In a recent post on ThinkProgress, Tara Culp-Ressler laments a “smear campaign” against Planned Parenthood.
First, she takes to task a bill in the Florida legislature called HB 1129, which she deems:
a politically-motivated piece of legislation seeking to ensure that any infant born alive ‘during or immediately after an attempted abortion’ is entitled to all of the same rights ‘as any other child born alive in course of natural birth.’
This bill is being passed in order to prevent situations like that of “Dr.” Kermit Gosnell in Pennsylvania, who is on trial for killing dozens of infants who were viable during late-late-term abortions in a dingy office for cash.
Culp-Ressler says:
The ‘Infant Born Alive’ measure rests upon the fundamentally flawed assumption that this type of situation is a real risk for women seeking to terminate a pregnancy. In fact, Florida does not perform abortions after the fetus has reached viability, so the situation that HB 1129 intends to address is incredibly unlikely.
Go ahead and click the link to the PDF from the Guttmacher Institute that Culp-Ressler cites. You’ll find that Florida has no constitutional limit on abortion after viability (unlike 22 other states), so Culp-Ressler simply…lied about the facts.
Culp-Ressler says:
In this hypothetical medical situation, where an infant is “born alive” after an incredibly late-term induced abortion, the woman would have also been stripped of all parental rights. The Florida Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates opposed HB 1129 because of this particular provision, which they believe is simply intended to intimidate and shame women. Planned Parenthood officials pointed out that the implicit assumption is that women who choose abortion can’t possibly be fit to care for a child — and that’s not something that should be codified into state law.
That makes logical sense. Child Protective Services will come to your door if you threaten to harm your child. These are women who are choosing to kill their children as they’re being born. What kind of reasonable person would support giving the kid back to the lady who was aborting it?
Culp-Ressler cites:
Planned Parenthood was essentially backed into a corner by Florida Republicans — forced to testify against an unnecessary provision within a misleading piece of legislation, and then forced to respond to an imaginary “botched abortion” procedure that’s already against the law in the state.
Except that it isn’t against the law.
Planned Parenthood was questioned in the Florida legislature, and their answer was revealing:
When posed with a hypothetical scenario in which “a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion,” [Planned Parenthood lobbyist] Snow attempted to make the point that legislators don’t need to get in the middle of medical situations. “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.
It appears the child doesn’t really have a say in this scenario.
Culp-Ressler says “[t]hat was enough for the right-wing media to proclaim that Planned Parenthood endorses ‘infanticide.’”
Why is “infanticide” in quotes? Isn’t killing a life infant considered infanticide?
Culp-Ressler extends sympathy for the Planned Parenthood lobbyist who was questioned in the Florida legislature, who was:
essentially backed into a corner by Florida Republicans — forced to testify against an unnecessary provision within a misleading piece of legislation, and then forced to respond to an imaginary ‘botched abortion’ procedure that’s already against the law in the state.
The lobbyist wasn’t backed into a corner nor forced to do anything. She chose to testify on a bill that allows for children to be saved if born during a botched abortion, and gave testimony that revealed a severe lack of concern for the child. Culp-Ressler has more sympathy for an abortion lobbyist than a child born during an abortion.
Just look at Planned Parenthood’s response:
[W]hile HB 1129 addresses a situation that is extremely unlikely and highly unusual, if the scenario presented by the legislation should happen, of course a Planned Parenthood doctor would provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant.
Well, it’s good to see that the infant comes last, and that they indeed call it an infant. Why would they have an operation where infants would be harmed in or out of the mother’s womb anyway?
Culp-Ressler ignores this and finishes:
Perhaps the ultimate irony of the right-wing’s imagined controversy is that — even in states where it’s not against the law to perform late-term induced abortions — Planned Parenthood clinics don’t provide that type of service. Many Planned Parenthood affiliates only perform abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy, when women can either take a pill or have a less-invasive surgical procedure. It’s actually the women who don’t have access to Planned Parenthood clinics, which are under attack across the country as GOP-controlled legislatures do their best to shut them down, who are forced to resort to dangerous, illegal, late-term abortion services like the ones described at the Florida hearing.
This shop-worn “back-alley abortion” argument is getting old. The number of abortions women had before Roe v. Wade, especially late-term abortions, is nowhere near the amount today. The legalization abortion did not make abortions safer or rarer, just more common. And note that “many” Planned Parenthood affiliates perform only first-trimester abortions, not all. Are there some out there performing second-trimester abortions? Late-term abortions? It would seem so. Performing an abortion on a viable fetus is infanticide, no bones about it. Cleverly dancing around the issue does not change that fact. If Culp-Ressler and ThinkProgress were truly concerned, they would be calling out Planned Parenthoods and other abortion providers performing late-term abortions. Instead, they’d rather criticize those who are trying to keep that from happening.
