As reported by The Weekly Standard…
Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.
Alisa LaPolt Snow [pictured right] 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.
“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 PP 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.”
But HB1129 went further than the federal BAIPA by adding, as the sponsor testified (beginning at 11:02) during the committee hearing:
1. Parity, that regardless of how a born alive infant entered the world – natural birth, c-section, or abortion – s/he shall be treated with the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence. The bill provided that a born alive baby would immediately be transported to a hospital.
2. “Infant born alive” becomes a reportable item.
3. Surrender – “A work in progress,” according to the sponsor. The bill’s language originally assumed the baby was not wanted, since the mother had just paid to have him or her killed, and should be immediately surrendered to the state. The sponsor said an amendment was being crafted for the unique circumstance when an abortion was necessary for the health of the mother, which meant mean she likely would still want the infant born alive and give it loving care.
It was into this bill language mix that PP lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow stepped in.
The problems PP had with the bill were providing care, transport, and surrender.
The former two are problems state Sen. Barack Obama had with a separate companion bill (page 33) to Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which for all intents and purposes was saying the same thing, that medical care of abortion survivors was to be taken out of the hands of the doctor who had been paid to kill them:
[A]n additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make thee assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion….
Obama agreed with Snow that, regarding the care of abortion survivor, as Snow testified, “any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
Snow was simply less artful than Obama. Plus, Obama had and still has the public and media snowed, as the Washington Post’s Josh Hicks demonstrated:
Granted, we don’t know why Obama voted against the 2003 bill that included a clause to protect abortion rights…. Nonetheless, we find it hard to fathom that the former senator expressed a belief that human life is disposable outside the womb.