Dems Lie About Late-Term Abortion To Feel Better
By: Nathanael Blake (The Federalist)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Even enthusiasts for baby-killing want to feel good about themselves.
This basic psychological impulse is why a pair of Democrats lied during a recent Senate Judiciary Committee exchange about abortion. Responding to Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Peter Welch of Vermont asserted that "late-term abortions are very rare, and it's almost always — really probably always — where there's a medical emergency and the life of the woman is imperiled."
Citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois added that women "need" late-term abortions in cases of "maternal health endangerment; diagnosis of severe fetal abnormality which didn't show up or develop until late in the pregnancy; restrictive state laws that made it difficult for a woman to get an abortion earlier in pregnancy." As Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out, the CDC has collected no such data.
Furthermore, we know that late-term abortions are routinely done for elective reasons. Last year, The Atlantic profiled abortionist Warren Hern, who specializes in late-term abortions and will do them at any point in pregnancy, for any reason. He estimates that at least half of the late-term abortions he commits are elective, and he even admitted to committing a third-trimester abortion for sex selection.
Similarly, this year, The New Yorker published a puff piece about a Maryland abortion mill that commits abortions well into the third trimester — and the piece quotes one of the founders complaining that they don't do them even into the ninth month. The story makes it clear that many, if not most, of that facility's late-term abortions are done for elective reasons; the article offered examples ranging from relationship problems to one woman who just didn't realize she was pregnant until she was 30 weeks along.
These are not obscure or right-wing sources, but flagship publications of pro-abortion liberalism, and their reporting is clear that elective, late-term abortions are routine in at least some facilities. Nonetheless, supporters of unrestricted abortion, including in the Senate, regularly pretend they never happen.
This denial is not just politically expedient, it is also psychologically necessary. Late-term abortions are so obviously evil that most abortion supporters are incapable of admitting the truth about them; it is hard to think well of oneself while defending the targeted dismemberment of healthy, viable babies. Of course, as a matter of science and reason, we know that every abortion violently ends an innocent human life. But this is undeniable in the case of late-term abortions, where only a trip through the birth canal separates a legal nonperson with no rights from a legal person whose killing is regarded as especially heinous.
No wonder abortion supporters prefer to pretend that elective, late-term abortions never happen, even though The Atlantic and The New Yorker have documented them as a regular part of the abortion industry. Of course, abortion proponents cannot fully hide the horrible reality, even from themselves, as Durbin demonstrated by his comment about women getting late-term abortions because they have difficulty obtaining earlier ones. He half admits the terrible truth, while deflecting blame by insinuating that late-term abortions are really the fault of abortion opponents.
This is logically ridiculous and morally reprehensible — as if abortion is something a person should just be able to get a raincheck on for any point of pregnancy — and it thereby betrays the guilty conscience of a man who will not forthrightly defend what he actually supports.
A similar dynamic is evident in Welch's assertion that late-term abortions are very rare. This is a dubious claim, for more than 10,000 of them are committed in the United States each year. Nonetheless, even if this can be described as "very rare" on a percentage basis, raising the point reveals a guilty conscience. After all, if there is nothing objectionable about late-term abortions, then why should we care about how many there are?
Senators are not renowned for their moral insight and sensitivity, but even these two still know abortion is horrible and that late-term abortions are undeniably, gruesomely so. We all know this; in the age of ultrasound, it is impossible to ignore the humanity of the unborn. Yet Durbin, Welch, and the Democrat Party champion killing babies whose in-utero pictures we share via text and social media, and whose fingers and toes we can count in some of those pictures. No wonder they resort to evasion, obfuscation, and misinformation as they attempt to resolve the dissonance between their normal human desire to see themselves as basically good and the reality that they deliberately enable and encourage atrocities.
They are devoted to abortion on demand even though they know it is evil. And so they, and many others, make excuses for it, defending abortion as necessary for women's equality and advancement, bodily autonomy, or (if they are especially honest) for sexual liberation. And having accepted that something — whether money, status, promiscuity, or something else — is more important than human lives in utero, they will of course allow abortion on demand until birth.
They may, like these senators, lie about it to themselves and the rest of us, but at some level, they know. We all know.
