Tag Archives: Alisa LaPolt Snow

Pro-life blog buzz 4-9-13

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.

  • ProWomanProLife posts results of a recent Canadian survey on sex-selective abortion in which 95% of Canadians did not support it. A companion post illustrates the disconnect pro-choicers seem to have on this issue.


  • Women’s Rights without Frontiers reveals another death at the hands of China’s forced sterilization policy. Shen Hongxia, a wife and mother of two, was subject to sterilization despite the fact that “[her] doctor had clearly warned that sterilizing her could kill her [which] makes her death the responsibility of the Family Planning Officers who forced this violent surgery upon her…. Those responsible for her death should face serious criminal charges.” Reggie Littlejohn says “The Family Planning Bureau and the Village Committee attempted to cover up their criminal responsibility by making an agreement to compensate the family by installments, and to build them a house. Family members felt forced to sign the agreement, as they saw no other way to seek relief.”
  • Fr. Frank Pavone discusses why pro-lifers conduct funerals for aborted children:

    [T]he People of Life… are not ashamed or afraid to honor in public those who are dishonored in secret by the hidden violence of abortion. By gathering in large numbers to bury aborted children, and by letting as many people as possible know about it, they make up in some small way for the callous disregard in which these children are held by many in our society.

  • Wesley J. Smith lauds the courage of pro-life students on today’s campuses, who face “disdain, even open scorn, from peers, repeated put downs by professors, occasional threats of violence, and sometimes, an uncooperative attitude from the administration.”


  • Sometimes a picture – like this one, right, posted by Pro-Life Wisconsin – says it all (click to enlarge).
  • Pro-Life Action League shares photos sent in by locations around the country that participated in the Good Friday Way of the Cross, an “ecumenical… gather[ing] at… local abortion facilities to… offer[] prayers for children in the womb, mothers, fathers, abortion workers and our whole nation in union with the suffering of Christ in His Passion.”
  • Secular Pro-Life posts videos of their presentations at various universities, including Columbia University, their very first visit to an Ivy League school. Since the majority of these students expect the opposition to abortion to come from faith-based groups, their reactions to secular arguments should be interesting.
  • Pro-Life in TN spots a post by Creative Minority Report with an interesting find: the Florida Planned Parenthood lobbyist who infamously advocated for allowing infanticide has a professional bio touting her service on the board of Catholic Charities. CMR confirmed that Alisa LaPolt Snow departed that position in January, but she still lists it – along with other clients she serves which have an interest in providing pediatric care.

    On this point, the Washington Examiner scrutinizes the alliance of Catholic Charities with the Obama Administration on the HHS contraceptive mandate, in opposition to Church teaching.

Would it be legal to abort this baby?

Click photo to enlarge…

12-3-2013 30

From Parent Society, March 22:

A Greek doctor posted this incredible picture on his Facebook page of a baby he delivered. And as you can see… it was no ordinary delivery.

The baby was delivered via c-section, but was still inside the amniotic sac after being removed from the mother’s body. In fact, according to Dr. Aris Tsigris, the OB/GYN in charge of this delivery, the baby does not even know that it has been born yet.

Most sacs break on their own or are broken by the doctor when a woman is ready to give birth. This is known as a woman’s “water breaking.” It is extremely rare for a baby to be born with the sac still completely intact.

However, although it is rare, it is not dangerous. Dr. Tsigris informs us that the baby will not drown inside the bag because it is feeding off the placenta. The baby will automatically start to breathe on its own once the bag is broken. The doctor admits however that he was left “breathless” by the site of this baby….

The… baby thinks it’s still in the womb and is therefore living as peacefully as when it was in its mother’s uterus.

This baby was still connected to his or her mother by the umbilical cord to the placenta. The baby had not drawn a breath.

Would abortion proponents say it was still ethically/legally acceptable to kill this baby? There are certainly some pro-abortion activists who would argue yes. Had her pregnancy officially terminated? I think they would argue no.

After all, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow argued during a Florida legislative hearing last week that born babies who were showing signs of life could still be killed according to the whim of the mother. And the baby in the photo above wasn’t technically yet born.

There is also what is called a hysterotomy abortion, wherein an incision is made into the uterus, such as in a c-section, but either the amniotic fluid is ruptured and the baby is drowned before removal, or the cord is cut and the baby bleeds to death before removal, or the baby is removed alive and discarded or killed outright.

I am sure there are abortion proponents who would argue this baby was still hysterotomy abortion candidate.

[HT: Fran Eaton of Illinois Review]

Planned Parenthood lying about ability to “provide appropriate care” to abortion survivors

Arena2CrashCartUPDATE 1:25: LifeNews.com has the complete statement, which reiterates that Planned Parenthood is capable of “providing emergency care,” which is again, false, unless PP is equipped to treat preemies.

12:28p: In follow-up to Florida Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow’s shocking contention last week that the fate of abortion survivors should be left to “the woman, her family, and the physician,”  Planned Parenthood gave Sean Hannity this statement yesterday:

In the extremely unlikely event that the scenario presented by the panel of legislators should happen, of course Planned Parenthood would provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant.

That Planned Parenthood responded at all means the heat brought on by Snow’s statements condoning infanticide became intolerable. PP’s preferred response is to ignore bad press, such as is often seen when Live Action releases a new exposé.

That aside, PP’s statement contradicts Snow’s repeated claim to different lines of questioning that the decision whether an abortion survivor lives or dies should be up to the mother and doctor, both of whom are invested in the latter outcome.

In addition, it would not be possible for any PP to “provide appropriate care to… the infant” unless it had neonatal resuscitation equipment, meds, and personnel trained to provide emergency care to preemies, which I happen to know is no easy task. I’m confident no PP in the U.S. has a neonatal crash cart (above right) and nursing staff certified in Neonatal Advanced Life Support. Click to enlarge sample algorithm…


resuscitation-centre-250x250This brings me to a suggestion I’ve made for several years that, in follow-up to state and federal Born Alive laws, legislators should propose a law requiring abortion clinics that commit late-term abortions to have neonatal resuscitation equipment on the premises, which would also have to include a baby warmer (left), and personnel trained in neonatal resuscitation.

Florida legislators should immediately add this amendment to HB1129.

Planned Parenthood has now hemmed itself in on this, making it nearly impossible to oppose such an amendment, since it has implied it already has such mechanisms in place.

Planned Parenthood official argues for right to post-birth abortion

Twitter_picAs 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.”

YouTube Preview Image

Florida HB1129 defines the term “born alive” almost as the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 did. An amendment to HB1129 added the federal BAIPA’s “neutrality clause.”

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.

state senator obama 3The 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.