A headline in Great Britain's Telegraph reads: "Revealed: How an Abortion Puts the Next Baby at Risk." With this expose in mind, I advance my own FlynnFiles exclusive: "Revealed: How Abortion Puts the Current Baby at Risk." By my calculations, the risk is roughly 100 percent.

Based on the conclusions of a French study, the Telegraph reports that "mothers who had previously had an abortion were 1.7 times more likely to give birth to a baby at less than 28 weeks' gestation." Abortion can damage the cervix, the study's primary author contends, which increases the chance of premature births for subsequent deliveries. That's science's take. I offer my own compelling theory: Babies ain't fools. The womb isn't a safe place, at least the wombs we're talking about. So, with this knowledge in mind, the unborn child makes a jailbreak from the space that had previously served as an execution chamber. Premature birth is risky, the unborn child reasons, but as risky as a vacuum? A saline needle? Scissors to the base of the skull? Weighing the odds, the child makes a mad push for freedom. If babies could talk, I'm sure they would confirm my theory and dispel all of this scientific mumbo-jumbo about cervixes and such.

I'd guess that birth control pills would be a factor. I wish the article addressed them. If you take a drug for years and years and then just stop taking it, I doubt it has a good effect on the body. Even people that just stop taking caffeine cold turkey suffer an effect.

Anyways, will premature children be able to sue their mother if they have some disability as a result of being born premature (and born premature because their mother had an abortion)?

To avoid all of the confusion of future legal issues between the mother and child and the effects of drugs on the body ive got a simple solution for ya..dont have abortions! Dont take the morning after pill! Dont go to planned parenthood!

There is no other political issue.

I'd vote for a pro-life Karl Marx before I voted for a pro-death George Washington.

I am afraid of that scenario, Brad, because I would be right along with you.

Here in Maine the Democrat-controlled legislature has a practice of batching all bills with any hint of abortion in the language (or in the implications) of the bill into one heap of bills that move through the legislative process, usually in the dark of night, all together to a common death, in committee whenever possible.

This year has been interesting indeed as they had to deal with a bill that provided for crime and punishment on an individual who murders a pregnant woman and kills the baby as well.

The D's countered with a lame bill that is called "An Act To Protect Motherhood" which allows for consideration when sentencing someone who murdered a mother, but falls way short of acknowledging the life in the womb of the pregnant victim.

Anywho... there is a new party line that I sense is emerging. In testimony for this and all other bills (the usual "Parental Consent" and "Informed Consent" type of bills) that I have heard parroted frequently enough that I suspect it is indeed a party line - and that is this: "We should not be as concerned with informing the young woman who is considering an abortion about the dangers of abortion. Abortion is far safer than carrying that child to term. We should be making sure to inform the young woman of the dangers of giving birth!"

I wouldn't have believed it, but I have heard it three separate times, by three separate lobbyists for Family Planning and Planned Parenthood and the Maine Bureau of Health.