While ProPublica makes sure to note that the Texas Medical Board members (12 of whom are physicians and 7 who are not) are “appointed by the governor” (and who must be confirmed by the state senate), ProPublica concurrently attempts to discredit Texas State Senator Bryan Hughes, the author of the Texas Heartbeat Law, by pointing out that his background is not in medicine.

And yet, abortion apologists don’t seem too bothered by the fact that Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, put in place the well-known trimester framework in pregnancy — not based on biology or the science of prenatal development, but for purely legal reasons.

Apparently, the only impartial decisions related to abortion can be made by pro-abortion ideologues (physician or not), in ProPublica’s view.

At a Glance:

• The language in this new “exceptions” bill is exceptionally broad, allowing induced abortion for even the “mental health” of a patient. It also mirrors language used in extreme, pro-abortion ballot amendments that passed in various states. Yet supposedly the bill is needed to “save lives.”

• ProPublica at first claimed that doctors’ confusion over the pro-life law was causing women to die; now, the outlet is adding “fear of criminal penalties” to the list of reasons why doctors are allegedly not helping pregnant women – with commentary from pro-abortion activist groups who assert that “exceptions don’t really work in reality.” If this is the case, then what is the purpose of the Texas bill?

• Relying solely on the claims of OB/GYNs who are hardcore supporters or providers of induced abortion — even for themselves, and even in non-emergency cases — and intentionally ignoring cases and statistics from pro-abortion states further reveals the need of pro-abortion media to push propaganda and fear tactics over facts.

Language echoed in pro-abortion measures

Pro-Publica reported that the new legislation, introduced in both the Texas House and Senate, would create more exceptions to state laws protecting preborn children from abortion. The new exceptions would give doctors permission to “induce or perform abortions necessary to preserve the mental or physical health of a patient, including preserving the patient’s fertility” (emphasis added). Abortions would also be permitted if the preborn baby was diagnosed with a fetal anomaly said to be fatal, or survivable under “extraordinary medical interventions.”

“This is my reaction,” State Rep. Donna Howard said of the bills, which she said were filed due to ProPublica’s reporting. “It’s one of extreme sadness and disbelief that we are at a point where we are allowing women to die because we haven’t been able to clarify the law.”

Pro-Publica wrote, “State Sen. Carol Alvarado, who filed the Senate version of the bill, said she worked with physicians who represent major medical organizations to draft the exceptions” (emphasis added).

This is very interesting, given the fact that no major medical organizations released guidance as to how to function within the current law, and yet, somehow, this (Democrat) state senator was somehow able to receive their guidance to “draft the exceptions” — which are more akin to loopholes the size of Texas, so to speak, than to “exceptions.”

If we didn’t know better, we might be inclined to think that pro-abortion ideology is trumping the lives and safety of women — oh, wait! It looks like the pro-abortion activist groups have admitted that their strategy is to attribute more women’s deaths to the pro-life law, rather than to assist in offering clarity or guidance.

And yet, The Texas Medical Board did issue further clarification of the law, and doctors in the state have always been allowed to use their “reasonable medical judgment” in situations of medical emergency, to do what is necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life. As OB/GYN Dr. Ingrid Skop pointed out, physicians already understand this. As Live Action News previously reported:

Obstetricians have always understood what wording like “reasonable medical judgment” and abortion for “life of the mother” mean, according to Skop, because “even the federal Hyde Amendment, for example, prohibits payment of elective abortion, and yet it has always allowed payment and doctors to perform an abortion if it is needed to save the life of the mother. So doctors know what it means.”

She added that “there is no imminency requirement in [Texas] law,” meaning that “a doctor does not need to wait until a woman is dying until he can intervene.” Yet that has been the false narrative pushed by abortion ideologues and the pro-abortion media.

The language of these “exceptions” in the newly-introduced Texas bill is extremely similar to the language of recently passed pro-abortion measures — like the one in Missouri, where abortion would be permitted at any time during pregnancy thanks to vague language:

… the general assembly may enact laws that regulate the provision of abortion after Fetal Viability provided that under no circumstance shall the Government deny, interfere with, delay, or otherwise restrict an abortion that in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional is needed to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.

