Michelle Goldberg’s column in yesterday’s New York Times had this headline: “It Was Only a Matter of Time Before Abortion Bans Killed Someone.”
Did Goldberg or any Times editors sense the irony of the “someone”? From both a biblical and a scientific perspective, abortion in America has killed more than 60 million someones. Yes, defenders of abortion don’t think those lives are worth defending, or believe they’re not someone until they’re alive for x number of weeks, but a journalist outside one echo chamber would come up with a different headline.
And more stories will emerge of women dying, one by one, until pro-life politicians emerge from their own echo chamber. Some defenders of life, out or principle or fundraising desires, stand in a mirrored echo chamber and ask, “Who’s the most absolutist of them all?”
Life is full of tragic choices, as any husband faced with the death of his pregnant wife or the death of their child knows—but why serve up on a cadaver table both personal tragedy and pro-abortion propaganda? Life-of-the-mother exceptions drawn too tightly harm women and the pro-life cause.
There’s a reason, of course, why some laws don’t allow “health of the mother” exceptions. Some doctors who favor abortion would turn such clauses into open season on the unborn. Some would extend that to “psychological health,” which would throw the crematorium doors wide open. But legislators can minimize laws that lead to death for a big person, or lots of small ones, by learning from pro-life doctors such as those in the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
AAPLOG has a clear mission: “Encourage and equip medical practitioners to provide an evidence-based rationale for defending the lives of both the pregnant mother and her unborn child.” Its website also has a clear “glossary of medical terms for life-affirming medical professionals [who] share the objective of promoting optimal healthcare for both pregnant women and preborn children.”
AAPLOG states, “To achieve this goal, it is essential that we use precise, medically accurate language to describe the pregnancy-related practices which intentionally harm our patients…. We need to use this factual language consistently with our patients, with colleagues and in the public square. Failure to do so may result in confusion about the legality of lifesaving medical care and ultimately hurt the very people we endeavor to protect.”
For example, states that do not allow abortions should allow “medically-indicated maternal-fetal separation done to prevent the mother’s death or immediate, irreversible bodily harm, which cannot be mitigated in any other way. Examples include treatment of ectopic pregnancy, previable delivery for early pre-eclampsia with severe features, or previable delivery for other life-threatening conditions in pregnancy.”
Other conditions that allow maternal-fetal separation include intrauterine infection, severe hemorrhage, severe hypertensive disorders, and situations of “significant risk for a permanent injury to a maternal organ system.” Legislators looking for additional information should go to https://aaplog.org and consult those who are expert in medicine rather than politics.