News,  Politics

Planned Parenthood spokesperson supports infanticide

The video above is just too shocking for words, but make no mistake. It is the logical implication of the pro-choice position. If an unborn baby at 7-months has no right to life inside the womb, then why would he have a right to life outside? Consistent pro-choicers know this, and that’s why some of them—like the Planned Parenthood spokesperson above—has no problem supporting infanticide. Here’s the report from 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, 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.

Read the rest here.

15 Comments

  • T. Newbell

    Wow. There is something in her that knows this is wrong. You can hear it in her voice–it’s trembling. It’s obvious by her vague answers. I’m praying God would reveal the obvious to them. Thanks for sharing, Denny!

  • James Harold Thomas

    From the article:
    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.”

    “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.”

    (end quote)

    She doesn’t know how to answer that just like Pres. Obama didn’t know how to answer the ssm question in 2008.

    Let me go ahead and translate: “I have a very strong opinion about that, but it’s not popular enough yet for me to be open about it. What I’m going to do instead is act like I’m undecided and willing to have an honest discussion, knowing full well that discussion will never happen and what my final decision will be.”

    This is what a lot of people mean when they talk a good game about having a “conversation” or a “dialog”.

    For an example of a real conversation, I would direct anybody to the ongoing one about race between Doug Wilson (www.dougwils.com) and Thabiti Anyabwile (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/). Somehow they have managed to have this conversation without a whole lot of talk *about* having a conversation. Makes you wonder …

    • James Harold Thomas

      Correction: Pres. Obama’s stated position on gay marriage in 2008 was one of opposition. It was only after he was in office that he claimed to began evolving on the issue. I doubt there were any Vegas odds on the outcome of that evolution.

    • Denny Burk

      This PP Spokesperson clearly wants it to be legal for the decision to kill or let live to be in the hands of the mother. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    • Jim Talbot

      Tom, the video clearly shows that she elevates the right of a mother to choose if her very alive baby laying on the abortuary table should be allowed to live or die. This is logically considered to be “supporting infanticide”. As to whether she has “no problem” or a “major problem” supporting infanticide….the evidence in this video shows that she falls on more of the “no problem” end of the continuum. The rights of the the mother trump any and all rights of the child laying on the table in a pool of blood struggling for life. Denny’s headline is accurate and is supported by the facts. You are, as you state, more than entitled to your opinion. Where evil and wickedness exist we must, IMO, work to understand it and label it as such.

  • Stephen Beck

    I loved her completely fake objection at the end of the clip, “We don’t want to be required to transport live, struggling babies to an ER because they could be in a rural area far away from a medical center.” I’d like to know what kind of doctor is performing an invasive surgery on a woman that is not minutes from a broader medical facility with emergency treatment abilities.

    As an aside, I looked up all the Planned Parenthood offices in FL that offered “abortion services” and the furthest distance to a hospital I could find according to Google Maps was 13 minutes, and that one I don’t think I looked for alternate locations (mostly I typed “[City name of PP location] hospital”). Also, the main abortion service now provided is the so-called abortion pill, and without even looking for it I find these directions for prospective aborters who will take the pill: “After your abortion pill visit, you will need access to a telephone, transportation, and backup medical care available to you once you are home.” Funny!

    • James Harold Thomas

      At least she called the child a baby, for now. I wonder what dehumanizing term the pro-choice side will come up with since “fetus” obviously won’t work in this situation. Of course, that’s assuming they don’t take the “Yeah, it’s a baby but so what?” position that’s gaining traction these days.

  • Paul Reed

    So the pro-abortion position is not necessarily that the fetus isn’t a baby (although they certain will say this for early-term babies). The pro-abortion position is that the woman doesn’t have an obligation to carry the child to term or stay pregnant against her will. This is in-spite of the fact that her pregnancy is almost always directly attributable to her actions, and that ending her pregnancy kills a baby.

  • Kathleen Veltsos

    Sometimes you just have to pick a side and stand up for what is right. She knows what is being done is wrong. You can hear it in her voice and see it in her body language. Conviction is a beautiful thing! Whether the “T” person above wants to believe it or not she is going along with it. If she repents, she will be a great testimony! This girl is supporting a child essentially being left to die on a table because it wasn’t wanted, it was the wrong timing, financial problems, not married….Jesus was left to die because he caused the same problems. Not saying these babies are Christ but they all belong to the Father and if you harm one of them you might as well tie a millstone around you and…..well..you know the scripture. Pray for this Lady.

Leave a Reply to Paul Reed Cancel reply