By including mental health, doctors get a wide-open loophole to commit abortions for virtually any reason — emotional distress, perceived depression, alleged anxiety — you name it. If this sounds far-fetched, it isn’t. The infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller used to have another doctor “rubber stamp” his abortions for “mental health” reasons; she used to input symptoms into a “Psych Manager Lite” program, which would then spit out a diagnosis that was used to justify his abortions.

The Missouri amendment also included the language which could affect preborn children with disabilities. In both Texas and Missouri, the phrase “extraordinary medical interventions” is left undefined. Who decides what is considered “extraordinary”? Such vague language could easily be used to allow a preborn child diagnosed with a disability to be aborted because of needed time in a NICU after birth.

Again, these are not mere “exceptions.”

Are criminal penalties scaring doctors?

In their new article, ProPublica engages in some fear mongering over the criminal penalties doctors could face for committing an illegal abortion, claiming they have a “chilling effect” on doctors who simply want to treat their pregnant patients with the best possible medical care. This supposedly-chilling effect was not emphasized in their previous articles, interestingly enough.

Previously, ProPublica merely claimed that confusion over what the law allowed and what it didn’t was leading to needless deaths. Now, ProPublica — with help from the abortion industry — is claiming it’s not just confusion. It’s fear of being penalized.

“Exceptions don’t work in reality, no matter how clear they are,” claimed Molly Duane, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We’ve seen hospitals turn away Texans facing life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, even though providing an abortion in these cases is legal under state law. As long as doctors face the threat of jail time and loss of license, they will be terrified to provide care.”

Perhaps Ms. Duane needs to check her terminology and the law as well; treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not even defined as abortion under state law… and therefore, doctors have nothing whatsoever to fear when treating ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages, since those are not considered “providing an abortion” at all. In Sec. 245.002. of the Texas Health and Safety Code under DEFINITIONS, it states (emphases added):

(1) “Abortion” means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:

(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;
(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or
(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.

In reality, this supposed fear over criminal penalties is nonsensical; scores of women have been able to receive treatment for pregnancy-related emergencies in Texas since these pro-life laws were put into place… and ProPublica was able to find just two highly-flawed stories as a means of hitting against these laws. If tens of thousands of women have received the treatment they needed in Texas, then it doesn’t seem likely that scores of doctors are terrified to treat their patients because of the criminal penalties they might face.

OB/GYNs with an agenda

A recently-issued report discussed pregnancy-associated and pregnancy-related deaths in Texas for 2019-2020. It noted that “There were 148 pregnancy-related deaths in 2019 (n=63) and 2020 (n=85), combined. Most pregnancy-related deaths were preventable, regardless of the underlying cause. The committee determined that 125, or 84 percent, of 148 pregnancy-related deaths in 2019 and 2020 were preventable.”

Yes, indeed — most pregnancy-related deaths in Texas (where over 30M people live) for those years were preventable. Does this sound shocking? Well, it might — if you don’t look at these sorts of reports for other states (even pro-abortion ones).

In pro-abortion New York from 2018-2020 (where 19.4M people live), for example, “A total of 121 pregnancy-related deaths occurred from 2018-2020, which included 41 pregnancy-related deaths in 2018, 42 in 2019, and 38 in 2020,” and “It was determined that 73.6 percent of pregnancy-related deaths had at least some chance of being prevented.” And in Illinois, where anything remotely resembling a pro-life law has also become a byword (and where about 12.5M people live). That state’s report for 2018-2020 showed 113 pregnancy-related deaths, and 91% were determined to have been preventable.

When you boil down these numbers and account for population, Texas numbers seem fairly unremarkable.

And yet, ProPublica pointed to a letter signed by 111 OB/GYNs, claiming the deaths highlighted by ProPublica are proof that Texas law needs to change. This letter contained numerous problematic statements, and was signed by numerous pro-abortion doctors with an agenda… including Austin Dennard, a Texas OB/GYN whom ProPublica specifically featured. Dennard claimed, “We’re the ones with their boots on the ground. We’re the ones taking care of these patients, and we’re the ones telling you it is very nebulous and confusing, and we’re all terrified.”

