Florida state lawmakers were left stunned last week after a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood appeared to argue in favour of after-birth 'abortions' while opposing a bill with bipartisan support that aims to strengthen protections for babies born alive during a botched abortion.
Responding to a question from Rep. Jim Boyd who asked "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?", Alisa LaPolt Snow replied that Planned Parenthood believes "that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician."
Shocked at hearing what appeared to be a position in favour of after-birth abortion, Rep Rep. Jose Oliva requested clarification: "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?"
Snow again claimed that "that decision should be between the patient and the health care provider."
She appeared to be stumped when Oliva pointed out that the baby was actually a patient in the circumstance described:
Rep. Jose Oliva: "I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on a table. Wouldn’t you agree?"
Snow: "That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that. And I think — I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about — about this."
But that's not all. Snow also claimed that there are "logistical issues" to consider before deciding on the fate of a baby born alive during a botched abortion. She said Planned Parenthood was concerned about "those situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that’s the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there’s just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about."
So Planned Parenthood want the option to just finish off the baby right there and then in the abortion clinic because it might take too long to get to a hospital.
How might this be done?
Depraved Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell would allegedly snip the spinal cords of babies born alive from abortions in his clinic, subsequently described as a "house of horrors" after it was raided by authorities and the remains and body parts of near full-term newborns were discovered in jars, boxes and drawers. Gosnell is currently on trial charged with seven counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of newborns whose spines he snipped with scissors after late-term abortions and a third-degree murder charge concerning woman who died after a botched abortion. "House of Horrors" Abortion Doctor Trial | NBC 10 Philadelphia
The relevant exchanges with Snow can be seen here:
Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard
Lest Snow's position on post-birth abortions be considered an aberration, consider the position taken last year by two Oxford bioethicists:
Bioethicists Argue for "After-Birth Abortion" | NBC Bay Area"Two Oxford bioethicists caused an outcry among pro-lifers when they argued that "after-birth abortion" — killing a newborn baby — is morally sound and should be made legal.
Alberto Giubilini from the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva from Melbourne University wrote in the Journal of Medical Ethics that fetuses and newborns “do not have the same moral status as actual persons.”
The pair say that killing a baby should be “permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled,” adding that “the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant."