Yesterday, Americans had a close encounter with late-term abortion, with the release of an undercover video from a group called Live Action, showing a woman at 23 weeks being assured by a worker at Dr. Emily’s Women’s Health Center in the Bronx that the clinic does such things, every day. She is told that if the baby is delivered alive, there are jars and there is toxic solution, the baby won’t live long. What consolation.
Now we have a horrific new video from Washington, D.C. Dr. Cesare Santangelo tells a patient on camera that in the instance of a live birth “we would not help it” because “obviously you came in here for a certain procedure.” He likened the baby who survives an abortion to a terminal cancer patient, the kind of case a doctor might just let go.
The Washington Post asked him about that statement, and he says he stands by it, though adding that he would call 911.
During the session, recorded by undercover video, the doctor tells the woman that, while he’d like to be able to say, “take your time and think about it,” he instead says, ”there is not much time left . . . I rather we do it today and be done with it.”
With the release of these videos, Americans now can’t look away, from what’s happening inside abortion clinics and the brutality of late-term abortions.
Meanwhile, our president once worked in the Illinois state house to protect what these clinics are doing, refusing to provide legal protection to children born alive from abortions. Protectiong those children would put his cheering friends at Planned Parenthood in an uncomfortable position.
If a child is born alive, we are no longer talking about an abortion but, obviously, we are not all in agreement on that point.
Thanks to Live Action’s work, Americans can see that the brutality of late-term abortion and infanticide (on babies born alive from abortions) is not just about one man named Kermit Gosnell.
It’s important to bear in mind, too, that as the media have looked away and abortion advocates try to shield abortion clinics from scrutiny, academics are laying the groundwork for mainstreaming “after-birth abortion.”
In a March 2012 articled titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”, professors at the University of Milan and the University of Melbourne argued the following:
The fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.
Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justiﬁed abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.
In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk …
In other words: If we really have no reason to prohibit abortion, why would we prohibit killing an infant just after birth? There are lives and judgments that trump the life of the child, so if the child is not wanted, the child has no rights. Even after being born.
(Andy Ferguson wrote an important piece on the disgraceful state of medical ethics last month for The Weekly Standard.)
This appalling reality needs to be out in the open. Thank you, Live Action, for exposing it.