Calling members trolls or dishonest will cause your comments to be deleted.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [Split Personality]
Tags
Who is online
449 visitors
Feel better now?
What woman would elect to abort her baby late term if it was viable?
NOT ONE.
From the article:
Last year, The Atlantic profiled abortionist Warren Hern, who specializes in late-term abortions and will do them at any point in pregnancy, for any reason. He estimates that at least half of the late-term abortions he commits are elective, and he even admitted to committing a third-trimester abortion for sex selection.
Similarly, this year, The New Yorker published a puff piece about a Maryland abortion mill that commits abortions well into the third trimester — and the piece quotes one of the founders complaining that they don't do them even into the ninth month. The story makes it clear that many, if not most, of that facility's late-term abortions are done for elective reasons; the article offered examples ranging from relationship problems to one woman who just didn't realize she was pregnant until she was 30 weeks along.
You were saying?
Yes, mothers never murder their newborn babies. Females are incapable of murder.
The Federalist?
Sounds like nothing but lies and ignorance.
When you can't debate the information go after the source. Pathetic.
I don't believe a word of this garbage.
What's the problem with abortion? There's no reason to restrict it. It's not murder or "baby killing," especially as the unborn are not Legal persons. It's a woman's personal choice. And it's basically no one else's business or concern. No feelings, just facts. Or are you trying to make an appeal to emotion?
The Gov of California couldn't say that.
Many democrats can't say it.
I thank you for saying it and the RNC should have recorded democrats as honest as you are and used it as their demonstration of the democrat position on abortion.
I'm not interested in what they cannot say or their political pandering. I'm more interested in hearing a rational and legal reason to restrict abortion. I have yet to hear one.
Because it is murder. And don’t bother ticketing “murder” because you brought it up.
I’m not interested in the lefts faux constructs that arbitrarily decide what life is or isn’t. In civilized societies murder is frowned upon. People get thrown in jail for simple cruelty to animals but killing babies is okay? It’s a fucked up dichotomy. No other way to look at it.
And no, I’m not interested in the pro murder (choice) definition of what is life and what isn’t. Not when pro choice advocates support abortion up to the moment of birth for no good reason. Don’t waste your breath.
Factually and legally false. Abortion is not murder nor is it legally defined or equated as murder. And I didn't bring up murder. You did. And are wrong about it. It should be noted that no state prosecutes a woman with murder for having an abortion.
"Life" isn't the issue nor is it relevant. "Life" is just a buzzword abortion opponents throw around because they cannot make any rational or legal reason why abortion should be restricted and try to appeal to emotion instead.
See previous statement.
Last I looked over 40 states have restrictions on abortion. Some more restrictive than others but restrictive just the same. Penalties for same include fines and incarceration
Wrong, see above.
Really? Here is where you brought it up. Your words:
So please stop lying.
Wrong, you did. See above
Wrong again
See entire post above and 1.4.3. Life is the issue. Scientifically defined sentience is the issue. As noted, you can’t escape scientifically accepted definition. To destroy sentient life is, by definition, to murder it. A ghoulish stance to say the least.
End of story, full stop.
Under laws in those six states, abortion is not specifically prohibited at any stage of pregnancy.
Late-term abortions are rare, however: Nationally, less than 1% of abortions are performed at or after 21 weeks of pregnancy.
Experts say that late-term abortions are not elective and are done only for medical reasons involving the mother or fetus, and that abortions are not done at full term.
The Atlantic and The New Yorker have documented them as a regular part of the abortion industry. I guess the progressive periodicals are at odds with the progressive fact checkers.
There is no such thing as 'the abortion industry'.
No. The story identifies two examples. And those examples purport to examine a percentage of late-term abortions only - which themselves are known to be a tiny percentage of all abortions. To extrapolate that to “a regular part” and representative of “the industry” generally is absurd.
So John was wrong and now it's quibbling over how often it happens.
Aslo, per Guttmacher, data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.
I didn't say anything about abortion and i dont know what you're talking about
This statement you posted is false. "experts say that late-term abortions are not elective and are done only for medical reasons involving the mother or fetus, and that abortions are not done at full term."
He linked his sources. Here
So, despite wishing it were so, your statement " The Atlantic and The New Yorker have documented ( late-term abortions ) as a regular part of the abortion industry" is misleading at best and false if you intended "regular" to mean "normal" or standard practice for abortions. That you did indeed intend for this misconception to be assumed is clearly evident from the theme and tenor of the article.
