A recent op-ed by Kristina Stierholz in STL Today has ignited controversy.
Stierholz’s narrative proves once again that the Left is spreading misinformation in hopes of bringing supporters to their side.
And some radical leftists are dangerously distorting this term to try and justify abortion through all nine months.
In Stierholz’s op-ed she claims to have had an “abortion” 34 years ago during emergency surgery for an ectopic pregnancy.
Treatment for ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion, and it is in no way prohibited by pro-life laws.
Stierholz’s recollection of her ordeal in 1989 reveals a heartbreaking situation.
Facing financial uncertainties and contemplating the future of her pregnancy, she experienced complications.
Bleeding from her fallopian tubes into her abdomen led to emergency surgery for an ectopic pregnancy.
Stierholz’s father, a staunch pro-life advocate, sought assurance about her safety from her doctor.
The surgical intervention, aimed at saving Stierholz’s life, repaired her fallopian tube.
This tragic event led her to believe, 32 years later, that she had undergone an abortion.
However, the medical and legal reality remains unchanged: surgery for ectopic pregnancy is not an induced abortion.
The confusion deepens as Stierholz contemplates the scenario in Texas today.
She questions whether she would be allowed to end such a dangerous pregnancy under the state’s current laws.
However, pro-life state laws, even in Texas, do not prohibit treatment for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages, as these are not considered induced abortions.
The crux of the matter lies in distinguishing between the medical and legal definitions of abortion.
Medically, abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy, encompassing both spontaneous (miscarriage) and induced methods.
Legally, it specifically pertains to procedures or drugs intended to cause the death of the unborn child before or during delivery.
The legal definition, as seen in pro-life laws, emphasizes intent.
An act is not considered an abortion if its intent is to save the life of the mother, remove a deceased unborn child due to spontaneous abortion, or address an ectopic pregnancy.
Stierholz’s surgery falls within these exemptions, as its intent was to preserve her life, not deliberately end the preborn child’s life.
The manipulation of language and narratives by pro-abortion groups, exemplified by Planned Parenthood’s recent scrubbing of information about ectopic pregnancy from its website, adds to the confusion.
The attempt to blur the lines between essential medical procedures and induced abortion aims to perpetuate the narrative that abortion is an indispensable aspect of healthcare.
In reality, treating ectopic pregnancies or addressing miscarriages does not equate to abortion.
The distortion propagated by media stories, coupled with the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, serves a particular agenda — to instill fear and portray abortion as the only safeguard for women’s lives.
Pro-life Americans must be armed with the truth.
Stierholz’s experience, while undoubtedly painful, does not align with the narrative that abortion is the only solution to life-threatening situations.
The sanctity of life and the well-being of women can be upheld without resorting to the deliberate termination of unborn children.
The pro-abortion lobby’s attempts to intertwine essential medical procedures with induced abortion should be recognized as a tactic to maintain the profitability of abortion facilities.
As pro-lifers navigate this turbulent landscape, clarity on the distinctions between medical and legal definitions becomes paramount in preserving the core values of life, family, and morality.
Pro-Life Press will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.