MYRNA BROWN, HOST: What’s next the world and everything in it: Effects of the pro-life method on complex pregnancies.
Parents, please note that this story may not be for children. So pause here and come back later if you have young ones nearby.
MARY REICHARD, HOST: Leah Savas is a WORLD reporter on life beats. She interviewed Dr. Ingrid Skop about what the law actually allows in difficult pregnancies.
Dr. Skop works as an obstetrician-gynecologist in Texas, where abortion is prohibited. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Charlotte Lozier Institute of Professional Life and Director of Medical Her Affairs.
Here is their conversation.
Leah Sabbath, Reporter: Dr. Scoop, thank you for joining us today.
INGRID SKOP, Guest: Thank you for this opportunity.
SAVAS: So there are a number of news articles circulating about women with severe pregnancy complications. And these articles point to the pro-life abortion ban as the reason these women’s condition has deteriorated so much. ?
SKOP: It makes me very sad when I see these stories. Because I think they document substandard care. But I think it also records a general ignorance of what state law is trying to say, and of course I’m her 25-year-serving Texas obstetrician. And the reality is that nothing has changed in my practice. Due to Texas abortion restrictions, I have never had an elective abortion. But sometimes I had to intervene in a pregnancy to save a woman’s life. And I can still do it. It is important to know that few hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, Methodist hospitals, and Baptist hospitals, allow selective abortion. endangering a woman’s life. So nothing has changed, but the media are promoting false narratives that doctors are not allowed to intervene. Most laws state that when a woman needs to be separated from her baby because pregnancy poses a risk, a doctor can use reasonable medical judgment to determine whether a pregnancy separation should be performed. Written as stated. life. This can be done by abortion, but it can also be done many times by induction of labour.
SAVAS: So many pro-life groups believe that abortion is never medically necessary and, as you mentioned, when a woman is facing complications, early induction of labor or C.I. But these stories talk about inducing labor early as if it were the same thing as abortion. Labor Induction and Abortion Legal and medical differences?
SKOP: Very good question. Legally, an abortion is an act intended to end the life of an unborn baby. So, with that definition in mind, in those rare and heartbreaking situations where a woman’s pregnancy poses a great risk to her life and needs to be separated from her baby, the action that needs to occur is separation. The intention is not to kill the unborn human life, but to intervene for the life of the mother. Sometimes we know that the outcome of our intervention will end the life of the unborn child. His purpose was to protect his mother. And sadly in that case the baby did not survive.
There is a baby to hold if we provoke her. Perhaps if the baby lives for a few minutes after birth, she can be with the baby when it dies. Allowing her to mourn her child is a much more compassionate way than tearing it apart.
SAVAS: Can you explain the legal and medical differences between abortion and removal of an ectopic pregnancy?
SKOP: Yes, an ectopic pregnancy is an unfortunate situation in which an embryo or fetus implants in a place other than its normal place inside the uterus. Most of the time this is in the fallopian tubes, but sometimes it’s in other places. Inevitably, as the pregnancy continues to grow, it causes devastating bleeding. This is a relatively common cause of maternal death. And every obstetrician knows that if they make a diagnosis of an ectopic pregnancy, they need to intervene. Also, all pro-life obstetricians, all Catholic obstetricians, and all religious hospitals allow this intervention. ectopic pregnancy. This can be done by surgery or by injection of methotrexate.
Physicians generally need guidance from professional societies, help interpret the law, and say ‘it’s okay to intervene’. And I don’t see any such guidance. Unfortunately, many medical institutions are ideologically pro-choice. So they backed off and didn’t give the doctor instructions. Thus, I believe that misinformation in the media and the failure of medical institutions to provide guidance to physicians has led to inadequate physician inaction. If doctors knew they would go unpunished, I honestly think they would be afraid of being charged with a felony. I think this problem would go away if they knew that was giving them guidance to practice as they have always practiced.
SAVAS: Dr. Scoop, thank you for joining us today. And I really appreciate your insight into these really difficult cases.
SKOP: Thank you very much. It’s an honor to speak with you, Leah.
WORLD Radio transcripts are produced on a tight deadline. This text may not be in final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The official recording of a WORLD Radio program is an audio recording.