Same question that I asked JR:
What restrictions, if any do you think abortion should have?
None!
Do you think there should be any restrictions on abortion?
I don't know why the lies are allowed to stand. Definitely not a good look for NT that ignorance and lies are allowed to be posted as truth.
Let's simplify it. I'm going to act as the right's George Stephanopoulos and ask all the dems the same question...starting with you:
What restrictions, if any do you think abortion should have?
None! Perhaps the better question is, what is a rational and legal reason to restrict abortion?
Why should there be any restrictions?
Very good.
We have you down Gordy for an honest answer. JR and Thomas refused to answer that question.
I am now doing the job Ronna McDaniel should have done before the 2022 midterms.
I've given the same answer many times. But still no answer to the question of what the rational and legal reason is to restrict abortion? Or to what exactly is "states interest?" Or to how is abortion anyone else's business or concern, other than the pregnant woman herself and her doctor?
Put me down for None, also
And I respect you for it.
But still no answer to the question of what the rational and legal reason is to restrict abortion?
Generally, I don't like getting into the moral argument, but if you are asking how the people feel:
According to the 2023 Gallup Poll:
When asked about the legality of abortion at different stages of pregnancy, about two-thirds of Americans say it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose abortion being legal in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters.
Where Do Americans Stand on Abortion? (gallup.com)
I would guess the closer a fetus becomes to being a healthy normal baby, the more people tend to object.
Or to what exactly is "states interest?"
Don't states act on majority opinions?
Or to how is abortion anyone else's business or concern, other than the pregnant woman herself and her doctor?
I think some would argue that there is a life involved.
Two honest men!
Neither do I and I'm not.
Sounds emotional.
That doesn't explain or define exactly what this "interest" is, especially from a legal standpoint.
Sure they do. But "life" is just a buzzword to manipulate or appeal to emotion. "Life" is also a scientific classification, not a legal one. And no "life" is allowed to use another's bodily resources without consent.
It absolutely does. Abortion isn't a one-sided issue. It is a fiercely divided issue. The best thing a state can do is put it to a vote.
"Life" is also a scientific classification
Science can't tell us when life begins. Some say we should er on the side of life, others say it is all about the woman.
And no "life" is allowed to use another's bodily resources without consent.
That is another very honest statement. So, even if life has begun, it has no rights.
We have made a lot of progress.
No, the state doesn't explain or legally define this co called "interest."
When life begins is irrelevant. It's when "life" becomes a legal person that is.
That is a factual statement.
If that were true, Dobbs would not have been decided as it was and some states would not be restricting abortion.
Science can’t define a lot of things. Does that mean they don’t exist?
No, the SCOTUS shouldn't have legislated a law in 1973. As I recall from previous conversations you are ok with the Court doing that too.
Gordy went beyond what science may one day say. He declared that the unborn have no rights.
We won't ever hear such honesty from democrats running for office. It is refreshing to hear what they really believe.
Current “Science” has general agreement that sentient life begins in the 18-25 month of pregnancy. That is to say, to have the power of perception via human senses. To snuff that out is ghoulish to say the least, murder at most and imo should only be done in the most extreme of circumstance.
Most agree that late term abortion should be avoided whenever possible. It is an interesting dichotomy that many who are for late term abortion, are against capital punishment. Interesting indeed.
Who are "they"?
You have heard from one person that you assume to be a Democrat (Gordy)
and a very conservative Mod who agrees with Gordy.
Presumably 2 political opposites.
So your survey sample is a very poor way of painting everyone with the same brush.
He is as much a democrat as you are. The point is how many refused to answer. That is what the media should have been asking democrats.
and a very conservative Mod who agrees with Gordy.
He is one of the few independents here. And the proof is that he agreed with Gordy's unique position.
So, your survey sample is a very poor way of painting everyone with the same brush.
My survey was a great success. I notice that you also have problems with the question.
You have made zero progress.
What law did they legislate? Be specific!
I made no declaration. I stated a fact. The Constitution and federal law declared the unborn do not have rights. Neither do the states recognize unborn rights except possibly within the context f abortion. And what does science have to do with rights? Science does not establish rights.
