In the wake of news that Roe v. Wade might soon be consigned to the ash heap where it belongs, abortion supporters have begun arguing that, in a post-Roe America, women with ectopic pregnancies will no longer be able to get necessary treatment.
In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg implants somewhere outside of the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tube. In the absence of emergency treatment, ectopic pregnancy will cause severe and life-threatening health consequences for the mother, because there isn’t room for the child to develop.
No pro-life person I’m aware of — and, more to the point, no pro-life law that I’m aware of — would prohibit treatment for ectopic pregnancies. Indeed, pro-lifers don’t consider such treatment to be abortion at all. A direct abortion intentionally kills an unborn human being; treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, by contrast, intends to alleviate the health emergency for the mother by removing the improperly implanted child. The intended end of such treatment isn’t to kill the child but rather to save the mother’s life — this moral distinction is essential. This view is reflected by the fact that, before Roe, every pro-life state law had, at least, an exception for cases when a mother’s life was at risk.
Ignoring this, abortion supporters now contend that overturning Roe will result in women dying from untreated ectopic pregnancies, claiming that pro-life laws will make it impossible for them to receive treatment. This simply isn’t the case. Though some who advance this argument might merely be mistaken, the most cynical abortion supporters make this argument in contradiction to available facts because they want to put pro-lifers on defense rather than defend their own policy preference: unlimited abortion, for any reason, until the moment of birth.
What’s more, abortion supporters seem to care little about the health consequences of ectopic pregnancy in the case of chemical abortion. If a woman with an ectopic pregnancy takes chemical-abortion drugs, she is likely to face significant and possibly life-threatening consequences. Abortion supporters now advocate allowing women to obtain chemical-abortion drugs via telemedicine, without seeing a doctor in person beforehand, increasing the likelihood that a woman might take these drugs without knowing she has an ectopic pregnancy. Thus far, Planned Parenthood and other advocacy groups have shown little concern about this possibility.