Whoa: Florida Planned Parenthood Lobbyist Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion

Posted by on Mar 29, 2013 at 12:19 pm

She’s actually supporting murder here. Sick.

“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 Planned Parenthood 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.”

In other news, a former Michelle Obama aide just became the CEO of Florida’s Planned Parenthood. We’ll assume she also believes in killing babies.

7 Responses to “Whoa: Florida Planned Parenthood Lobbyist Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion”

  1. MT Geoff on 29/29/13 at 1:16 pm

    My queasy support for abortion choice is that the state has no business telling a woman that she has to carry a child to term. Her body, her decision.
    Once the child is separated, though, the child is no longer dependent on the mother’s body. That means the child, if born alive, should receive the same care that any newborn receives; the child IS any newborn.
    I could also support a medical ethics standard, though not necessarily a law, which says that inducing pre-term labor of a potentially viable infant can only be justified if the mother’s life or the child’s life is at stake. These cases really do occur and then the decision should fall to the family and the physician.
    The outcome would be that potentially viable babies could not be aborted. In fact relatively few abortions occur at that stage of pregnancy, but some do.

  2. kate on 29/29/13 at 2:19 pm

    The fact that this woman is such a lemming for her organization is ridiculous. Common Sense has just gone out of the window. Say this lobbyist is a cat owner, She becomes surprised when her cat has kittens. Would she drown the newborn kittens because she didnt want or couldnt afford them? She’d face a slew of animal cruelty charges. Technically speaking the newborn kittens have more rights and protections than a baby on a medical table in a Planned Parenthood facility. And sure its unwated fetus (or baby) vs. a cat but both have a common factor of being alive

  3. It's those damn kids! on 29/29/13 at 4:53 pm

    Well, from the PRO-Choice (unless you are a baby) camp: just because said baby, er..fetus, is out of the womb. This doesn’t mean it is able to care for itself (viable!). So. You know, finish the job before it does more irreparable harm to the saintly mother or uhhhhh, almost mother(?).

    Or look at it this way: murderous woman becomes saintly single mother by saving life of her formerly unviable fetus, errrr child(?) on the abortionists table.

    Look at it this way: if it weren’t for the Pro-Choice movement, these parasites that only attach themselves to females (and can grow into full sized human beings) might never be saved as children on the reproductive services table at PP after a botched attempt at mammography.

    I really could go on….

    It is funny in the most unfunny way possible. The left are so sure of the empirical nature if science on so many fronts. But when it comes to abortion; abortion proponents turn a blind eye without pause. Succinctly, as stated by PP, life is nothing but a choice. Life is arbitrary to no certain morality other than the equvalent coin toss.

  4. It's those damn kids! on 29/29/13 at 5:12 pm

    I don’t agree with MT Geoff.

    This will be harsh.
    If modern medicine had an ethic…there wouldnt be a billion dollar industry punching babies out of their mother’s stomach by the millions every year for financial gain. This is inside but mainly outside “mother’s life or the child’s life is at stake”.

    Every fetus is viable….”this really happens.”

  5. Wi Jon on 29/29/13 at 5:13 pm

    Someone should ask the Alisa Snow how long she thinks after the baby is born that the mother has to decide if the baby should live or die. When does this become Murder? When does the mother begin to have an obligation to care for her kids or be charged with neglect for failing to do so. Her comments are really sick.

  6. jaafar on 30/30/13 at 11:52 am

    If I am not mistaken, this is the same gang of creeps who want to disarm America “to save the life of even one child.”

  7. Blue Hen on 1/01/13 at 10:11 am

    MT Geoff on 29/29/13 at 1:16 pm
    My queasy support for abortion choice is that the state has no business telling a woman that she has to carry a child to term

    Nobody asked you that. The point of the thread, which you eventually addressed, concerned babies who survived and were at the mercy of St. Kermit and the other merry abortionists. Ya know; the same guys and gals that “make you queasy”.

    oh yeah. Plenty of people were “queasy about slavery” and either stood by or gave it some measure of support. You’re not nearly as beautiful a person as you make yourself out to be.