Just for the record, I am not a democrat. I do not take political sides.
What difference would it make? Politicians would just be vague or roundabout in response.
Bias confirmation on an article that should not have been posted or allowed to have remain posted.
It clearly violates the rules.
I answered your question directly.
How many articles are you asking the same questions on?
The fact remains that Hallux's point is the correct one. It's a woman's issue and should be decided by women.
Charger is proof that one can be both a conservative and not march in lock step over the cliff with the group.
Conservatives do not have to agree on every topic to be labeled conservatives.
There was a time not too long ago when both parties were both a mixture of conservative and liberal values.
Remember conservative Democrats like Murtha or liberal Republicans like Barry Goldwater?
That only proves how far to right YOU personally have gone, no one else.
Also Gordy's position is hardly unique except perhaps in the company you keep
The Truth, as usual, thanks John. Nothing but lies and ignorance from the federalist.
I’m shocked this is still up.
It uses the taboo “m” word when it comes to abortion.
As long as it is inside or attached it is still part of the woman and she should be able to make the decision as it is still part of her
From the same author:
Made, not begotten: Why we said “No!” to in vitro fertilization
YIKES!
I can't leave out the most educated man on NT:
What restrictions, if any do you think abortion should have?
I'm one of those weird sexual letters that can't get pregnant, it's a question I leave to those who can ... my body is not theirs and theirs is not mine.
I don't get why Vic doesn't get that it isn't his decision to make.
Vic never made that argument.
Why can't you answer the question?
People on all sides of the issue can debate their various positions-- and claim they are on the moral high ground.
But aside from any self-righteousness about their personal views on what's "moral" and what isn't-- there's another aspect to all of this. And that is what effect the issue of individual citizens' right to choose their own forms of healthcare-- free from Big Government's interference!
And especially now, as we begin to approach a major election-- there's the question of how these decisions will effect the upcoming election.
It seems obvious to me that the dominant Republican position on the issue of increased Big Government meddling in individuals choices re: their own healthcare may be a major factor in ensuring a significant Republican defeat at the polls unless its changed.
Here's one recent example (and significantly, its from a very conservative district!):
Marilyn Lands, Democrat who ran on reproductive rights, flips Alabama House seat
Lands, like Democrats in the state and nationwide, ran on protecting reproductive rights . In a previous interview, she discussed having an abortion in the past, and said she wanted to protect medical treatment that was available 20 years ago.
So, if you have a problem with purely elective late-term abortions, then outlaw that. There probably won’t be a lot of pushback, so long as you still allow them for pregnancies with little or no viability or that threaten the woman’s health.
But that’s not what the anti-abortion crowd wants. They want to outlaw all abortions everywhere for any reason, or - failing that - restrict them so much as to make them extremely difficult to get. We have already seen multiple examples of women with serious health complications refused abortions in cold-hearted states.
So, spare us claims of being “reasonable.”
They also essentially want to eliminate recreational sex and all forms of birth control.
except for themselves of course
What restrictions, if any do you think abortion should have?
Be honest. Both sides are extreme.
One wants to allow abortion right up to the moment of birth. The other wants no abortion at all. Both are extreme positions. Way outside of the majority preference of no late term or no complete prohibition of abortion.
And the hypocrisies of both sides are palpable.
I think we need to be careful about generalizing everyone into one view. I'm anti-abortion yet I don't have a problem if there's a genuine threat to the mother. As for rape and incest, I think that should be left to the woman, but I would hope their heart and courage would be large enough not to. Don't blame them if they do, though.
Over 70% of Americans , whether they are pro or anti-abortion would accept some reasonable middle ground where abortion is permissible under certain conditions. They just disagree about what those conditions should be. That should be the state of the law. Unfortunately, politicians on the Right are taking real steps to limit all abortion under all circumstances, or all abortion past a point like 6 weeks, where a woman often doesn’t even know she is pregnant.
You just don’t see it like that on the Left, even though the number of pro choice people who say they want unrestricted abortion outnumber the pro-life people who want no exceptions.
I think that’s a reasonable restriction in later term pregnancies. However, in some places where they have that exception, it doesn’t apply in actual practice. We see the state overruling doctors and patients on the determination of the threat to the mother. The result has been women suffering in the extreme while a dead or dying fetus poisons her.
