Amanda Zurawski, the woman at the center of a heated debate over the false idea of ‘medically necessary’ abortions, did not need or have an induced abortion. Though most Americans have likely heard Zurawski’s story at this point, they most likely haven’t heard the truth.
Zurawski’s widely known story is tragic — but not for the reasons that she and abortion advocates claim. It’s tragic because, due to cervical insufficiency (sometimes referred to as “incompetent cervix”) and preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), she lost her daughter… and now she and the Biden campaign are using her daughter’s unpreventable death to promote the elective, active, and intentional killing of other babies.
In response to the publication of President Biden’s new political ad featuring Zurawski, OB/GYNs from the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNs (AAPLOG) said, “Using our patients’ stories for political ends is disgusting. Elective induced abortion is never medically necessary, and pro-life laws do not prevent medical care. Knock it off.”
Using our patients’ stories for political ends is disgusting. Elective induced abortion is never medically necessary, and pro-life laws do not prevent medical care. Knock it off. https://t.co/XZfezxAy79
— AAPLOG (@aaplog) April 8, 2024
The ad shows Zurawski and her husband talking about their daughter, whom they named Willow, as words play over the screen: “In 2022, Josh and Amanda were expecting their first baby, Willow. At 18 weeks, Amanda’s water broke and she had a miscarriage. Because Donald Trump killed Roe v. Wade, Amanda was denied standard medical care to prevent infection, an abortion. Doctors were forced to send her home. Three days later, Amanda was in the ICU with sepsis. She almost died twice. The infection caused so much damage, Amanda may never get pregnant again. Trump did this.”
First of all, the ad is ludicrous in its claim that “Trump” is somehow responsible for a woman’s incompetent cervix resulting in an emergency situation, especially given the fact that induced abortion is legal in Texas in cases of a pregnant woman’s life-threatening medical emergency.
In other words, doctors could have legally, intentionally killed Willow by dismemberment or any other abortion method without legal penalty if Zurawki’s life was deemed to be in danger.
However, there are even more falsehoods in the ad…
LIE #1: Doctors were forced to send Zurawski home
Zurawski and the ad are blaming the overturning of Roe v. Wade for her doctors’ medically negligent failure to provide her with standard care. But doctors were not “forced to send her home.” They chose to. The standard of care for either cervical insufficiency and/or PPROM is not induced abortion.
Standard of care includes a cerclage to close the cervix when applicable and prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection, among other efforts to stop labor. If necessary, preterm delivery is carried out (not the intentional killing of abortion) when labor cannot be prevented or when doctors see signs of infection. Until that point, the woman should remain under the watchful eyes of a medical team — not be told there’s ‘nothing we can do’ as Zurawski was.
Zurawski said, “It took three days at home until I became sick ‘enough’ that the ethics board at our hospital agreed we could begin medical treatment; three days until my life was considered at risk ‘enough’ for the inevitable premature delivery of my daughter to be performed; three days until the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals were allowed to do their jobs.” (emphasis added)
Zurawski’s doctors were not prevented from acting to provide her with standard care. Her doctors and the “ethics board” were allowed to “do their jobs,” but they didn’t. Zurawski should be suing them for neglect.
LIE #2: Preterm delivery is an abortion
Zurawski and the ad claim she needed an abortion, but she didn’t need one, nor did she have one.
She said it herself — she underwent a preterm delivery. Preterm delivery, even when induced to save the mother, is not an abortion if the intent of the delivery is not to cause the child’s death. In Zurawski’s case, the intent of delivery was to save her life, not to cause harm or death to Willow.
As AAPLOG has noted, “There is a night and day difference between induced abortion and separating a mother and her unborn child for the purposes of saving a mother’s life (preterm parturition). There are times when separating the mother and her unborn child is necessary to save the life of the mother, even if the unborn child is too premature to live. In those tragic cases, if possible the life of the baby will be attempted to be preserved, and if not possible, the body of the unborn child is treated with respect, recognizing the humanity of the life which is lost in the separation. In contrast, the purpose of an induced abortion is to produce a dead baby.” (emphasis added)
Both Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic list treatment options for cervical insufficiency and PPROM on their websites. Neither mentions abortion or termination of pregnancy as a treatment for these conditions, and Cleveland Clinic states that a cerclage is effective in 90% of cases of cervical insufficiency.
LIE #3: Women who miscarry need abortion
The ad claims that Zurawski had a miscarriage and therefore needed an abortion. This makes no sense.
A miscarriage occurs when a preborn child dies naturally in the womb. Sometimes a woman’s body doesn’t deliver the baby’s body quickly enough and doctors will offer to carry out a D&C procedure or give the woman misoprostol to remove the baby’s deceased remains. In a miscarriage, the baby has already died, so these treatment options are not considered abortions.
Even though these same methods are often used to intentionally end a child’s life in an induced abortion, removing the body of a child who has died naturally in the womb is not legally considered an abortion and is not prohibited by law.
In fact, no woman who has experienced a miscarriage or gone into preterm labor or whose baby has died naturally late in pregnancy has undergone an induced abortion to deliver that child. And it’s cruel and entirely false to suggest that they have.
Nothing was preventing Zurawski’s doctors from providing her with standard medical care or from delivering Willow when necessary — except, perhaps, for their own self-centered negligence.
