What these four brave pro-life doctors are doing to protect the preborn will bring a tear to your eye

Photo by Piron Guillaume from Unsplash

In the state of Wyoming, pro-lifers are in the midst of a fierce battle for life. 

Any victory is something to celebrate in this cut-throat fight. 

And what these four brave pro-life doctors are doing to protect the preborn will bring a tear to your eye.

In a groundbreaking move, a Teton County judge has granted four pro-life doctors the opportunity to argue in court against the assertion that abortion is healthcare. 

This development comes in the midst of a legal battle seeking to overturn Wyoming’s two abortion bans, with the doctors aiming to challenge the narrative pushed by pro-choice advocates.

Judge Melissa Owens’ recent order allows Wyoming doctors Timothy Hallinan, David M. Lind, Michale Nelson, and Samantha Michelena to file an amicus brief in the ongoing lawsuit. 

This brief contends that abortion cannot be classified as healthcare and challenges the plaintiffs’ claims that treating abortion as healthcare is a protected right under the Wyoming Constitution.

The pro-life doctors argue that obstetricians are inherently concerned with two patients during pregnancy – the mother and the unborn child. 

Their amicus brief, filed on October 16, emphasizes the illogical nature of considering abortion as healthcare.

“In almost every case, an obstetrician is caring for two patients simultaneously: a mother and her unborn child,” the brief states, highlighting the unique dual responsibility of healthcare providers in pregnancy.

The proposed brief challenges the idea that an unborn baby doesn’t qualify as a patient, stating, “An unborn baby qualifies as an obstetrician’s ‘patient’ because the obstetrician is providing medical diagnosis or treatment to the unborn baby.” 

It goes on to list various medical tests and interventions throughout pregnancy that benefit the unborn child.

At the core of the pro-choice group’s lawsuit is the argument that abortion is healthcare and, therefore, a protected right. 

This aligns with the health care autonomy amendment to the Wyoming Constitution. 

If successful, this argument could undermine Wyoming’s abortion bans.

The doctors’ amicus brief also seeks to defend Wyoming’s Life Is A Human Right Act, which allows abortions only in cases of rape, incest, and certain medical emergencies. 

While acknowledging the law’s imperfections, the brief argues that it provides a straightforward framework for doctors, allowing for “reasonable medical judgment” and including provisions for abortions to prevent a substantial risk of death.

This defense counters the plaintiffs’ claim that the abortion ban is too vague and not articulated in medical terms. 

The pro-choice group contends that the law, as it stands, could apply to all pregnancies and allow abortion at any time up until birth.

In response to the doctors’ amicus brief, the pro-choice plaintiffs argue that it acknowledges the need for abortions whenever they are “medically advisable.” 

They claim that the law unambiguously prohibits such abortions unless they meet narrow and ambiguous exceptions, thus requiring physicians to violate the medical standard of care.

A key point of contention in the lawsuit is the perceived distinction between one-patient and two-patient paradigms in obstetrics/gynecology. 

The plaintiffs dismiss this as a “nonexistent dichotomy” and accuse the pro-life doctors of advocating for a radical change in the field, challenging the status quo established under Roe vs. Wade for the past 50 years.

As the legal battle intensifies, pro-life Americans closely watch how these arguments unfold, recognizing the pivotal moment that could shape the future of abortion laws in Wyoming and applauding the doctors who are standing up for life.

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