But Dennard is also the same woman who lied in a Biden campaign ad about her own pregnancy, which she claimed put her “life at risk” when, in fact, it did not. Dennard’s preborn baby had been diagnosed with anencephaly, a condition in which the skull doesn’t properly form, causing the brain to be exposed to amniotic fluids and become underdeveloped. Most children with anencephaly die within hours or weeks after birth; some, however, defy the odds and survive — some even for years. Carrying a child with anencephaly is no more dangerous for a pregnant woman than carrying an able-bodied child.

In Dennard’s Senate testimony, she spoke of forced pregnancy… forced delivery,” adding that she would be “[f]orced to watch him die, either in my womb, or in my arms.” She then claimed Texas laws made her scared to use her credit card or tell people where she was going – out of state to get an abortion – though Texas has no state laws preventing anyone from traveling outside of the state for an abortion. Ultimately, Dennard admitted she was unwilling to bear the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term for a baby who was not likely to survive. “They essentially just gasp for air until they pass away,” Dennard claimed of babies with anencephaly. That may be true, but babies with anencephaly, according to Cleveland Clinic, do not have the ability to feel pain, so this gasping is apparently a reflexive act, not a pain reaction. Dennard did not need an abortion; she preferred one, so she could avoid watching the predicted death of her child.

Dr. Ingrid Skop, a Texas OB/GYN and VP of Medical Affairs for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and Dr. Christina Francis, an OB/GYN and CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, both responded to the letter by pointing out that doctors are already trained to understand how to navigate legal issues while treating pregnant patients experiencing emergencies.

Both doctors are hospitalists, which Francis explained means, “we only work in the hospital. We take care of women that are coming in to labor and delivery units or into emergency rooms. So we are seeing women with pregnancy complications and with emergencies in pregnancy each and every day. So we speak from years and years of experience.”

Skop noted that there have been 119 abortions performed in Texas since 2022 for the life of the mother, and not one doctor has been prosecuted. “Most doctors do understand,” Skop said. “So I think we need to look at the doctors who wrote this letter and recognize that there is some other agenda there. The law is not confusing.”

Call on President Trump to pardon the FACE Act prisoners on his first day in office.

And yet, abortion apologists don’t seem too bothered by the fact that Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, put in place the well-known trimester framework in pregnancy — not based on biology or the science of prenatal development, but for purely legal reasons.

Apparently, the only impartial decisions related to abortion can be made by pro-abortion ideologues (physician or not), in ProPublica’s view.

At a Glance:

• The language in this new “exceptions” bill is exceptionally broad, allowing induced abortion for even the “mental health” of a patient. It also mirrors language used in extreme, pro-abortion ballot amendments that passed in various states. Yet supposedly the bill is needed to “save lives.”

• ProPublica at first claimed that doctors’ confusion over the pro-life law was causing women to die; now, the outlet is adding “fear of criminal penalties” to the list of reasons why doctors are allegedly not helping pregnant women – with commentary from pro-abortion activist groups who assert that “exceptions don’t really work in reality.” If this is the case, then what is the purpose of the Texas bill?

• Relying solely on the claims of OB/GYNs who are hardcore supporters or providers of induced abortion — even for themselves, and even in non-emergency cases — and intentionally ignoring cases and statistics from pro-abortion states further reveals the need of pro-abortion media to push propaganda and fear tactics over facts.

Language echoed in pro-abortion measures

Pro-Publica reported that the new legislation, introduced in both the Texas House and Senate, would create more exceptions to state laws protecting preborn children from abortion. The new exceptions would give doctors permission to “induce or perform abortions necessary to preserve the mental or physical health of a patient, including preserving the patient’s fertility” (emphasis added). Abortions would also be permitted if the preborn baby was diagnosed with a fetal anomaly said to be fatal, or survivable under “extraordinary medical interventions.”

“This is my reaction,” State Rep. Donna Howard said of the bills, which she said were filed due to ProPublica’s reporting. “It’s one of extreme sadness and disbelief that we are at a point where we are allowing women to die because we haven’t been able to clarify the law.”

