(NaturalNews) The subject of abortion stirs passionate debate among Americans, but regardless of your individual position on the issue, there does come a time during the pregnancy cycle when it becomes unlawful to end an unborn baby's life, according to laws in many states.
That is certainly true when babies survive abortions and are born alive. Killing them becomes murder, the law says, which is precisely the issue in the case of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who is currently on trial for allegedly killing at least seven babies authorities and witnesses say survived abortion attempts.
Now, however, an official from Planned Parenthood, the taxpayer-supported organization that provides abortion, among other "women's health" services, has said her organization believes that mothers whose babies survive the procedure should have the right to have them killed nonetheless.
Live births shouldn't matter: Planned Parenthood
Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified before a shocked panel of Florida legislators, who are considering a bill that would require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion, that any such decision should be left to the abortion doctor and the mother.
"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," Snow said, apparently unaware that such an act constitutes murder under most any other circumstances.
Another lawmaker stepped in.
"What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?" asked Rep. Daniel Davis.
"I do not have that information. I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information." Snow said, acting as if she and Planned Parenthood's top officials haven't rehearsed how to answer such a question under oath.
'That's a very good question'
Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, Snow, "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."
At that point, another lawmaker pointed out that the newborn baby was also a "patient" at that point, and asked how Planned Parenthood viewed that aspect of the doctor-patient relationship.
She had no answer.
"That's a very good question," she said, stalling. "... I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this."
When another lawmaker specifically asked, "What objection could you possibly have to obligate a doctor to transport a child born alive to a hospital where it seems to me they would most likely be able to survive?" Snow diverted.
In some rural settings, she said in a pained, tortured explanation, "the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away." Such "logistical concerns" were distressing.
Post-birth abortion is not a new idea
For Planned Parenthood, it seems, there can never be enough killing of babies, the most helpless in our society, because there should never be any restrictions to doing so - including being born alive.
This notion of post-birth abortion, sadly, is not new. As WorldNetDaily reported in 2006, so-called Princeton "bioethicist" Peter Singer has even gone so far as to advocate the killing of disabled babies after they are born if it were in the "best interests" of the family - whatever that means.
"...Singer believes the next few decades will see a massive upheaval in the concept of life and rights, with only 'a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists' still protecting life as sacrosanct," the site reported.