You asked what would stop a doctor from "jabbing the scissors" back in after birth. This is a far miss from the topic at hand. That's my point. As for sinking, I'm just letting you know that you won't convince many people that not providing care to an infant which is debatably viable is tantamount to "jabbing the scissors."
As for a "conflict of interest" I've heard plenty of claims by people here on A2k that abortion is an "industry." If abortion clinics were required to provide care to a infant (second doctor or not), one would have to assume that there would be a cost involved either to the woman or the state. It seems like that could equally be a "conflict of interest" if the claims of industry are even sincere.
Before you claim it would be on the clinic's dime, stop yourself. You and I both know that clinics would protect their own interests by having patients sign a waiver in case of a failed abortion contingency in a legal environment such as this.