Vice President Kamala Harris appeared in a roundtable panel discussion on MSNBC’s The ReidOut last week to discuss abortion one year after the Supreme Court issued the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe v. Wade. During the conversation, she made the inaccurate claim that pro-life laws are forcing women suffering miscarriages to cross state lines to receive care.
“I’m hearing countless stories of women who are in the process of miscarriage, intended to take pregnancy to term, and are in the process of miscarriage, and are having to travel from places like Texas to Colorado, places like Texas or Florida to Seattle,” said Harris. “Think about what that means in terms of the emotional trauma that is reinforced by all of these laws. She’s already experiencing emotional trauma because of what is happening and then requiring her to go through TSA, get on a plane with perfect strangers to seek help if she can afford to actually travel. And it’s dangerous.”
Abortion vs. miscarriage
Harris appears to be conflating miscarriage with induced abortion. In a miscarriage, the preborn child dies naturally; in an induced abortion, the abortionist directly and intentionally causes the child’s death. Miscarriage treatments are not prohibited by pro-life laws, which only prohibit the direct and intentional killing of preborn children.
The wording of these laws make that crystal clear.
For example, Alabama’s pro-life law states that an abortion does not include an act or means “to remove a dead unborn child.” It also states that an abortion “shall not be construed to include any procedure to terminate an ectopic pregnancy…”
Arizona’s pro-life laws prohibit “the use of any means to terminate a clinically diagnosable pregnancy … with the knowledge that the termination by those means will cause, with reasonable likelihood, the death of the unborn child.” It also states that abortion does not include “any means to save the life or preserve the health of the unborn, to preserve the life or health of the child after a live birth, to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus.” (emphasis added)
In Florida, specifically mentioned by Harris, the law says abortion is “the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.” (emphasis added)
And in Texas, which Harris also mentions, the law states that an act “is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to… remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion [miscarriage].”
If doctors are refusing to treat women who have suffered miscarriages as Harris claims, they are not acting within the scope of the law or the proper standard of care. These cases, if true, would instead be examples of medical neglect.
What is truly “dangerous” is doctors sending women in a medical crisis out of state for procedures and treatments that are completely legal and accessible right where they are.
Abortion does not save lives
In addition to Harris’ erroneous comments, OB/GYN Dr. Todd Ivey shared inaccurate information with the roundtable participants. Ivey is co-chair of the legislative committee, District XI, for the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Ivey said he “fully” expects to see an increase in maternal mortality due to pro-life laws despite — he admits — that there is no data to suggest such an increase. There is evidence, however, to the contrary.
He also claimed to be unable to help a woman who “had chronic kidney disease and hypertension and could not access contraception and had a hemoglobin — was very anemic — her hemoglobin was about half of what ours would be. She had ruptured membranes at 17 weeks.” However, because, as he said, “the baby still had a heartbeat… we were unable to provide care until her condition takes, becomes life-threatening.”
As an OB/GYN, Ivey would know that the treatment for ruptured membranes is not induced abortion — it is monitoring and delivery. According to MayoClinic.org (emphasis added):
If you have preterm PROM and you’re at least 34 weeks pregnant, delivery might be recommended to avoid an infection. However, if there are no signs of infection or fetal health problems, research suggests that pregnancy can safely be allowed to continue as long as it’s carefully monitored.
If you’re between 24 and 34 weeks pregnant, your health care provider will try to delay delivery until your baby is more developed. You’ll be given antibiotics to prevent an infection and an injection of potent steroids (corticosteroids) to speed your baby’s lung maturity. If you’re less than 32 weeks pregnant and at risk of delivering in the next few days, you might be given magnesium sulfate to protect the baby’s nervous system…
If you’re less than 24 weeks pregnant, your health care provider will explain the risks of having a very preterm baby and the risks and benefits of trying to delay labor.
Nowhere is induced abortion — the intentional and direct killing of the child — mentioned.
Though the child may be born too young to survive, premature delivery to save the mother and save the child as well if possible is not an induced abortion and is therefore not prohibited by any pro-life laws. The intention of such a delivery is not to produce a dead child, and though the pregnancy is ended, the doctor does not intentionally and directly kill the child. At 17 weeks such an induced abortion would be carried out by a D&E procedure in which a pain-capable child would be dismembered before delivery — traumatic.
Even ACOG, whom Ivey represents, states in its 2020 practice bulletin Pre-labor Rupture of Membranes:
Women presenting with (P)PROM [premature rupture of membranes] before neonatal viability should be counseled regarding the risks and benefits of expectant management versus immediate delivery. Counseling should include a realistic appraisal of neonatal outcomes. Immediate delivery (termination of pregnancy by induction of labor or dilation and evacuation) and expectant management should be offered.
Ingrid Skop, M.D., F.A.C.O.G., vice president and director of medical affairs at Charlotte Lozier Institute explained, “Refusing to offer the option of intervention in this circumstance is not supported by any medical guidance and, in fact, appears to violate the standard of care.”