Pro-Publica wrote, “State Sen. Carol Alvarado, who filed the Senate version of the bill, said she worked with physicians who represent major medical organizations to draft the exceptions” (emphasis added).

This is very interesting, given the fact that no major medical organizations released guidance as to how to function within the current law, and yet, somehow, this (Democrat) state senator was somehow able to receive their guidance to “draft the exceptions” — which are more akin to loopholes the size of Texas, so to speak, than to “exceptions.”

If we didn’t know better, we might be inclined to think that pro-abortion ideology is trumping the lives and safety of women — oh, wait! It looks like the pro-abortion activist groups have admitted that their strategy is to attribute more women’s deaths to the pro-life law, rather than to assist in offering clarity or guidance.

And yet, The Texas Medical Board did issue further clarification of the law, and doctors in the state have always been allowed to use their “reasonable medical judgment” in situations of medical emergency, to do what is necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life. As OB/GYN Dr. Ingrid Skop pointed out, physicians already understand this. As Live Action News previously reported:

Obstetricians have always understood what wording like “reasonable medical judgment” and abortion for “life of the mother” mean, according to Skop, because “even the federal Hyde Amendment, for example, prohibits payment of elective abortion, and yet it has always allowed payment and doctors to perform an abortion if it is needed to save the life of the mother. So doctors know what it means.”

She added that “there is no imminency requirement in [Texas] law,” meaning that “a doctor does not need to wait until a woman is dying until he can intervene.” Yet that has been the false narrative pushed by abortion ideologues and the pro-abortion media.

The language of these “exceptions” in the newly-introduced Texas bill is extremely similar to the language of recently passed pro-abortion measures — like the one in Missouri, where abortion would be permitted at any time during pregnancy thanks to vague language:

… the general assembly may enact laws that regulate the provision of abortion after Fetal Viability provided that under no circumstance shall the Government deny, interfere with, delay, or otherwise restrict an abortion that in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional is needed to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.

By including mental health, doctors get a wide-open loophole to commit abortions for virtually any reason — emotional distress, perceived depression, alleged anxiety — you name it. If this sounds far-fetched, it isn’t. The infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller used to have another doctor “rubber stamp” his abortions for “mental health” reasons; she used to input symptoms into a “Psych Manager Lite” program, which would then spit out a diagnosis that was used to justify his abortions.

The Missouri amendment also included the language which could affect preborn children with disabilities. In both Texas and Missouri, the phrase “extraordinary medical interventions” is left undefined. Who decides what is considered “extraordinary”? Such vague language could easily be used to allow a preborn child diagnosed with a disability to be aborted because of needed time in a NICU after birth.

Again, these are not mere “exceptions.”

Are criminal penalties scaring doctors?

In their new article, ProPublica engages in some fear mongering over the criminal penalties doctors could face for committing an illegal abortion, claiming they have a “chilling effect” on doctors who simply want to treat their pregnant patients with the best possible medical care. This supposedly-chilling effect was not emphasized in their previous articles, interestingly enough.

Previously, ProPublica merely claimed that confusion over what the law allowed and what it didn’t was leading to needless deaths. Now, ProPublica — with help from the abortion industry — is claiming it’s not just confusion. It’s fear of being penalized.

“Exceptions don’t work in reality, no matter how clear they are,” claimed Molly Duane, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We’ve seen hospitals turn away Texans facing life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, even though providing an abortion in these cases is legal under state law. As long as doctors face the threat of jail time and loss of license, they will be terrified to provide care.”

Perhaps Ms. Duane needs to check her terminology and the law as well; treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not even defined as abortion under state law… and therefore, doctors have nothing whatsoever to fear when treating ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages, since those are not considered “providing an abortion” at all. In Sec. 245.002. of the Texas Health and Safety Code under DEFINITIONS, it states (emphases added):

(1) “Abortion” means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:

(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;
(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or
(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.

In reality, this supposed fear over criminal penalties is nonsensical; scores of women have been able to receive treatment for pregnancy-related emergencies in Texas since these pro-life laws were put into place… and ProPublica was able to find just two highly-flawed stories as a means of hitting against these laws. If tens of thousands of women have received the treatment they needed in Texas, then it doesn’t seem likely that scores of doctors are terrified to treat their patients because of the criminal penalties they might face.

