By Dave Andrusko
Like many of you, I was not working on Good Friday. As a result I did not see John McCormack’s story that appeared on the webpage of the Weekly Standard.
However, in a sense it is only fitting that we didn’t talk until today about the testimony of Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, before a Florida House subcommittee.
That’s because you will also read at NRL News Today for Monday an excerpt from the report by the Grand Jury that investigated abortionist Kermit Gosnell, on trial for eight counts of murder. Gosnell applied for membership in the National Abortion Federation just after a woman died at his clinic—the woman for whose death prosecutors have charged him with third degree murder. Even though the NAF investigator found Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society abortion clinic “beyond redemption,” she did not tell authorities of the appalling conditions she found there.
Beyond that, there is an analysis of how one pro-abortion site straightforwardly advocates using abortion as a form of “birth control”: “[S]afe, legal abortion is one of the most effective forms of birth control; in the US, abortion procedures only ‘fail’ or need to be re-administered less than .5% of the time.” Get it? Abortion is a very “safe” method of “birth control” because in the end the kid, with the rarest of exceptions, is dead.
What can top that? What Snow told members of the Florida House Civil Justice subcommittee about kids who DO survive abortions.
According to Florida Right to Life, “Infants Born Alive “(Senate Bill 1636 /House Bill 1129) “provides that infants born alive during or immediately after attempted abortion are entitled to same rights, powers, & privileges as any other child born alive in course of natural birth.” In other words, if the baby survives the initial onslaught, he or she should treated no differently than a baby who is delivered naturally.
You have to actually watch Snow bob and weave — avoiding the obviously incredulous members of the subcommittee — to fully appreciate what she says. McCormack transcribed much of the exchange which you can watch at http://myfloridahouse.gov/VideoPlayer.aspx?eventID=2443575804_2013031292&committeeID=2719, beginning at around the 39 minute mark. I’ve added some additional comments from Snow and subcommittee members.
The three members of the Civil Justice subcommittee that you can watch are all asking variations of the same question: how in the world can anyone—even Planned Parenthood—be opposed to this? You have to start with Snow’s obfuscating first principle: that what happens to an infant who survives an abortion is a decision made by the woman and her “abortion provider.” And then we’re off on an incredible journey.
“So, 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,” Snow responds.
Rep. Daniel Davis follows up:
“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. I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”
Okay we understand that you are not a physician but what do your doctors do in that situation?
“I don’t know. We don’t even know how prevalent this is.”
Next comes Rep. Rep. Jose Oliva whose first question receives the talking points response from Snow:
“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?”
“That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”
Then comes Dodge #4. Oliva asks,
“I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?”
Snow first laughs nervously and responds
“That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that. I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”
One last (and equally unsuccessful) attempt to find out what PPFA’s objection is.
“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?”
To which Snow responds with Dodge #5
“What 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.”
According to the Examiner newspaper, Planned Parenthood said (I assume in prepared testimony) that the bill is “politically motivated.” Read the following carefully which is the most incredible dodge of all:
“It inserts politics where it doesn’t belong by implying doctors and women who end a pregnancy can’t be trusted. Legislation should not be created with the intent of coercing, shaming, or judging a woman or doctor. It is important that abortion remain a safe and legal medical procedure for a woman to consider with her doctor, if and when she needs it.”
So a baby survives an abortion and to require that this baby–who is no longer IN the woman—be treated like any other newborn is nothing but politics, “implying doctors and women who end a pregnancy can’t be trusted.”
What can that possibly mean? That the unsuccessful first pass should be treated like a mulligan. They’ll do a do-over to guarantee a dead baby.
As I’ve written many, many times, pro-abortionists, and especially Planned Parenthood, never find an abortion that they would prohibit. Doesn’t matter the reason or how advanced the baby is. It’s a “woman’s choice.”
But every once in a while—as we did with Ms. Snow—we are reminded that birth is not even a flashing yellow light when the objective is a dead baby.