The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) refuted that idea in a statement released this week, stating that pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives.
“Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion,” the ACOG said.
From https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/
That is not a refutation. It is leftist WaPo spin.
In case of ""premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives."
The doctor they are allegedly refuting says that an emergency delivery may be necessary, it is just never necessary to kill the baby in the process.
"Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients,"
No one is telling a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, some just have an objection to killing the baby unnecessarily.
Just to be clear, I am aware that there are OB/GYN who will swear that third trimester abortions are sometimes medically necessary. There are many who say they are not. Who has more ne'emonus? The ones who place no value on the fetus' life at least through the 2nd trimester? Pro-choice doctors can be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the fetus. Can the pro-life doctors who claim that third trimester abortions are never medically necessary be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the mother?
One last thing. in the WaPo article they quote Dr Jennifer Gunter explaining a situation where abortion is safer than delivery.
"“A good example is a woman at 26 weeks who needs to be delivered for her blood pressure — that is the cure, delivery. However, because of her high-blood pressure fetal development has been affected and her fetus is estimated to weigh 300 g, which means it can not live after delivery. She will be offered an abortion if there is a skilled provider. This is safer for her and her uterus than a delivery.”"
I suspect this is a crafty lie. Watch closely. Here is a quote from her own
blog.
What is an abortion?
Apparently some doctors don’t really grasp this, so here we are.
An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. In the late 2nd and 3rd trimester it can be accomplished by:
A D & E: dilation and evacuation. Meaning the cervix is dilated and instruments are used to remove the fetus. There are sharp, boney fragments to deal with and so the risk of injury is high if the operator is unskilled. With a skilled operator it is far safer than a c-section.
Induction of labor: essentially the same drugs that we use to induce any labor. If the fetus has lethal anomalies after delivery it will pass away — comfort care is hopefully offered if indicated. Sometimes when anomalies are severe, but perhaps not lethal we inject a substance (usually potassium chloride) by amniocentesis (so through the pregnant belly into the fetal heart to stop the cardiac activity. It is done when the birth defects are very bad, but perhaps not immediately lethal.
A D & X: dilation and extraction. Dilating the cervix over several days and the fetus is delivered. Sometimes there are also boney fragments to deal with. An amniocentesis may also be done before to stop cardiac activity. This takes great skill. I have done them up to 34 weeks.
There is a false belief that induction of labor early for a lethal anomaly is not an abortion. It is.
The end.
She lists 3 options, D & E, D & X, and induction of labor.
In a D & E and a D & X she tells us there are risks of bony fragments. She neglects to tell of the risks posed by sharp instruments. She notes that when a D & E is done by a skilled operator, it is safer than a c-section. This is what she meant when she said an abortion is safer for her and uterus than a delivery. There is no way a D & E is safer for a uterus than a labor delivery. It is worth noting that in the case of preeclampsia, (the blood pressure issue she referenced) according to Mayo Clinic, c-section is the most effective treatment. So the Mayo Clinic apparently disagrees that an abortion is safer.
What is clear from her own words is that the safest method is induction of labor which has little risk of injury to the uterus. This is the method a pro-life doctor would recommend. She takes pains to point out that this is also an abortion. That is true if you do it the way she does it, which is to kill the baby in-utero to avoid a failed abortion and having to choose between providing medical care and infanticide. The pro-life doctor would induce labor with out first killing the baby and provide medical care to the baby if it emerges alive. If that can be called abortion it is a very different meaning of abortion.
Bottom line. In a best case scenario, Dr. Jennifer Gunter's complete disregard for the life of the fetus clouds her judgment and leads her to conclude that the safest option for the mother is one which guarantees that there will be no live baby to have to take care of.
For someone who believes that the fetus' life has value and we should try and keep it alive to the best of our ability, there is never a case where killing a late term fetus clearly benefits the health of the mother.