A taboo subject

© 2019 Jim Spence -  The best estimate for a human fetus being "viable" is about 24 weeks, or just under six months. This makes discussing the topic of "when" abortion should be legal, a very tricky endeavor, even for pro-choice people.
The term, "abortion" actually means many things. It can mean the act of terminating a pregnancy in the first month or so. Or, it can mean that a doctor performs a late-term abortion by killing a baby that could easily survive outside the womb.
Everyone is familiar with the Supreme Court ruling known as Roe vs. Wade, wherein the court found the right to an abortion in the U.S. Constitution. What people are not familiar with is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Here is the essence of the law:
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion," referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. Under this law, any physician "who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."  Partial birth abortion is an act in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531). 
Wow is it chilling that someone would actually do that, or what?
The statute also includes two findings of Congress: (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion ... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. 
Shouldn't be much argument about this should there be? Think again.
Amazingly, abortionists have found ways to “get around” this law. How do they do it? Many abortionists will induce what is known as “fetal demise,” before beginning late-term abortions. This means they will take a draconian step to make sure the baby is already DEAD…..before it exits the mother’s body. This is accomplished with the use of a solution of potassium chloride or digoxin, which is injected directly into the baby’s heart. Barbarically, abortionists will often use ultrasound technology to guide their needles......so they don’t miss the baby’s heart. There is one very vicious goal. If they can simply kill the baby, before it exits the mother’s body, they are not in violation of the above law. And amazingly this "get around" is still not in great dispute in many “political circles.”
However, what has been proposed by many Democrats is to provide blanket legal cover when abortionists fail to inject a sufficient amount of potassium chloride into the baby’s heart to kill it. Radical feminist Democrats, who find the phrase, “Stay out of my uterus,” popular, are now arguing that any mother should still be able to demand that the doctor kill their baby after it is born alive. In several states, Democrats have passed laws that say doctors are allowed to kill them legally.
Where did all of this come from? It is clearly a reaction to the conviction of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, whose actions were well-documented at his murder trial, and in the book and film: Gosnell: The Untold Story of America's Most Prolific Serial Killer.
It seems that Kermit Gosnell was not particularly adept at crushing the babies skulls in the uterus. He was also rather inaccurate with the needles he used to try to kill fully developed babies inside the mother's body. Accordingly, Gosnell simply snipped the spinal cords of new born babies as they lay living and breathing on the operating table. He did this once he realized his needles missed the mark and they were born alive.
A serious question remains as Democrats take actions in additional states to pass more laws making the actions of butchers like Gosnell legal. Is support for these laws simply a political view, sort of like wanting more government or wanting less government? Or is the support to allow these things to be legal, simply naked advocacy for giving women and abortionists the right to murder unwanted newborn babies?
Would love the feedback on this taboo subject. I do find it interesting that the discussing of this subject is seen as taboo, and looking the other way on the killing of newborn babies is expedient.