ThinkProgress thinks “dismemberment abortion” is misleading, but is it?

Louisiana recently became the latest state to ban the dismemberment abortion procedure, also known as dilation & evacuation abortion. With something as manifestly vile as tearing children limb from limb in the public eye, abortion apologists have their work cut out for them in sanitizing things.

Or, they would put work into it if there was any possible way to make dismembering babies sound any better. But there’s not, so ThinkProgress’s Laurel Raymond has settled for the next best thing: deny, deny, deny; and hope nobody asks too many questions…

Or is it that D&E abortions are better for the abortionists, so they can fit more abortions into their schedule? The WHO has been known to show a pro-abortion slant before, so its approval isn’t exactly the last word on the subject. Moreover, as Ian Tuttle explains, saying we must allow dismemberment abortions for the sake of maternal safety “mistakes — or substitutes — a secondary question for the primary moral one,” which is, “does the procedure involve one human being, or two?”

Rather than ask a single reader to believe a pro-lifer, let’s discredit this lie using nothing but direct quotes from the abortion industry itself. The National Abortion Federation’s own instructional materials describe “grasping a fetal part,” then “withdraw[ing] the forceps while gently rotating it,” for the purpose of achieving “separation.” If that’s not clear enough, NAF also describes “fetal extremit[ies]” (i.e., limbs), “fetal trunk[s],” and “fetal skeletal development.”

Additionally, notorious late-term abortionist Warren Hern even confirms “there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator [of D&E procedures]. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

Listen to former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino explain the process of a D&E abortion:

2nd Trimester Surgical Abortion: Dilation and Evacuation (D & E)

Instead of making even the most cursory effort to explain how on Earth “separation” of a “fetal extremity” from a “fetal trunk” doesn’t constitute dismemberment, Raymond next attempts to cast this as the sequel to pro-lifers deceiving America on the truth about partial-birth abortions:

Once again, notice ThinkProgress’s complete lack of any effort to explain precisely how “partial birth” is misleading. Hilariously, she links another ThinkProgress article to back her up…an article saying that in D&X abortions, “the cervix is dilated to allow an entire fetus to pass through.” Pass through? As in partially delivered? Delivered, as in born? Partially? (Like with D&E’s, Hern admits that D&X’s entail “deliver[ing]” fetuses.)

Later, she links Slate’s William Saletan’s effort to explain how the birth in a partial-birth abortion isn’t really a birth, and it’s every bit as insipid as you’re expecting:

So “partial-birth abortion” is only inaccurate because births before the due date aren’t technically births? By that logic, all the preemies who ever lived were never born. This might even be more vapid than Saletan repeating the old saw that a high rate of death in a group somehow means members of the group were never alive.

Looks like somebody didn’t read Cassy Fiano’s takedown of the straw-man argument that “grossness” is the only reason to detest violence against children.

It’s expected for propagandists to lie, but stunning that they would put so little effort into making their lies plausible. Then again, the job of devil’s advocate is all-but impossible when the subject to be defended is literally devilish.