Live Action’s undercover “Inhuman” series continues to deliver stunning video that adds to the perception that the murderous allegations against Dr. Kermit Gosnell may be unfolding in other abortion practices across America. The third clip was captured at Family Planning Associates Medical Group, a Phoenix, Arizona-based clinic. In it, pro-life advocates charge that a clinic counselor named Linda can be observed claiming that medical professionals would not resuscitate a baby born alive during an abortion.

When an undercover investigator went into the clinic with a hidden camera, she was given information about the  procedure by at least two staff members — both are featured in the video. Linda, the counselor, noted that a digoxin injection into the belly is the best way to stop the baby’s heartbeat and to prevent suffering during the procedure, although she told the pregnant investigator that having the abortion without the drug is also an option. If the expectant mother chose the latter option, Linda said that the “there could be movement” on the part of the baby.

They Will Not Resuscitate: Another Stunning Undercover Abortion Video Is Released

Photo Credit: YouTube

The undercover mother continued her questioning about babies born alive and there’s no doubt that the counselor’s responses will likely be disturbing to pro-lifers. Of particular note, the medical professional admits that some children do come out alive during the procedure.

“Sometimes they are [alive], yeah. But it doesn’t — it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will come out whole,” Linda explained. “Cause they use suction, plus they use instruments so sometimes the fetuses don’t come out — you know, it’s not complete…”

From there, the investigator asked, “But if it does come out whole…I mean, are — will they resuscitate it? Like, will I have to take care of it?” It was at this point that Linda responded, “Uh-uh… No…They will not resuscitate.”

While some outlets have taken this to mean that the baby would not be cared for if born alive, the term “resuscitate” is multifaceted and somewhat problematic. In a sense, it seems to indicate that the baby would not be brought back from apparent death. If taken from the mother dead, though, then it would appear the clinic is not in violation if it refuses to “resuscitate.” But if born alive with complications and a need for assistance, the requirements would obviously be different.

Perhaps the more problematic dialogue is captured is depicted below, as it seems to indicate that life sometimes persists after birth — and the natural question is: What does the clinic do to try and save the baby’s life at that point? (we don’t get an indication either way based on the dialogue):

Counselor: Well, if they don’t use the digoxin, they’ll just, uh, suction the baby and it’s possible that there may be movement as they’re taking out the fetus.

Investigator: Like, movement after?

Counselor: Mhmm.

Investigator: And then what happens?

Counselor: Well, then usually it stops on its own.

During the woman’s interview with another individual at the clinic, Dr. Laura Mercer, it was made clear that the preferred option and intention is to “induce a demise — an intrauterine demise.” This would mean that the child would be killed before undergoing the removal portion of the procedure.

“We do the injection, which is a quick poke through your belly, um, and that stops the fetal heart, so that makes it so, if you were to deliver, there shouldn’t be movement,” the doctor explained. “There shouldn’t be any of those things.”

Mercer also warned the woman not to go to an emergency room if she goes into labor during the multi-day abortion procedure. Rather than going to a hospital — where they will treat the baby as though it is wanted alive by the mother — she said that the clinic should first be called.

“They would intervene and do all kinds of crazy things that you don’t need to have done to you,” the doctor said of how a hospital would treat the pregnancy.

Watch the shocking video below (warning: graphic content and themes):

Live Action founder Lila Rose believes that the clinic is in violation of federal law, purportedly the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002,” which defines a “‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’” to “include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” It mandates the protection of those babies who are born alive. Again, though, the issues mentioned above do leave some questions unanswered.

“The testimony we’ve documented in this abortion facility strongly suggests that staff there are committing infanticide,” said Rose of the most recent clip. “The Family Planning Associates Medical Group needs to be investigated immediately, and delicensed. Women are at risk during these brutal procedures, and this is a matter of life and death for these children.”

This investigative video comes after a Washington, D.C.-based abortion doctor said that he, too, would not help a baby born alive and similarly-troubling comments were made at a Bronx, New York, doctor’s office as well. These revelations come as the jury continues to deliberate in the Gosnell abortion case (full coverage of that can be found here).

In the past, TheBlaze has explored the journalistic standards and ethics surrounding undercover videos. The central question is: Is it ever permissible to lie to get the truth? While some would quickly answer affirmatively, it’s a challenging dynamic — and one that deserves scrutiny.

Experts have a variety of opinions, but the general consensus is that, unless deceit is the only option to retrieving information of monumental importance to the public, lying to obtain it is not ethical journalistic practice. There are, of course, differing ideas on how this dynamic unfolds. In 2011, Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard told TheBlaze that these rules do not apply to those outside of media.

“It’s dishonest for anyone in journalism to pretend to be someone they’re not.  This rule doesn’t apply to folks outside the profession,” he said at the time.

But not everyone agrees with this assessment. Poynter has developed a list of standards for when it is — and is not — appropriate to use undercover tactics. And read more about TheBlaze’s exploration of undercover journalistic standards here.

Other Must-Read Stories: