby.”

That’s how an IBM commercial begins, one that’s currently airing during big prime time schedules. The first time I saw it, something about it grabbed my attention…

Then after seeing and hearing it again, I knew why.

Watch the video.

This is a baby. A baby generating data in a neo-natal ward. Every heartbeat, every breath, every anomaly…from over a thousand pieces of unique information per second helping doctors find new ways to detect life-threatening infection up to 24 hours sooner.

On a smarter planet, analyze the data and you can predict what will happen faster. So you can do what they do in Toronto, and build a smarter hospital.

Let’s build a smarter planet.

Then the IBM logo fills the screen as the theme music winds down.

It’s simply beautiful. And says in 30 seconds what can’t successfully be conveyed in years of activism by whole movements of passionate people. Which can be summed up in this question…

What makes this not a baby just hours or minutes before arriving in the neo-natal ward, in the logic of partial-birth abortion advocates?