A new report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute confirms what I reported here at NR earlier this week: Every pro-life state law in the country contains explicit protections ensuring that pregnant women can receive necessary medical care in cases of a health emergency.
The report is rigorously researched and cited, and it includes the relevant text of each law in question, including the sections defining abortion and outlining exceptions for medical emergencies. In addition to this much-needed information about state laws, the report’s summary contains these key explanations, including an explanation of why direct abortion — or a procedure that intentionally kills the unborn child — is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother:
Each of these states permits abortion in those rare and heartbreaking circumstances when it is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. Physicians can make this determination based on their “reasonable medical judgment,” a standard very common in the medical profession and used for any case involving medical malpractice litigation. Physicians are trained to use their best judgment to care for patients; however, it would be prudent for state medical boards, state medical societies, state boards of pharmacy, hospital quality committees, and hospital attorneys to provide more detailed guidance to doctors on how to reach a determination that abortion is necessary. Tragically, this type of guidance appears slow in coming. Meanwhile, abortion advocates are spreading the dangerous lie that life-saving care is not or may not be permitted in these states, leading to provider confusion and poor outcomes for women.
To assist healthcare providers and dispel the myths being spread by those more concerned with promoting abortion than women’s health, this document discusses miscarriage management, treatment for ectopic pregnancy, and medical conditions that could qualify as life-threatening, permitting abortion under pro-life laws. . . .
While some laws contain definitions and exceptions that more explicitly speak to certain situations, each law reviewed does not prevent mothers from receiving the medical care necessary. A plain reading of any of these statutes easily refutes the false and dangerous misinformation being spread by pro-abortion activists. Further, none of the laws reviewed prohibit a medical professional from acting as necessary when facing a life-threatening medical emergency; therefore, under these laws medical professionals can exercise reasonable medical judgement and as outlined by the ACOG guidance, are not required to delay necessary care and treatment to a mother.
Because the terminology can be confusing, it is important to be aware that a “spontaneous abortion” describes a “miscarriage,” a pregnancy where the fetus dies naturally. An “induced abortion” is sometimes shortened to the layman’s term “abortion,” indicating that the pregnancy was intentionally ended in order to cause the death of the fetus. Additionally, “termination of pregnancy” and “medically indicated separation” indicate that the mother will be separated from her fetus but does not indicate the method used. This can be done by labor induction or c-section, potentially resulting in a live baby if he has reached an appropriate gestational age. “Induced abortion” indicates that a dead baby will be the outcome of the intervention (such as after a dilation and evacuation “dismemberment” abortion). While the law allows induced abortion if needed in order to protect the mother’s life, compassionate care and respect for fetal life would dictate that the fetus should be delivered intact and alive if possible.
The report is a great service to those following the debate over abortion policy, and it performs the essential task of dispelling falsehoods spread by those who defend unlimited abortion, hiding behind the dangerous lie that women will die as the result of pro-life laws.