Expectations are a funny thing. Attending the hearing by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Virginia’s partial birth infanticide law, I expected certain things. I came away with four impressions: 1. Isn’t this the same place where at least hundreds lined the streets to protest Michael Vick for killing dogs?

Killing dogs is horrible, but where’s the public outcry against a practice whereby babies almost ready for delivery get their skulls crushed and remains sucked out of a woman’s womb?

2. It doesn’t matter what the issue is, or even the venue — not even one as august as so high a court: liberal arguments are just as incoherent and their tactics just the same as during the hysteria of a protest rally — change the subject, ignore the central point, redefine established facts; heck, just make up stuff.

The pro-abortion lawyer, at one point, was so off base, intentionally mixing issues, attempting to make non-germane points link to her shaky premise, that even Judge Motts, who voted previously to strike down this law, said, “Now, you’re confusing me!” At another point, Judge Paul Neimeyer asked her a question, and the lawyer refused to answer it, instead pointing to something on the Commonwealth’s brief on page eight. Judge Neimeyer had to ask her at least three times to answer the question, his irritation increasing each time. By contrast, even when Judge Diana Motz and Judge M. Blane Michael disagreed with Solicitor General William Thro, it was on interpretation, not fact.

3. Use whatever description you want — painfully awkward, bizarre, or "Twilight Zone” come to mind . . .

But it was disturbing to listen to the solicitor general have to make the case — in order for the law to be ruled constitutional — that the law did not cover, nor would an abortionist be prosecuted in situations where he allowed a pre-viability baby born by accident (when born accidentally) to be put aside to die due to inattention. Maybe the word is sick.

4. How come individuals, politicians and organizations who claim they want abortion to be “safe, legal and rare” seem to ignore the “rare”?

I have never heard any pro-abortion advocate speak in favor of counseling for giving birth and putting the child up for adoption or any other option that involves life. It’s all-abortion-all-the-time. Exactly what qualifies as “rare” anyway? More than a million abortions a year seems a bit high for “rare.” If they are really for “choice” why not provide true counseling and information on the possible options and services available for women who carry the baby to term? Doesn’t true choice mean there’s another course of action available? Why, then, is it always straight to the abortion factory? Apparently, credibility is only a concept when defending the “right” to kill babies ready to live outside the womb.