In an op-ed for the Des Moines Register, a woman named Abby Collins shared her personal story of receiving a prenatal diagnosis and developing preeclampsia during pregnancy. Though her emotional story is meant to provoke anger about pro-life laws, what Collins is essentially advocating for is the elitist and eugenic idea that some children are better off dead than born.
Collins begins by attacking an unnamed religion that allowed her to grow up “in a culture of women and babies dying” because their “church taught that God would heal us, and people routinely refused life-saving medical care.” She said that through this unnamed religion, she “saw first-hand what happened when pregnant women didn’t get the medical care they needed.” However, she never said that this religion forbade medical care, just that members “routinely refused” such care.
A person refusing medical care for herself has nothing to do with pro-life laws — which only prohibit the intentional killing of preborn children, not actual medical care. Necessary medical care is never denied to a pregnant woman in any state by reputable medical providers; if necessary and legitimate medical care were denied without good reason, those medical providers could be guilty of negligence.
Refusing care for children
A parent’s refusal to provide medical care for a child is, however, similar to the abortion Collins is advocating for in cases like hers. She explained that at her 19-week appointment, she found out her preborn child had a “serious growth restriction.”
“[I]f I miscarried in the next few weeks, it would likely have severe developmental delays or die,” she said of her baby. “Meanwhile, I was at high risk for life-threatening preeclampsia.”
First of all, this phrasing is noticeably odd. It appears she is referring to early or preterm delivery as a ‘miscarriage.’ This is inaccurate; miscarriage is when the child dies in the womb before 20 weeks gestation. A miscarried child would not have “severe developmental delays” because a miscarried child has already died. Considering the fact that the media is currently fixated on the lie that women are being denied “miscarriage care,” Collins’ use of the term “miscarriage” in her story instead of the accurate phrase “preterm delivery” is likely to evoke a more emotional response from readers.
If Collins were to go into preterm labor at 19 weeks, her child would not likely survive. But if Collins went into labor “in the next few weeks,” as she stated — especially at or after 21 weeks gestation — her child actually would have a chance of survival. While a child born this early can have developmental delays, Collins implies that this would be a fate worse than death for her baby — and that just the chance of preterm birth and developmental delays was justification for killing the baby before any of these possible outcomes could even occur.
Second, Collins claimed that “the specialist who confirmed the diagnosis wouldn’t answer our repeat questions about our prognosis.” She added, “Since I was close to 20 weeks, she only responded with, ‘I don’t know what you want me to say. At this point, you’re having this kid.'”
This implies that Collins may have been asking about abortion specifically, and attempting to learn if her child’s prognosis would allow for an abortion. If she had asked about the prognosis in terms of getting proper care for her child, it is likely the response from a “specialist” would have been different.
The non-existent political attack on women
Collins goes on to claim her doctors were “scared” to provide her with care because “politicians were revoking my right to evidence-based care….” It’s the same claim other women have made, though many of them were actually provided with the “evidence-based care” they needed for their specific situations; others likely were victims of medical neglect, not of politicians working to protect preborn children from being intentionally killed.
There is no “evidence” that children must be intentionally killed through induced abortion to save women’s lives or as part of their own medical treatment. Anytime a pregnancy must end, the child can be delivered — this is not an induced abortion when the intent is not to target and destroy the child. Even if that child is too young to survive, preterm delivery in emergencies is not an induced abortion and is not prohibited by any law.
It only takes common sense to understand that pregnancies can be ended without intentionally killing a preborn child through induced cardiac arrest or dismemberment. It makes more sense to skip the killing and go straight to delivery if the situation is an emergency.
Sometimes with a growth restriction diagnosis, the child must be delivered prematurely in order for doctors to help the child survive. This is also not an induced abortion and is not prohibited by law.
There is no law forcing women to stay pregnant during a medical emergency — but killing the child on purpose before delivery is rightly prohibited now in many states.
Premature emergency delivery
A premature emergency delivery is exactly what doctors carried out on Collins when it became evident that her pregnancy had to end. At 33 weeks, Collins began “experiencing preeclampsia with liver failure.” Her baby was delivered prematurely, weighing two pounds, 10 ounces, and spent six weeks in the NICU — which Collins claimed would have “financially ruined” the family if they didn’t have “private insurance under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.”
This is a scare tactic often used by abortion advocates to use financial fears as a justification for abortion. It’s a false claim that a less privileged woman would have been financially ruined without abortion. Hospitals often work with families to negotiate the cost, set up a payment plan, or write off debt for patients who can’t afford it. In addition, pregnant women in a lower income bracket can access state Medicaid, which in Missouri (where Collins lived at the time) is available to women and children. Medicaid in Missouri offers health insurance to pregnant women and their preborn children based on income.
Collins doesn’t provide an update on how her child is doing today; she simply states that she is the mother of two. Now, however, she lives in Iowa, which has a law protecting preborn babies from abortion beginning at six weeks (though that law is currently enjoined and not enforced). Collins decided to have a tubal ligation (“tubes tied”) because she couldn’t fathom the idea that it’s possible to care for pregnant women without intentionally killing their preborn children.
“I can’t risk getting pregnant again,” she said. “Not in this environment in this state. I’d leave behind two children.”
The entire op-ed is an attempt to garner support for abortion by 1) misrepresenting state pro-life laws, 2) misrepresenting miscarriage, 3) acting as if physicians can’t help women or be compassionate to women without intentionally killing their children.
Collins says she now worries “about the future my daughter faces. What if she becomes pregnant and is denied life-saving medical care because of a state law?”
But there is no state law that denies life-saving medical care to pregnant women. Instead, pro-life laws disallow the deliberate killing of preborn children.
Correction, 6/17/24: This article originally stated that that abortion is restricted at six weeks in Iowa; however this law has been enjoined by the courts. We regret the error.
