Planned Parenthood Furious That House Bill Forces Them to Save Babies' Lives
In a scathing statement released after the House of Representatives passed a bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency care to a baby born alive during an abortion, Planned Parenthood said the bill “criminalizes abortion providers” and “is full of inflammatory language intentionally designed to politicize the provision of health care.”
The bill, H.R. 4712, was introduced by GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. It passed the lower chamber on Friday by a 241-183 vote.
A summary of H.R. 4712 states that it “amends the federal criminal code to require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital.”
The bill would also require “a health care practitioner or other employee who has knowledge of a failure to comply with these requirements must immediately report such failure to an appropriate law enforcement agency.” Those found in violation of the law could face up to five years in prison as well as a criminal fine.
The bill also stipulates that “(a)n individual who commits an overt act that kills a child born alive is subject to criminal prosecution for murder” and that “(a) woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill.”
Predictably, Planned Parenthood wasn’t in favor of the measure.
“Today, the U.S. House passed an unnecessary, inflammatory abortion ban, H.R. 4712, that criminalizes abortion providers,” read a statement issued by the group.
“Medical guidelines and ethics already compel physicians facing life-threatening circumstances to respond. Doctors and clinicians oppose this law because it prevents them from giving the best care to their patients. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly opposes this legislation, calling it a ‘gross interference in the practice of medicine.’”
This is a curious and self-defeating argument, at least as presented. If the bill is redundant, there isn’t any particular reason to oppose it. On the other hand, it also wouldn’t prevent doctors or clinicians “from giving the best care to their patients,” nor would it “ban” anything.
Dana Singiser, vice president of public policy and government relations for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, also put forward the snowflake argument in the statement: namely, the language of the bill offended the delicate sensibilities of America’s top abortion mill.
“This bill is unnecessary and is full of inflammatory language intentionally designed to politicize the provision of health care,” Singiser said. “Planned Parenthood physicians provide high-quality medical care and adhere to the most rigorous professional standards, including providing emergency care.”
Leaving that last part about adherence “to the most rigorous professional standards” to our friends at the Center for Medical Progress, I perused the text of the bill for inflammatory language. I didn’t find any references to “clotheshanger-wielding baby-murdering slime” or anything of that nature, so I must assume they’re talking about the fact the bill calls an unborn child a child and killing it, killing it. This is apparently what qualifies as “inflammatory” in Planned Parenthoodville.
“The political agenda here is clear: to take away access to safe, legal abortion,” Singiser concludes. “Time and time again, the American people have rejected these blatantly political attacks on women’s health care. Instead of attacking women’s health, Congress needs to listen to the American people and invest in women and families.”
Again, if this bill is unnecessary and redundant, there is no threat upon “access to safe, legal abortion.” If it is not, then what Planned Parenthood defines as “access to safe, legal abortion” includes deliberate indifference to babies who are born alive during an abortion procedure. It’s really that simple.
In spite of my generally jaundiced outlook towards the ghouls at Planned Parenthood, I do legitimately hope that this bill is totally redundant and that they, and other abortion providers, “provide high-quality medical care and adhere to the most rigorous professional standards, including providing emergency care” in the events covered by H.R. 4712.
I hope so for obvious reasons — that no child should suffer the pain of having life snuffed out moments after birth by the politically motivated indifference of the attending medical professionals.
Hope, however, is not the same as optimism, and the fact that Planned Parenthood seems so determined to fight this so publicly and furiously is a potent corrective to any possible optimism. If the organization adheres to such rigorous standards and provides such high-quality medical care, surely there’s no reason to object to legislation that ensures that they do.
Indeed, a “women’s health” organization that wishes to stave off legal oversight of what happens when an unborn child manages to survive an abortion is, prima facie, not doing so because it allows them to give “the best care to their patients.”
That alone should compel the Senate to act on H.R. 4712 with all deliberate speed.
H/T Breitbart
Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on this bill.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
