Pardon my Francais, but WTF? The article doesn't seem to do much to explain how a planned abortion turned into delivery of a live baby. Heck, I've got a shop-vac in my basement that could have prevented that.

My personal rule of thumb is that if you're deliberately killing a vertebrate, you should at least make an honest effort to be sure you've finished the job.

She went in for an abortion but also gave "it" a name?

And she named him after the Archbishop of Canterbury?

When her baby

Hey, wait a minute, I thought it was a "fetus," or "a clump of cells." Aren't those the correct PC terms?

was born alive, the woman screamed for help,

Reality sets in.

but the clinic workers refused to help her

Because, forgive my crudity, Orrin, they don't give a rat's ass for either their "patient" or their victim. Once the Culture of Death wants someone dead, they're dead.

Random - No surprise that a woman who oscillates between morality and immorality should admire the Archbishop, is it?

Meanwhile, how long before one of these mothers of a live birth sues an abortion clinic for botching a killing. How'd you like to be the trial lawyer estimating her "pain and suffering" from her child's live birth?

PJ: It may seem a little creepy to put it this way, but the lawsuit, should it not be settled quickly and quietly, would be a sight to behold. The trial lawyer arguing that the clinic deprived the patient of her "right to choose;" Planned parenthood's defense counsel countering with citations to pro-life-ish precedent (there is quite a bit, actually) which holds that the birth of a baby is not a tort. E.g., Hester v. Dwivedi, 89 Ohio St.3d 575 (2000). For added enrichment with irony, have it heard by a far-left "pro choice" activist.

Mike - I expect this would be one of those cases from which both left and right would recoil in horror - left because it would damage abortion availability, right because it be another escalation in the disrespect for life. Still, it would hoist a few lawyers upon the petard of their past arguments.

Mike & pj: Isn't the only thing relevant here that Rowan was born? (I would say "born alive" but that would be redundant. I hope.) How can there not be a cut-and-dried issue of malfeasance on the part of the "clinic" workers who did nothing?

b - Of course you are right. But cross the Styx for a moment into the underworld of liberalism. Since the difference between Rowan a minute before he was born and a minute after is essentially nil, it's hard for pro-abortion folks not to slide the slippery slope from the morality of partial-birth or late-term abortions to the morality of abandoning or killing babies outside the womb. The clinic workers are professional killers; isn't it odd to expect them to turn into professional healers as soon as the baby emerges from the birth canal?

Call me macabre, but the thought of lawyers and judges - professional reasoners - trying to make sense of our contradictory laws (half from the culture of death, half from the culture of life) amuses me in a black way. Hell for a judge, I believe, consists of an endless series cases that cannot be resolved under his self-contradictory legal principles.

Certainly involuntary manslaughter, given the statutory duty of care, pehaps mored depending upon the grade of the underlyng offense. Hang 'em high.

Guy - Abortions become deadly for the mother when the corpse decomposes in the mother's womb. So these "medical abortions" (i.e., where they give the mother a drug that poisons the baby to death) require that labor be induced to eject the presumed-dead baby. However, poisons are hard to dose, too much is bad for the mother and too little might not kill, and the best dose varies from person to person. If the poison didn't kill the baby, what comes out in labor is a "born-alive infant."

A lot of abortion moms prefer the drug approach to the surgical, chop the baby up in the womb approach. Seems less violent; less wicked, perhaps.