A recent article published by STAT discusses the false idea that pro-life laws are putting cancer patients at risk. The argument is that women with cancer won’t be able to have abortions so they can begin the cancer treatments necessary to save their lives. But as is clear from the first paragraph of the article, this pro-abortion argument is little more than smoke and mirrors.
The article begins with the heartwrenching story of a woman diagnosed with colon cancer at 30 weeks pregnant. She needed immediate surgery and underwent an emergency C-section — not an abortion — so she could proceed. She was likely scared, which was confirmed by her oncologist, Katherine Van Loon, who said, “She looked me in the eye, and she said, ‘I have two children that need me, and if you have to make a decision, I need you to remember that. That my little girls need me, the two kids I already have need me.”
But in an emergency C-section, there is no “decision” to make between mother and child. The decision to end the pregnancy by C-section has already been made and doctors are working to deliver the baby and provide her with care. The baby is being separated from her mother, meaning there’s no conflict.
If a complication occurs, the mother’s doctors would work to help the mother and the baby’s doctors would work to help the baby. An emergency C-section is not an induced abortion because the intent is not to deliberately kill the child — and at 30 weeks, the baby had a good chance of surviving after a preterm delivery.
Abortion was clearly not necessary in this case and the woman’s doctors did not say that it was even considered. The pregnancy needed to end, so doctors delivered the baby… alive. An induced abortion would have required the doctors to take time to kill the baby prior to delivery.
Health exceptions to pro-life laws
Pro-life laws include an exception for abortion to protect the life of the mother, which means the entire argument that pro-life laws are putting pregnant cancer patients at risk is a fallacy.
“[I]f a multidisciplinary team concludes that ending the pregnancy would benefit a woman undergoing cancer treatment, this management would … fall under exemptions for the ‘life of the mother,'” explained the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI).
However, this abortion loophole does not mean abortion is necessary for a pregnant woman with cancer. Induced abortion (the intent of which is to end the preborn child’s life) is not medically necessary. Ending the pregnancy might be necessary, but as in the case above, ending a pregnancy can be achieved through preterm delivery, not abortion.
‘Most often, cancer can be treated during pregnancy’
“Treatment considerations and concerns for maternal and fetal health can vary depending on the type of cancer, the degree of spread, the likelihood of recurrence, the proximity of the cancer to the uterus, the possibility of cancer promotion due to pregnancy hormones, and the toxicity of treatment options for the unborn child (which may include surgery, radiation and chemotherapy), so there is not a standard recommendation on how cancer treatment should be addressed in pregnancy,” said CLI.
In other words, it’s not a “one size fits all” situation when it comes to cancer treatment during pregnancy, and research has shown that delaying treatment to protect the baby may not put a woman at greater risk of poor outcomes from cancer. The American Cancer Society (ACS) states, “Studies have not shown that short treatment delays that are sometimes necessary during pregnancy influence cancer outcome…” (emphasis added). This is vital for women to understand. Delaying their cancer treatment to give their babies a better chance at survival mighgt not have an impact on their cancer treatment outcomes.
ACS states that it is “generally safe” to have surgery for cancer while pregnant, that chemotherapy has “limited side effects for the fetus if given in the second or third trimester of pregnancy,” and that testing such as mammograms, ultrasound, chest x-rays, bone scans, and MRIs are safe while pregnant. Needle biopsies are also considered safe, as are surgical biopsies, though the doctor might wait until the second trimester.
What is not considered safe during pregnancy is radiation therapy in the abdominal or pelvic area, but might be an option in areas of the body that are further away from the baby. Hormone therapy and targeted drug therapy are also considered unsafe for the baby.
However, the ACS is clear: “Most often, cancer can be treated during pregnancy. For many types of cancer, studies generally haven’t found that ending a pregnancy in order to get treatment improves outcomes” for the mother (emphasis added). It also notes, “[E]nding the pregnancy isn’t routinely recommended when cancer is found…” and advises women to understand their options.
Depending on the type of cancer, the advancement of the cancer, the type of treatment needed, and other factors, abortion may not even be mentioned by the oncologist. In fact, a study published a decade ago by The Lancet Oncology revealed, “A review of the experiences of more than 400 women who received chemotherapy to treat breast cancer while they were pregnant suggests that the treatment doesn’t harm the baby.” Further information on this topic is available here.
Cancer treatment is not an abortion
What if a pregnant woman’s life is in immediate danger from cancer during the first trimester and treatment must begin immediately but she does not want to abort her baby?
She can choose to undergo treatment knowing there is a risk of miscarrying or harm being caused to her baby. This, also, would not be an abortion.
Abortion advocates would argue that a child’s potential health issues caused by his mother’s cancer treatment is a fate worse than death. However, killing a child is never the solution and is far worse than treating the mother while doing whatever can be done to protect the baby. Abortion is final, and ends the life of a distinct, real, existing human being. Treating the mother while trying to protect the child offers hope to a woman who is desperate to save both her life and her child’s.
If the mother were to miscarry due to cancer treatments, it would be a tragic side effect of those treatments. But if she and her baby will both die without the treatments, then undergoing treatments with whatever precautions can be taken to try to protect the baby is both legal and ethical.
The compassion society should feel in these cases belongs to both the mother and her baby, and science should be making strides to advance better cancer detection and treatments. Efforts should not be focused on ensuring abortion is available to women with cancer but on determining the best ways to help both mother and child survive.
Research has shown that abortion is not the solution to a cancer diagnosis during pregnancy. This argument is a manipulation by abortion advocates to attempt to rally more public support behind the intentional and direct killing of preborn human beings.