How about viability of the fetus? Okay to make a woman give birth to a child that has no mouth or stomach? If so, I invite you to tour the top floor ward of Toronto's Sick Children's Hospital where they care for the "monster" newborns, spend a day there helping out, the infants do tend to live for a few days at least.
How did I get to see it? When I was the Chief Barker (President) of the Variety Club of Ontario I was instrumental in the club purchasing and gifting to the hospital a $150,000. very special operating table for the purpose of brain surgery, and I was given a tour of the whole hospital.
We already have a false narrative.
Do you think people want to totally ban abortions?
OBVIOUSLY
Yet you won't do what 2 others were brave enough to do.
Nobody has ever explained how it is anybody else's business
Exactly ! Project 2025 in the making.
I've heard some invoke "state interest" from time to time. Yet no one seems able to explain or define exactly what thar "interest" is. Not even the states themselves.
Safe, legal and rare was once the battle cry of the pro-abortion movement.
Today that has been replaced by the seldom spoken word in post 2.1.8
Political rhetoric like that doesn't explain "states interest" or why there should be restrictions.
That was the old political rhetoric of the democrat party.
I guess they weren't as honest as you are.
Politics by nature isn't honest, regardless of party. But that still doesn't answer my questions.
Especially in this case.
But that still doesn't answer my questions.
There are those who would give you a moral argument. Again, I'm only trying to do the job McDaniel should have done.
Moral arguments are subjective and irrelevant. I'm interested in rational and legal ones.
So am I.
SHOCKER!
And yet, I cannot help but notice none have been presented.
There is an obvious reason for that. The article is about abortion narratives.
Narratives are subjective and/or games of manipulation.
Unfortunately, they sometimes decide elections.
No accounting for people's intelligence or rationality.
Or simply being able to distinguish between truth and fiction.
That appears to be a problem with the alleged CONServatives - distinguishing truth and fiction - or their alternate facts/reality.
seem to prefer emotionally appealing fiction.
Ask the Supreme Court in Roe. They recognized the state's interest in protecting unborn human life. This is basic stuff.
Which doesn't exist.
Once again, the state has not legally defined or explained that "interest." Or even why it's an interest to begin with.
True. But I can certainly make a case for abortion.
Once again, you are ignoring facts that don't fit with your narrative. The Supreme Court, in Roe no less, recognized the State's interest in protecting unborn human life. Until you learn to accept that reality and stop arguing made up claims based on your emotional desires of what you want to be true, you can't participate in a rational discussion.
I asked a question: where is the states "interest" legally defined? No one can seem to address that. Instead, it's met with deflections to the state without actually establishing it. No "interest" is legally defined. That is a fact. "Interest" was clearly the Roe court trying to skirt the proverbial middle ground. But there has never been a rational or legal reason put forth why abortion should be restricted.
Of course they can. As you repeatedly demonstrate, you just ignore it. Read the briefs in Roe, where it was argued and the Court held the states have a legal interest in protecting the lives of unborn humans. Read the preface of any law regulating abortion and the legal basis of the state's interest will be set forth.
All you do is claim the earth is flat, and when presented with evidence that the earth is round, say no one has presented any evidence the earth is round. It's an emotional response to having your worldview challenged and it's tiresome to deal with.
. But there has never been a rational or legal reason put forth why abortion should be restricted.
A perfect example of what I was describing. Just perfect. All you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of the subject (or an emotional investment so deeply felt that you shut down rather than acknowledge rational people can disagree with you.) . If you can't understand the arguments you are responding to, you aren't informed enough to address them. Hyperbole and denialism, which is all this is, doesn't change that. Seriously, you should be embarrassed to admit this publicly.
This is discussed in Roe v Wade if you’re curious.
It is considered axiomatic that a fundamental function of any organized government - including states - is to protect the lives and health of its people. “Interest” is perhaps too feeble a word. “Duty” is probably more accurate. Thus we have many laws regulating health and safety. If you seriously want to argue the state has no such interest, you’re going to have to eliminate all medical regulations, traffic laws, police and fire departments, environmental laws, etc. The list is very long, indeed.
