NRL News

Playing from the same old playbook, pro-abortionists accuse pro-lifers of “public-relations” for telling the truth about dismemberment abortions

by | Feb 20, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

DismembermentabortionistAmong the most egregious—but at the same time kind of bemusing—pro-abortion lament is that pro-lifers are “using the same old playbook.”

That’s a reference to the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act which to the dainty sensibilities of abortionists who matter-of-factly separate the arms of unborn babies from their torsos is to indulge “in public smear campaigns,” to quote David Grimes and Carole Joffe, two grizzled veterans.

Perhaps worse yet, from their lofty positions, this is uncreative, not to be confused with the many and sundry ways they imaginatively saw off the limbs of defenseless babies.

We’ll get to their lament about unoriginality that appeared at in just a second. But first….really! Do these people not have editors?

On Wednesday we posted on another article that appeared at that website, “Beyond the Coat Hanger: What’s Next for Abortion Rights Iconography?” What was the gist of Cynthia R. Greenlee’s argument?

That pro-abortion “iconography” is frozen in the 1970s with its “fixation” with coat hangers. Herself pro-abortion, she was much more polite than I was in discussing the imagery, but Greenlee was honest enough to admit that waving coat hangers had long since lost their power to incite.

It’s like an inversion/perversion of the story of Elisha and the widow’s pot of oil. They’ve drawn and drawn from the same pot of hyperbole and distortion that is the coat hanger.

But now it’s exhausted. They need to find another source, although as we noted, they are having a very difficult time. It’s hard to make a positive out of trafficking in the misery of women and the blood of unborn children.

So, back to Grimes and Joffe. They are just as unhappy (and angry) with the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act as they were with the campaign that resulted in passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

They hated then, and they hate now, the absolutely accurate term partial-birth abortion. It should have been called “intact dilation and extraction,” they huff.

(As we discussed Wednesday, the partial-birth abortion technique was a perversion of a textbook method for breech delivery, adapted as an abortion method by Dr. James McMahon, who called it “intact D&E,” to differentiate it from the standard “D& E” [Dilation and Evacuation], in which the unborn child is dismembered inside the womb and taken out piece by piece. The method was later made more widely known by Ohio abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell, who coined his own term for it — “dilation and extraction,” or “D&X.”)

Grimes and Joffe insist “they” (meaning pro-lifers) “relentlessly spread[ed] grisly details of the procedure, replete with graphics, in public smear campaigns and on the floor of the U.S. Senate.”

Is that even within hailing distance of the truth? Of course not.

The graphics NRL and other advocates of the bill used were accurate, and the more candid abortionists admitted it.

The “grisly details” were nothing more than a description of what happened in a partial-birth abortion. An unborn child was delivered alive feet-first except for the head, and then held in that position while the abortionist punctured the skull — killing the child — after which the abortionist suctioned out the child’s brains.

But the bogus complaint Grimes and Joffe have about partial-birth abortions is identical to the heated criticism they have of the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act. Supporters of the bill refuse to use the kind of vague, medicalese that hides what happens.

So they and their ilk prefer something like “instrumental disarticulation.” Or (to quote Tara Culp-Ressler) D&E abortion “involves dilating the cervix and using surgical instruments to remove the fetal and placental tissue.”
What does that mean in English?

D & E/dismemberment abortionists tear the limbs and shred the body parts of the unborn child.
The problem for the Grimeses and Joffes of this world is that abortionists themselves occasionally tell the unvarnished truth.

Warren Hern, a Colorado abortionist who has performed numerous D&E abortions and has written a textbook on abortion procedures, has stated “there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator [of a D&E abortion]. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

We will hear this lament from pro-abortionists over and over and over. The irony, obviously, is that this is just as completely false with respect to dismemberment abortions as it was to partial-birth abortions.
One final thought which perfectly captures the pro-abortion mind’s ability to distance itself what is happening. Grimes and Joffe tell us

The specifics of abortion methods can be unpleasant to the lay public. However, this is true of most operations that remove tissue from the body.

Get it? We dummies who lack the technical expertise of the abortionist look at a completely neutral graphic of what a dismemberment abortion does to a baby and want to retch.

They, by contrast, have long since made a separate peace with their heart, mind, and stomach.

What a bunch.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, either go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at

Categories: pro-abortion