OB/GYNs with an agenda

A recently-issued report discussed pregnancy-associated and pregnancy-related deaths in Texas for 2019-2020. It noted that “There were 148 pregnancy-related deaths in 2019 (n=63) and 2020 (n=85), combined. Most pregnancy-related deaths were preventable, regardless of the underlying cause. The committee determined that 125, or 84 percent, of 148 pregnancy-related deaths in 2019 and 2020 were preventable.”

Yes, indeed — most pregnancy-related deaths in Texas (where over 30M people live) for those years were preventable. Does this sound shocking? Well, it might — if you don’t look at these sorts of reports for other states (even pro-abortion ones).

In pro-abortion New York from 2018-2020 (where 19.4M people live), for example, “A total of 121 pregnancy-related deaths occurred from 2018-2020, which included 41 pregnancy-related deaths in 2018, 42 in 2019, and 38 in 2020,” and “It was determined that 73.6 percent of pregnancy-related deaths had at least some chance of being prevented.” And in Illinois, where anything remotely resembling a pro-life law has also become a byword (and where about 12.5M people live). That state’s report for 2018-2020 showed 113 pregnancy-related deaths, and 91% were determined to have been preventable.

When you boil down these numbers and account for population, Texas numbers seem fairly unremarkable.

And yet, ProPublica pointed to a letter signed by 111 OB/GYNs, claiming the deaths highlighted by ProPublica are proof that Texas law needs to change. This letter contained numerous problematic statements, and was signed by numerous pro-abortion doctors with an agenda… including Austin Dennard, a Texas OB/GYN whom ProPublica specifically featured. Dennard claimed, “We’re the ones with their boots on the ground. We’re the ones taking care of these patients, and we’re the ones telling you it is very nebulous and confusing, and we’re all terrified.”

But Dennard is also the same woman who lied in a Biden campaign ad about her own pregnancy, which she claimed put her “life at risk” when, in fact, it did not. Dennard’s preborn baby had been diagnosed with anencephaly, a condition in which the skull doesn’t properly form, causing the brain to be exposed to amniotic fluids and become underdeveloped. Most children with anencephaly die within hours or weeks after birth; some, however, defy the odds and survive — some even for years. Carrying a child with anencephaly is no more dangerous for a pregnant woman than carrying an able-bodied child.

In Dennard’s Senate testimony, she spoke of forced pregnancy… forced delivery,” adding that she would be “[f]orced to watch him die, either in my womb, or in my arms.” She then claimed Texas laws made her scared to use her credit card or tell people where she was going – out of state to get an abortion – though Texas has no state laws preventing anyone from traveling outside of the state for an abortion. Ultimately, Dennard admitted she was unwilling to bear the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term for a baby who was not likely to survive. “They essentially just gasp for air until they pass away,” Dennard claimed of babies with anencephaly. That may be true, but babies with anencephaly, according to Cleveland Clinic, do not have the ability to feel pain, so this gasping is apparently a reflexive act, not a pain reaction. Dennard did not need an abortion; she preferred one, so she could avoid watching the predicted death of her child.

Dr. Ingrid Skop, a Texas OB/GYN and VP of Medical Affairs for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and Dr. Christina Francis, an OB/GYN and CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, both responded to the letter by pointing out that doctors are already trained to understand how to navigate legal issues while treating pregnant patients experiencing emergencies.

Both doctors are hospitalists, which Francis explained means, “we only work in the hospital. We take care of women that are coming in to labor and delivery units or into emergency rooms. So we are seeing women with pregnancy complications and with emergencies in pregnancy each and every day. So we speak from years and years of experience.”

Skop noted that there have been 119 abortions performed in Texas since 2022 for the life of the mother, and not one doctor has been prosecuted. “Most doctors do understand,” Skop said. “So I think we need to look at the doctors who wrote this letter and recognize that there is some other agenda there. The law is not confusing.”

Call on President Trump to pardon the FACE Act prisoners on his first day in office.