In fact, most early abortion laws were about protecting the women seeking an abortion. It could be a very dangerous procedure. These days, it’s generally pretty routine stuff. That is an example of the state expressing its interest in protecting the health of the woman.
In Roe, the court acknowledged this state interest and further acknowledged that this duty to protect health and life extended to prenatal care - that even a potential life would be encompassed by this duty. And, in fact, there are many laws and regulations around the country protecting the unborn, which have nothing to do with abortion. An obvious example that leaps to mind is the body of regulations restricting the availability and use of Thalidomide.
I am familiar with Roe. "States interest" is a deflection, not an explanation. The state has no compelling interest to protect the unborn, as it is not yet a legal person with rights and abortion has no effect on the state or society. That's why abortion restrictions are illogical. But the pregnant woman is a legal person with rights. So the state should be protecting her rights like anyone else's.
Those who want to ban abortion should give up pencil erasers and backspace and delete keys on their computers because they want to take away the ability to correct mistakes.
They also should not be allowed to ever return anything they buy
Can you list those who want to ban abortion completely?
"Can you list those who want to ban abortion completely?"
Not off hand. But I know there are those who do
Should mistakes go uncorrected?
The dishonest media has listed every Republican running for office. It worked.
The majority of the alleged CONservatives who also want to eliminate recreational sex and all forms of birth contrrol,
Could you please list them.
That would be correct
That they are dishonest? or that they have lied in that way?
I agree on both counts.
It does tend to be conservatives/republicans who want to restrict abortion. In some cases so stringent that it might as well be a ban.
That is true.
In some cases so stringent that it might as well be a ban.
The media has successfully portrayed their position as an all-out ban and at the same time nobody has explored how democrats feel about restrictions. That is what has been the winning combination for democrats in recent elections. I showed you the Gallup Poll. That is right where the RNC should have started their message.
Peoples feelings is precisely the problem. Some only seem to go by or argue from feelings and nothing more. This is made obvious whenever one argues about "life."
When it comes to abortion, it is a two-way street. There is only one way to settle it: VOTING.
I'd say the issue has been settled at the ballot box in 50 states. It is time for the GOP to move on.
Rights should not be put to popular vote. History has shown some states clearly do not respect rights
Your beliefs as to "rights" are not superior to another's. A right to an abortion is up to each state.
It's not up to the state or any 'man' or anyone else but the woman.
Every CONServative is for restricting abortion at any point and eliminating recreational sex and all forms of birth control, except for themselves of course.
What I said was the truth.
It's not the media who is dishonest and lieing
Agreed!
Belief has nothing to do with it. Rights shouldn't be put to popular vote.
A fine endorsement of the principle that that our rights our naturally endowed upon us by our creator not subject to popular whim.
Luckily, they aren't. There's no right to an abortion, desperate, dishonest claims to the contrary.
Except they're not, unless one can prove there's a creator to begin with. Our rights are based on amd enumerated by the Constitution, which makes no mention of a "creator" to begin with.
That is false. There is a Constitutional right to bodily autonomy, which can include abortion rights. There are no constitutional or federal rights conferred to the unborn. Neither do the states recognize unborn rights.
Guilt by association?
And makes absolutely no mention of as right to an abortion.
It framed the narrative. They had everyone thing ban rather than restriction.
Is the right to have any medical procedure enumerated?
Does it mention right to any bodily function?
Most people don't believe in unlimited, unrestricted access to abortion.
I believe overpopulation is the biggest problem there is
is there anything about changing sex?
Overpopulation is worse but both are bad and cause problems
No it involves her rights and she has changes to her body and discomfort and inconvenience and recovery time ( to say the least) There is also short term and long term economic issues. .
It doesn't have to. It can easily be inferred and constitutionally argued for abortion.
Perhaps that's the problem: people prefer to go by belief than logic or reason.
No, it's not. It's an argument based on Constitutional law and established legal precedent. Those who cannot make a reasoned argument rely on emotion.
As a comparison, some have said with the charges against Trump in the fraud case because no damage was done the charges are invalid. I think the same standard should apply.
I am sorry I missed this after participating today.
The title has been modified to make it inflammatory.
This example of copyright infringement has been referred to the RA as a gross violation of the Terms of Service.
I am locking the article