Addressing manufactured confusion about abortion

Treating an ectopic pregnancy has never been a morally or medically contested act.

Pro-life Catholic hospitals have performed that intervention for decades without ethical conflict or confusion. Any physician who genuinely cannot determine that a woman with a ruptured fallopian tube requires immediate surgical care has a training problem, not a legal one.

But abortion advocates would have you think otherwise and frequently blame pro-life laws for cases of delayed emergency care in pregnant women.

Are doctors really confused about what abortion is? And who benefits from the manufactured confusion? It’s the pro-abortion lobby, which spins genuinely tragic situations into false accusations about pro-life law.

A group of pro-life legislators aims to avoid these situations by further clarifying the legal definition of abortion to explicitly exclude ectopic pregnancy treatment, miscarriage management, and cancer treatment during pregnancy.

While most physicians understand that abortion does not include these procedures, eliminating any legal ambiguity matters. Vague statutory language can create legal exposure that good physicians shouldn’t carry. 

Unfortunately, the professional organizations best positioned to eliminate that confusion, like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have abdicated their responsibility to clarify and establish right policy since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

ACOG’s stated policy is to “oppose and overturn efforts restricting access to abortion.” Rather than issuing clear clinical guidance to help physicians understand what pro-life laws actually prohibit, ACOG has filed multiple amicus briefs against state restrictions. And when spooked hospital attorneys look to ACOG for direction, they find partisan advocacy and fear mongering. 

As Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), has said, ACOG “claims to represent 60,000 OB-GYNs, and yet they really don’t represent the vast majority of their membership when it comes to abortion.”

Only about 7% of OB-GYNs in private practice perform abortions. ACOG speaks loudly for a position that doesn’t touch most of its own members, and this refusal to offer honest guidance on emergency exceptions harms patients.

A 2023 case study in Oklahoma found that 65% of hospitals contacted were unable to provide information about their procedures or policies for life-threatening pregnancy situations, and almost none provided physicians with legal support. 

That is an institutional failure of hospital administrators, legal counsel, and the professional organizations that should have been assuring doctors they have every right to treat ectopic pregnancies, miscarriage, and cancer.

The moral distinctions here aren’t complicated:  Ectopic pregnancy is never viable. Miscarriage care is not abortion. Cancer treatment that harms a baby in the womb is not intentional killing, but the tragic effect of necessary care.

A physician who delivers a baby early to address preeclampsia or removes a fallopian tube to treat an ectopic pregnancy is not performing an abortion. The intent is different, and so is the moral character of the act. 

When a complication threatens a mother’s life, a physician must sometimes separate mother from baby, but that separation is not an abortion. AAPLOG calls these interventions “maternal-fetal separations,” recognizing the clear difference of intent between life-saving treatment and induced abortion. 

It’s also worth noting that there is no clear evidence of a doctor ever being arrested for performing a life-saving procedure permitted under state law.

Pro-life law and good medicine are not in conflict, but further clarity protects everyone involved and helps us avoid false accusations.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Life of the Mother Act into law in June 2025. The bill clarifies that physicians may intervene when a pregnancy threatens a mother’s life or risks serious impairment to a major bodily function, and it affirms that a physician need not wait until the threat becomes imminent. 

“We don't want to have any reason for hesitation,” said Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes, who wrote the state’s original abortion ban and co-sponsored the update. And this is the heart behind the legislators’ hope for a more definitive understanding nationwide.

Despite critics’ claims, pro-life lawmakers and advocates aim to protect doctors, patients, and unborn children alike. That was the intent of the original law, and these updates will only enhance that.