Pro-abortion movement has resorted to making this absurd claim to garner support

Photo by Carlo Navarro from Unsplash

In the wake of the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the pro-abortion advocates have become more radical than ever.

They will stop at nothing – including spreading misinformation – to get abortion through all nine months passed in every state in the nation.

And now, the pro-abortion movement has resorted to making this absurd claim to garner support.

In a shocking twist, a recent opinion piece published in Stat makes the alarming assertion that new pro-life laws are jeopardizing fetal surgeries and putting preborn babies at risk. 

The piece, penned by Francois I. Luks, Tippi Mackenzie, and Thomas F. Tracy Jr., attempts to paint pro-life legislation as a threat to both the autonomy of pregnant women and the advancement of fetal surgeries.

The authors acknowledge the hope that fetal surgery brings, emphasizing its potential to address health issues before a child is even born. 

This acknowledgment, however, inadvertently underscores a critical truth – the fetus is undeniably a person, a fact that pro-life laws seek to protect.

Take the example of fetal surgery for spina bifida, a condition where doctors can now intervene in the womb, offering a lifeline to unborn children. 

Astonishingly, despite this medical breakthrough, some mothers of children with spina bifida still opt for abortion.

While fetal surgeries and pro-life laws both aim to safeguard the lives of those in the womb, the authors argue that a key difference lies in autonomy. 

They contend that maternal autonomy is essential for fetal surgery to occur, creating a misleading narrative that pro-life laws endanger this autonomy.

In truth, both fetal surgeries and pro-life laws necessitate parental consent, recognizing the dual status of mother and child as patients. 

The authors concede that fetal surgery is reserved for serious circumstances where the alternative, such as abortion, poses greater risks than the surgery itself. 

This dual-patient perspective underscores the need to weigh the well-being of both mother and child during such procedures.

The authors attempt to draw a false distinction, claiming that legislating prenatal medical care and criminalizing termination could lead to unintended consequences. 

They argue that restrictive laws, emerging in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, pose a threat to the health of unborn children, creating ambiguity for doctors and potentially causing delays in treatment.

This argument is fundamentally flawed. 

Pro-life laws, like any other laws protecting human life, do not introduce ambiguity; rather, they clarify the boundaries between intentional killing and accidental or natural death. 

The deliberate and direct killing of a preborn child in an abortion is a vastly different scenario from accidental deaths due to complications or fetal surgeries.

The authors raise concerns about potential coercion of doctors into untested and risky procedures, using the example of transferring a baby in an ectopic pregnancy from the fallopian tube to the uterus. 

While this idea has been discussed, it is not standard practice. 

Pro-life laws, grounded in ethical medical standards, allow for the removal of the fallopian tube to save the mother’s life, understanding that the child may not survive as a secondary result. 

Responsible doctors are well aware of this distinction.

Moreover, the authors suggest that pro-life laws may stifle doctors’ ability to provide honest medical information, especially in challenging situations. 

They question whether informing parents about the slim chance of survival for a fetus with Trisomy 13 could be misconstrued as recommending termination. 

This argument is misleading, as sharing medical statistics is not equivalent to endorsing abortion. Just as informing parents about a child’s incurable cancer is not a suggestion for euthanasia.

The authors’ claim that pro-life laws create uncertainty and fear among the medical community, potentially causing doctors to abandon fetal research, is deceptive. 

Pro-life laws are designed to protect the most vulnerable members of society, both inside and outside the womb. 

Any law that permits the intentional and direct killing of innocent human beings, regardless of their stage of development, cannot be considered just.

In conclusion, society has a duty to protect all its members, including those in the womb. 

Pro-life laws, far from posing a threat, are a vital step in fulfilling this responsibility. 

The deceptive claims in the Stat op-ed only serve to sow confusion and undermine the urgent need to safeguard the lives of the unborn. 

The war on life continues, and it is essential for pro-life Americans to stand firm in defense of the sanctity of every human life.

Pro-Life Press will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.