Two women in Georgia, along with their unborn children, are dead. If it weren’t for abortion drugs, they might all still be alive.
But the abortion industry, the Left, and some in media are blaming Georgia’s abortion law.
They’re wrong.
Here are the facts of the two tragic cases—and how they could have been prevented.
Amber Thurman
In 2022, Amber Thurman sought emergency care due to complications after having an abortion using the two-drug regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol.
At the time, she was about nine weeks pregnant with twins. Mifepristone cuts off a hormone that sustains pregnancy, causing the unborn child to die. Misoprostol causes uterine contractions to expel the dead child from the uterus.
Thurman got the pills from an abortion clinic in North Carolina. As the abortion drug’s Food and Drug Administration warning label states (and the clinic should have highlighted), one of the possible complications is that sometimes not all of the dead child’s remains are expelled.
This retained fetal tissue can cause an infection, which can become life-threatening. That’s exactly what happened to Thurman.
The ProPublica article that initially reported these stories says that Georgia law prohibits the D&C (dilation and curettage) procedure necessary to remove retained tissue.
That is totally false. Here’s what Georgia law actually says.
Georgia law prohibits abortion of an unborn child with “a detectable human heartbeat.” An abortion is clearly defined as an act to deliberately “cause the death of an unborn child.” There are exceptions for cases of rape or incest, or if a woman’s life is in danger.
Like every other pro-life state, no doctor is banned from treating ectopic pregnancy or miscarriages.
And Georgia, like every other state in America, does not prohibit doctors from removing retained tissue. Pro-life doctors regularly perform D&Cs in pro-life states for cases of miscarriage or retained tissue. Why? Because a D&C in those cases is not an abortion.
ProPublica points the finger at Georgia’s pro-life law for causing confusion or delays, but there’s no reason it should have.
Thurman was clearly in a life-threatening emergency situation, and the procedure she needed to remove remaining tissue would not have been an abortion.
As the American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs puts it, her case is “one of the most clear-cut cases of medical malpractice (based on the information available publicly) that we have ever seen.”
Thurman’s death was completely preventable. Dangerous abortion drugs and a lack of timely treatment deserve scrutiny—not Georgia’s pro-life law.
Candi Miller
In 2022, Candi Miller ordered abortion pills online.
That means she was never evaluated in person by a doctor and never had an ultrasound to verify how far along in pregnancy she was.
We don’t know if the website she got the pills from warned her of signs of complications to watch out for.
For days after taking the pills, she suffered at home. According to her family, she was afraid to seek emergency care because she didn’t want to be prosecuted.
She never should have been too afraid to seek help, because no states place criminal penalties on postabortive women.
Miller died at home. An autopsy found that she had retained fetal tissue in her uterus, as well as some painkillers, including fentanyl, in her system.
It’s not clear if she intentionally overdosed, or if she was desperate to lessen the pain of the abortion.
Had she sought care in time, doctors might have been able to remove the retained tissue. In the article about Miller’s case, ProPublica yet again states that the D&C procedure to remove such tissue was a felony.
And yet again, the claim is simply false.
Deadly Consequences
The facts of both cases haven’t stopped Vice President Kamala Harris from rushing to falsely blame pro-life laws for these women’s deaths, saying that pro-life laws prevent doctors from “providing basic medical care.”
It hasn’t stopped the abortion industry from using these women’s tragic, preventable deaths as a reason to promote no limits on abortion whatsoever. It hasn’t stopped abortion advocates from spreading the deadly lie that women in pro-life states can’t seek lifesaving care.
Another woman died of sepsis after taking abortion pills in 2022. Her name was Alyona Dixon, and she lived in Nevada.
(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Her family is suing a hospital for wrongful death, alleging that she wasn’t properly treated in a timely manner when her abortion went wrong. But Nevada has lax abortion laws, so it’s “crickets” from the same crowd who is eager to blame pro-life laws in Georgia.
The sad truth is that these cases demonstrate why we should have stronger pro-life policies to protect women from dangerous abortion drugs—not weaker ones.
Here are some of the ways these women’s stories could have ended differently if better protections had been in place.
When the FDA approved abortion drugs in 2000, it required heightened safety standards. For example, women had to be seen in-person by a doctor, they had to ingest the pills in-person in a clinic, and they had to have an in-person follow-up visit to ensure that the abortion was complete. Abortion pills could only be used up to seven weeks’ gestation.
In 2016, President Barack Obama’s administration weakened those safety requirements. An in-person follow-up visit was no longer required, and the pills could be taken up to 10 weeks.
The Biden administration weakened the safety mechanisms further. Pills now can be dispensed through the mail, and women don’t have to see a provider in person at any point.
Those changes have consequences. We know, for example, that abortion pills are less effective, and complications are more likely the further along a woman is in her pregnancy.
Thurman was more than nine weeks along with twins. Miller was never seen in person by a doctor; so, without an ultrasound, we don’t know how far along she was in pregnancy (and neither does the website that shipped her the pills). She may have been much further along than 10 weeks, the FDA-approved limit.
Had either of these women had an in-person follow-up appointment after their abortions, perhaps a doctor would have realized sooner that they had not expelled all of their children’s remains and were at high risk of infection.
Abortion drugs have known, deadly risks, which include complications like retained tissue and infection. The FDA label for mifepristone says that roughly one out of 22 women who take the drugs will have to go to the emergency room.
Did Thurman and Miller know about these risks?
These poor women’s tragic deaths show that removing safety mechanisms for dangerous drugs can have deadly consequences. It should spur policymakers to do more to protect women and babies, not weaken pro-life laws.
Instead, the pro-abortion movement is lying about pro-life laws. Lying has consequences. How many women like Miller will not seek emergency care when they need it because they (wrongly) think a doctor won’t be able to treat them?
Thurman, Miller, and their children deserved better. American women deserve better.
It’s time to stop the lies. Abortion drugs end lives. Pro-life laws save lives.
This article was originally published at www.dailysignal.com
