Watch: Massachusetts Doctors Support Infanticide Bill, but ‘Not Familiar with That Particular Section’

Two Massachusetts doctors said they support legislation that would eliminate a requirement for abortionists to provide immediate medical care to an infant who survives an abortion.

One of the doctors, however, said she was not familiar with that section of the bill, though she supports it.

In a video clip of testimony provided by Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI), both Dr. Carole Allen, vice president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and Dr. Luu Ireland, OB/GYN at UMass Memorial, are heard telling members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary they support S. 1209, titled An Act to Remove Obstacles and Expand Abortion Access (ROE).

First, Republican State Rep. Sheila Harrington asked if Allen understood that a provision of the ROE Act would end the requirement that an abortionist ensure a baby born alive during a failed abortion received immediate medical treatment. Allen said she supported the ROE Act but was “not familiar with that particular section.”

The exchange between Harrington and Allen was as follows:

Harrington:

I am curious as to the reasoning why Massachusetts Medical Society, it’s supporting the removal of Section 12 P with regard to the fact that if a baby, despite the abortion, is born alive, you presently give medical treatment to that baby – all resources available – and that is being taken out in the ROE Act, and that is something the Mass Medical is very comfortable with?

Allen:

I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with that particular, um, section.

Harrington:

Okay, so Section 12 P is the section in our existing law and under that existing law it says that they are to, in keeping with good medical practice consistent with the procedure being used to preserve the life and health of the aborted child, such steps shall include the presence of life supporting equipment as defined by the Department of Public Health, in the room where the abortion is performed. You don’t agree with that?

Allen:

We agree, we would like to see the terminology brought into modern lexicon and it’s – I don’t believe modern terminology would talk about an aborted child – it’s a fetus.

Harrington:

No, Ma’am, it’s actually being taken out of our existing law. That is our existing law and I’m just asking you if Mass Medical Society believes that’s a good idea?

At this point in the exchange, Ireland intervened.

Ireland:

So, this part that is taken out is not preventing life-saving treatment from being done to a newborn. What this does is it allows the next steps in medical care to be made between a physician and the patient that they’re taking care of –

Harrington:

Where does it say that –

Ireland:

So, if they determine that life-saving medical treatment is needed, they have full capacity to do that. But, if it is a newborn that has a lethal fetal anomaly, they also have the option of providing comfort care, or palliative care –

Harrington:

Where does it say that?

Ireland:

It doesn’t say – it’s taking out the section so that physicians have the ability to use their medical expertise and ethical obligations to provide the appropriate treatment.

Harrington:

But, it doesn’t say that in the ROE Act.

Ireland finally agreed, “No,” the bill does not say what she described. The OB/GYN, however, next stated that the current requirement to provide immediate emergency care to an infant who survives abortion is “language that ties the hands of physicians.”

Ireland:

No. The goal is to take out language that ties the hands of physicians and makes medical decisions for the physician.

Harrington:

So, you’re saying that, if the baby is born alive, you don’t want to be forced into doing what you could to keep it alive.

Ireland:

First of all, I’ve never been in that situation – I don’t think that actually happens in medical –

Harrington:

I think it happens. I think it happens.

Ireland’s testimony echoes the words of Virginia Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam, who created a firestorm in January when he discussed a bill introduced in his state legislature that would expand abortion even to the moment of birth.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” said Northam, a pediatric neurologist. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Andrew Beckwith, a Massachusetts attorney and president of MFI, told Breitbart News when his organization was present at the testimony of the doctors, he expected to see some “back and forth on what really is the infanticide provision of this bill that removes an existing requirement that’s been on the books in Massachusetts since 1974.”

“So, when this doctor, who is the vice president of the Massachusetts Medical Society testifies that her organization supports this bill and is questioned on this provision, she’s unaware that it’s even in the bill,” he said incredulously.

Beckwith said the ROE Act allows abortion “from conception to crowning.” He added the legislation would allow abortions in the latter part of pregnancy to be performed at abortion clinics such as Planned Parenthood, rather than solely in hospitals.

When he testified before the Judiciary Committee on Monday, Beckwith directed his attention at one point to the proposed elimination of the requirement of parental consent for a minor’s abortion.

“This is the day after Father’s Day and the supporters of the ROE Act are unapologetically saying, in the context of abortions for underage girls, fathers and mothers are nothing more than ‘obstacles’ to be removed,” Beckwith observed.

Liberty Counsel Action summarized in a press release the ROE Act would create the following legal conditions:

• Eliminate parental consent

• Remove a reflection period prior to an abortion

• Eliminate life-saving equipment in the room, in case the infant is born alive

• Remove the requirements that abortions after 24 weeks be performed in a hospital

• Allow telemedicine, abortion-inducing drug regimens, and more.

• Use tax dollars to pay for abortions for poor and also uninsured women who have an income up to 200% of the federal poverty level

• Remove any mention of unborn children and their humanity

• Subject abortion reporting to the whims of the State Department of Public Health

Jonathan Alexandre, Liberty Counsel Action’s senior counsel for governmental affairs, testified that the legislation is vague on the reason of the “mental health” of the mother to be used to allow abortion on a viable infant.

He said:

What is actually happening here is that the commonwealth is sanctioning, escalating, and championing the murder of its pre-born in the womb. Because of laws like this, in 2017, out of more than 10,000 black babies conceived in this commonwealth, 3,314 ended in abortion. As a Black-American and product of this state I see that the real victims of this expansion of abortion will be the nearly 1 in 3 black babies who will not enjoy life, but will face death because of laws like this.

If the ROE Act is voted out of the Judiciary Committee, it will head to the State House and Senate and, if approved, to the governor’s desk.

Dr. Kathi Aultman, an OB/GYN and former abortionist, said the types of abortions the ROE Act would allow can be called, unequivocally, “infanticide.”

When asked by Democrat State Rep. Michael Day about a situation when a baby survives an abortion, Aultman said, “For most abortionists, having a live baby is the worst result you can get, which is why some have been left in utility closets to die.”

Masslive.com reported that Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, says he is “concerned” the ROE Act will expand abortion in the Bay State.

Baker is reportedly particularly concerned about provisions in the legislation that would remove the requirement that a minor obtain parental consent or a judge’s approval before undergoing an abortion, and one that would allow abortion after 24 weeks in the case of a lethal birth defect — an expansion of current Massachusetts law that only allows abortion after 24 weeks to protect the health or life of the mother.

“I do have concerns about eliminating the parental notification requirement that currently exists in state law,” Baker said, according to Masslive.com. “And I do have some concerns about, the language here matters a lot which is why this conversation is important, with respect to changing the terms and conditions associated with late-term abortions in Massachusetts.”

Though Baker has always supported abortion rights, recently he said he opposes abortions later in pregnancy.

“I’m a big believer in the positions and the stances that Massachusetts has taken almost always on a bipartisan basis to support women’s access to reproductive rights,” the governor said.

Nevertheless, the debate over the ROE Act is very heated and Republican Party Chairman Jim Lyons said the bill is an “extreme Infanticide Act, legislation introduced by radicals who favor abortion up to – and even beyond – the moment of birth.”