The radical Left continues to paint the pro-life movement in a bad light and distract from the true horrors of the pro-abortion side.
Pro-abortion advocates will do anything to make the case that pro-lifers are monsters who don’t care about the vulnerable.
And now, Democrats are trying to prove that pro-life laws put cancer patients at risk, but they’re dead wrong.
The case that cancer patients are at risk because of pro-life laws is an emotionally manipulative argument and is based, in no way, in fact.
In a recent article published by STAT, a deceptive narrative attempts to intertwine pro-life laws with false claims that cancer patients are being put at risk.
The emotional hook begins with a heart-wrenching story of a woman facing a cancer diagnosis at 30 weeks pregnant.
However, a closer look reveals that the pro-abortion argument is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
The article highlights the woman’s need for immediate surgery, leading to an emergency C-section, not an abortion, to proceed with cancer treatment.
The distinction is crucial.
An emergency C-section, unlike induced abortion, is not a choice between the mother and child; it is a decision to end the pregnancy, ensuring both receive necessary care without conflict.
The pro-abortion argument suggests a conflict that does not exist.
Pro-life laws explicitly include exceptions for abortion to protect the life of the mother, dispelling the fallacy that these laws endanger pregnant cancer patients.
The Charlotte Lozier Institute emphasizes that if a multidisciplinary team deems ending the pregnancy beneficial for a woman undergoing cancer treatment, it falls under exemptions for the ‘life of the mother.’
Contrary to the deceptive narrative, induced abortion is not medically necessary.
A nuanced approach is required based on the type of cancer, its spread, and potential risks to the mother and baby.
The American Cancer Society stresses that delaying treatment to protect the baby does not necessarily worsen cancer outcomes, debunking the notion that pro-life laws jeopardize cancer patients.
The ACS affirms the safety of cancer treatments during pregnancy, stating that surgery is generally safe, chemotherapy has limited fetal side effects in later trimesters, and various tests, including mammograms and biopsies, are considered safe.
Importantly, most cancers can be treated during pregnancy, with studies showing that ending a pregnancy for treatment rarely improves outcomes for the mother.
Addressing the concern of immediate danger during the first trimester, if a pregnant woman’s life is at risk, she can choose treatment, understanding the potential risks to her baby.
This does not constitute abortion but a difficult decision in the face of life-threatening circumstances.
Abortion advocates may argue against potential health issues resulting from cancer treatment, but ending a child’s life is not a compassionate solution and causes a myriad of issues that the pro-abortion camp doesn’t wish to address.
Treating the mother while striving to protect the baby offers hope to both, acknowledging the tragic side effects as unintended consequences rather than intentional acts.
The pro-abortion narrative attempting to rally public support behind the intentional killing of preborn human beings is exposed as a manipulation.
Society should focus on advancing cancer detection and treatments, ensuring the well-being of both mother and child, rather than diverting efforts towards promoting abortion as a misguided solution.
The true compassion lies in fostering life and embracing alternatives that protect and preserve both mother and child.
Pro-Life Press will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.