Florida is considering a bill that would require abortion providers to provide medical care to an infant that survives an abortion. It doesn’t sound like a bill that I would like since it still seems to endorse the abortion industry. They just want abortionists to take care of any infant who ends up not being born dead. On a purely incremental level, pro-lifers might argue that at least it’s a step in the right direction. Maybe.
One of the bill’s opponents is Planned Parenthood. Alisa LaPolt Snow, the Planned Parenthood lobbyist, testified before the committee stating that their concern with the bill was that it infringes on the woman’s and the doctor’s rights to do with the baby as they see fit. The lawmakers were dumfounded to say the least. Here’s some of the exchange:
Rep. Jim Boyd: “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief. 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?”
Lobbyist Snow: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
* * * * *
Rep. Daniel Davis: “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”
Snow: “I do not have that information. I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”
* * * * *
Rep. Jose Oliva: “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: “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”
Rep Oliva: “ I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?”
Snow: “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.”
Another representative asked her what objection she could possibly have to a bill that requires a doctor to provide medical care to a baby that was born alive. She stated that her concern would be if the abortion clinic were in a rural setting, and the hospital was far away. “You know, there’s just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about,” she said.
Planned Parenthood objects to the bill because it infringes on the rights of the woman to decide what she can do with her born child. Whether to have the baby killed or let the baby live.
It used to be that you could question an abortion proponent about when killing an unborn child is permissible. One week into a pregnancy? Absolutely. Three months into a pregnancy? Sure. One second after birth? Absolutely not. How about 1 second prior to birth? No. One month prior to birth? Probably not. You know the line of questioning.
So, now where do they draw the line? After the child is weaned? Six months? Nine months? A year post-birth?
They’ll still argue that every person should have equal rights. But they’re redefining “person” just like they’re redefining marriage.