When a woman experiences complications during pregnancy, especially life-threatening ones, she deserves the highest standard of medical care and every effort to save her life. The pro-life movement responds to these situations with compassion — not only for the child in the womb, but also for the brave mother fighting for her own life.  

Too often, however, the language surrounding these medical emergencies is distorted, leading many people to believe that abortion is medically necessary to save a mother’s life. Sometimes, these stories are also exploited to suggest that pro-life laws prevent moms from receiving care — which is untrue. 

Let’s put these myths to rest. 

First, intentionally ending the life of an unborn child is not necessary to save the life of his or her mother. And that is exactly what an abortion is: the intentional killing of a child in the womb. Abortions are carried out inside the womb using chemicals or instruments to ensure the child is deceased before he or she is delivered from the mother’s body. 

Former abortionist and practicing OB/GYN, Dr. Anthony Levatino stated in a testimony before Congress: 

“During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by ‘terminating’ pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those hundreds of cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.” 

Indeed, as Dr. Levatino notes, what may absolutely be necessary is delivering her baby early. Doing so does not require intentionally killing her child before delivery.  

Preterm Delivery: The Appropriate Treatment — Not Abortion 

When a mother’s life is in imminent danger due to conditions such as severe preeclampsia, sepsis, or hemorrhage, the correct medical response is known as preterm parturition, which means delivering the baby early.  

In these tragic circumstances, doctors work to save both patients — mother and child — by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section with the intent of delivering the baby alive, even if at a gestational age too young for survival. While heartbreaking, this is not an abortion by definition — and it does not violate pro-life or medical ethics. 

Why? Because the intent is fundamentally different: 

• Preterm delivery effectively treats the mother’s medical crisis while attempting to preserve the life of the child. 

• Induced abortion, by contrast, is the direct and deliberate killing of the child while he or she is still in the womb, before he or she is delivered. 

It is important to note a third term that often adds confusion to this discussion: spontaneous abortion. “Spontaneous abortion” is the medical term for miscarriage. Unlike the intentional killing of a child committed in an induced abortion, miscarriage occurs spontaneously, without any action taken to intentionally kill the child.  Activists have falsely claimed that pro-life laws criminalize miscarriage and conflated spontaneous and induced abortions despite the clear lack of intent in miscarriage losses. No pro-life law seeks to criminalize the tragedy of miscarriage.  

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) affirms the Dublin Declaration, which states:  

“As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatments results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.” 

What About Ectopic Pregnancy? 

What about cases of ectopic pregnancy, which are usually discovered quite early in pregnancy, long before the baby’s life can be saved through medical interventions after delivery?  

The answer is the same: When the mother’s life is in danger — as it always is in cases of ectopic pregnancy — the baby should be removed from the mother.  

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the preborn child implants somewhere in the mother’s body other than in her uterus. After fertilization, the newly formed child must make a journey in the first days of his or her life to implant in the safe and nourishing lining of the mother’s uterus. In cases of ectopic pregnancy, the child has implanted somewhere else — usually in the mother’s fallopian tube.  

It is important to note that the child cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy because only the uterus is equipped for gestation. The child must be removed or risk rupturing and causing life-threatening internal bleeding for the mother.  

AAPLOG explains:  

“An ectopic pregnancy requires removing an embryo to save a mother’s life so that both lives are not lost. This life-saving treatment is not prevented by any current law restricting or banning abortion. Claiming that it is only serves to confuse women and potentially cause critical delays in care.” 

A common treatment for ectopic pregnancy is the removal of the section of the mother’s fallopian tube where the baby is growing. This procedure is called a salpingectomy. Pro-life advocates and lawmakers have no moral objection to treating ectopic pregnancies.    

“Life of the Mother” and “Health of the Mother” Are Distinct Concepts 

Much of the confusion around this issue stems from how legal exceptions are worded.: 

Here’s the distinction:  

• “Life of the mother” refers to cases where the mother is facing imminent death or bodily harm without medical intervention. This exception in pro-life laws exists to explicitly clarify that a pro-life law should not be interpreted as preventing any emergency care deemed necessary when a pregnant woman is in imminent danger of death. 
• “Health of the mother” could refer to almost anything that might affect any definition of health — physical, emotional, financial, or social discomfort. “Health of the mother” has been used to create broad loopholes in the law to justify abortion on demand, for any reason, at any point in pregnancy.  

For instance, under Illinois’ Reproductive Health Act, the “health” exception includes “all factors that are relevant to the patient’s health and well-being including, but not limited to, physical, emotional, psychological, and familial health and age.” In other words, abortion is legal until birth in Illinois for any reason thanks to a deceptive “health” carveout. 

Conclusion: We Love Them Both 

Women facing pregnancy emergencies deserve the highest level of medical care, compassion, and clarity. Thankfully, with modern medicine, we do not have to choose to save a mother by intentionally killing her child. And no pro-life law stands between a pregnant mother and any treatment deemed necessary to save her life. 

The pro-life movement loves both the mother and child. We will always insist on protecting both lives whenever possible. We also acknowledge that there are situations when both cannot be saved.  

Understanding that distinction allows us to advocate for policies that uphold the dignity of every human life — mother and child — even amidst the most difficult circumstances. 

For Further Reading:  

The Bioethics of High-Risk Pregnancies, National Catholic Bioethics Center 

Medical Indications for Separating a Mother and Her Unborn Child, Charlotte Lozier Institute 

Premature Delivery Is Not Induced Abortion, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists 

What Percentage of Abortions Are Medically Necessary?, Human Life International 

Abortion for Life of the Mother, Students for Life of America  

This content is provided for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as medical advice or a replacement for consultation with a health care provider.