Video: Planned Parenthood Argues For Right To ‘Post-Birth’ Abortion???

Posted on March 29, 2013

0



Florida (The Gaslamp Post) – A good friend and mentor, but now deceased Police Lt. Chico once told me that getting the truth out of a criminal was much easier than one would think.  He said that there was a technique called “the 5 ‘whys'” in which you simply ask them about what information that they have already provided – in the form of ‘why’ questions.  Usually by the 5th ‘why’ question, you had the full story and could work on getting the confession.

It’s pretty much along the same lines as giving someone enough rope and letting them hang themselves…

Ever since the advent of legalized abortion in the United States, while opponents called it what it was, murder, those who wanted people to believe that it was anything but (the pro-choicers) maintained that the unborn child wasn’t actually a child at all.  It was only tissue, it wasn’t truly alive, it’s only a part of the mother’s body and therefore her right to choose.

abortion-einstein

Well all that fell apart this week during a committee hearing in Florida, when a Planned Parenthood lobbyist argued for the right to a post-birth abortion.  Yes, you read that correctly.  Planned Parenthood believes that a woman’s right to choose to kill her baby shouldn’t only be covered while en utero, but also in the event that the abortion is botched because the baby survived the procedure and was actually delivered, alive.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

There you have it America, straight from their own mouths.  Here they’re no longer saying “tissue” or “fetus”, now they’re actually using the word “infant” to describe what it is that they are intent on slaughtering.  Just give them enough rope…  All of this came about during a hearing in which a bill was being put forth that would require medical care be given to any baby born alive after a failed abortion attempt.

As one could expect, this statement immediately grabbed the attention of Florida lawmakers, and they immediately began questioning Snow, in order to make sure that they were clear on what she was actually saying.

According to The Weekly Standard:

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “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?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

“I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, “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?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

It doesn’t take a genius to see that Snow realized that she had painted herself into a corner, when she decided to change her description of the abortionist from abortion doctor to health care provider.  But even still, the lobbyist persisted in asserting the organization’s agenda.

“I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.

“That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that,” Snow said. “I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

Later another representative asked Snow, “What objection could you possibly have to obligate a doctor to transport a child born alive to a hospital where it seems to me they would be most likely to be able to survive?”

Snow 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.”

Rural health care settings?  Logistical issues involved?  Exactly what kind of rural health care settings exist in America where an abortion clinic is more readily accessible than a HOSPITAL?  It would seem almost obvious to anyone with half a brain that if getting to a hospital, rural setting or not, is more difficult than getting to an abortion clinic, logistics isn’t our problem.  Our values and morals are!

On a side note, video obtained and posted over at our friends at The Gateway Pundit feature our current president arguing this same position in 2002.  Interesting that this was kept out of the media spotlight.  Wonder why that was…

punishment obama

(h/t:  The Gateway Pundit)