Debunking The Myth That Abortion Is ‘Medically Necessary’

By Matt Sande
Pro-Life Wisconsin Legislative Director

Posted: 11/01/2024 (This article first appeared in The Banner in the Summer 2024, Volume 32, Issue 3 edition)

Abortion is not healthcare. It cannot be stated enough. There are simply no situations where abortion, statutorily defined as the intentional killing of an unborn child, is medically necessary to save the life or improve the health of the mother. Bernard Nathanson, M.D., who himself performed over 60,000 abortions, said:

In our first book [after he stopped doing abortions], we proposed a lengthy list of illnesses (including but not limited to heart or kidney disease) which would justify abortion. We regard that list now with…disbelief: if women with heart and liver transplants can be carried successfully through pregnancy, we can no longer conceive of any medical condition which would legitimize abortion. In short, we have slowly evolved to an unshakable posture of no exceptions…[W]orkable, morally acceptable legislation proscribing abortion can have no exceptions written into it – not even medical ones. (Bernadell Technical Bulletin, April 1991)

Equal care for mother and unborn baby in a health emergency is the antithesis of intentionally killing a preborn, living human being. Medical emergency early inductions and cesarean sections seek to separate baby from mom in a concerted effort to save both lives. They are not legal abortions. In short, medical procedures intended to save the life of a pregnant mother, and not intended to kill her preborn baby, are not abortions. For example, removal of a miscarriage or stillborn fetus is not an abortion. Sadly—and obviously—in these situations, the preborn baby is already dead. Removal of an ectopic pregnancy, where a fertilized ovum (egg) lodges in the fallopian tube and grows there, is not an abortion. The damaged portion of the tube containing the embryonic baby may be removed where it is clearly necessary to prevent rupture and save the mother’s life. Such a procedure is justified by the principle of double effect, because the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently justified to save the mother’s life. It does not involve the intentional killing of an unborn child. Someday, medical science may be capable of transferring the embedded embryo directly into the uterine wall, but this method is not standardized at present.

Legally, the above-described medical operations are not considered abortions. None have ever been prosecuted by any district attorney in this country, even when the mother’s life was not immediately threatened. There is, therefore, no need to provide a specific exception for such operations in a statute or constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. Legislators should never attempt to codify in law the importance of one innocent human life over and above another. Physicians must make their best effort to save both patients, giving equal care to mother and child. They should never be given a license to intentionally kill either one of them.

Moreover, an explicit statutory exception (making a legal exception) for the life of the mother is dangerous. Many abortionists believe that the very condition of pregnancy itself is a life-threatening condition. Consequently, a life-of-the-mother exception if enacted into law would become a massive statutory loophole through which to drive abortion on demand. Broad, undefined, and ambiguous “life-of-the-mother” exceptions must therefore be shunned.

If one wishes to address the mother’s life in pro-life legislation, there is a moral and effective way to do so. The excerpted language from 2023 Wisconsin Senate Bill (SB) 300 provides a good example of requiring equal protection for mother and child and granting the physician immunity if he or she follows the requirement. The language reads:

This section does not apply to a physician who performs a medical intervention designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman if the physician makes all reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the woman and the life of the unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice. Medical treatment provided to a pregnant woman by a physician that results in accidental or unintentional injury or death to the pregnant woman’s unborn child is not a violation of this section. [Section 1(4)(a), 2023 Wisconsin SB 300]

 Pro-Life Wisconsin will continue to speak the medical and moral truth about abortion, exposing the shameless deception and fearmongering by our opponents. Fortunately, we have medical experts in the field of obstetrics who understand the difference between intentional killing and equal care. Concerning abortion and the mother’s life, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) states the following:

Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive. (https://aaplog.org/what-is-aaplogs-position-on-abortion-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother/)

To read more about how abortion is never necessary, visit ProLifeWI.org/can-there-be-exceptions.