Planned Parenthood kills babies for a living, they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking, they encourage kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretend that it can be done without risks, and so much more. Yet one of their representatives managed to shock people during a public hearing. Watch it yourself:
She and Planned Parenthood, like Barack Obama before her, are fighting the restrictions against withholding medical care and killing infants who survive abortions. She specifically says that the decision regarding what to do about the baby on the table is between the mother and the “healthcare provider.” (She initially said the family, then thought better of those implications and reverted to just the mother later in her testimony). And while this question may not have been asked, presumably she would insist that taxpayers fund the killing of the baby on the table.
Apparently the horrors of being a little too far away from a hospital were too much for Planned Parenthood to take, so speaking like Dr. Nick Riviera of The Simpsons, just to be on the safe side they need to be allowed to kill the baby.
Of course it is spectacularly evil to withhold care or directly kill a baby on a table. Just because the abortionist failed on the first try doesn’t mean he deserves a second shot. Anyone without a warped moral compass would agree. But who are the inconsistent ones? I submit that she is entirely consistent with the Democrats’ platform of abortions without restrictions, funded by taxpayers.
Remember, the successful abortion would have had the mother and child in the same room, with an irrelevant change in the distance between them. Everyone in the video seems to concede that. This Planned Parenthood representative would have been entirely consistent in saying the following (channeling Hillary Clinton):
With all due respect, the fact is we end up with a dead baby who wasn’t wanted by her mother. Was it because she was killed slightly inside the mother or slightly outside? What difference at this point does it make?
And she would be right. While killing the baby on the table seems worse, it is morally equal to the abortion. (Speaking of red equal signs . . .)
And if those babies can be killed, why not any baby delivered naturally?