If you are not aware of this issue, I plead with you to take notice. Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider, is literally arguing that infanticide should be legal.
From a Washington Post article:
"Testifying against a Florida bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency medical care to an infant who survives an abortion, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked point blank: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen [emphasis mine] to that child that is struggling for life?” She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to [emphasis mine] the woman, her family, and the physician.”Jaws in the committee room dropped. Asked again, she repeated her answer.
Only after a firestorm erupted in the conservative media did Planned Parenthood issued a statement that in the “extremely unlikely and highly unusual” event that a baby were born alive it would “provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant.” That is debatable, since a Planned Parenthood counselor has been caught on tape admitting that the organization leaves infants born alive after an abortion to die. But if Planned Parenthood really does provide such care, why was it lobbying against a bill requiring such care in the first place?"
This is unfortunately only almost unbelievable...almost. Again, just to emphasize this, what exactly does Miss Snow's response mean?
Let me restate it in my own summary form. Please consider if this is an accurate representation:
Pannel member: "When a baby is born alive, what do you, as a representative of the largest provider of abortion America, want policy to be regarding that child?
Snow: "We believe that policy should be that it is legal to destroy that child if the mother or abortionist choose to do so."
Is this not accurate? Is this not what "any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician" means? It is clothed in the well-known language of choice and freedom, but logically, in argument form, what is she saying? She is saying that Planned Parenthood desires for it to remain legal to kill that child who is now alive outside the womb, as apposed to inside of it.
Katie Stockton (quote below) is literally going to serve 50 years in prison because she did virtually the exact same thing. At the same time, Planned Parenthood is standing in front of a state legislative meeting apposing a bill that would protect that baby born alive.
Another excerpt, this time from an article form Abort73.com
"Planned Parenthood has a legion of supporters who bend over backwards in a relentless attempt to "normalize" their operations. Their public face is all smiles and "women's health," but as this case demonstrates, Planned Parenthood makes no ethical distinction between killing an unborn baby and killing a born baby. In other words, Planned Parenthood, through their lobbyist, supports the exact same behavior that earned Katie Stockton 50 years in prison. So, if you're outraged by what Miss Stockton did but are sympathetic to the "work" of Planned Parenthood, do not forget the events of last week. The only difference between Katie Stockton and Planned Parenthood is that Katie Stockton doesn't have a million-dollar PR firm to cover her tracks."
No comments:
Post a Comment