This post originally appeared at https://www.prolifewi.org/blog/2021/7/7/explaining-the-exceptions-life-of-the-mother

EXPLAINING THE EXCEPTIONS: LIFE OF THE MOTHER

By Anna DeMeuse, Pro-Life Wisconsin Communications Director

“We are 100% pro-life, without exception and without apology.” This phrase is commonplace in the Pro-Life Wisconsin vernacular. But what does “without exception” really mean, and how do we effectively convey this to others?

The three exceptions often cited to justify legal abortion are rape, incest, and life of the mother; although, according to the Guttmacher Institute and the Center for Disease Control, these exceptions make up less than 1% of all abortions. This does not stop proabortionists from using the 1% to justify the other 99% of all abortions. The life-of-the-mother exception is a difficult one to speak of with others, but it is crucial to understand why this exception is so unnecessary.

Two facts must be accepted before discussing the life of-the-mother exception further:

1) The life of the mother and the life of the child are equal – one life is not more important than the other.

2) Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of a human being in utero.

The first truth mentioned above speaks to the duty of the physician. When a difficult medical case endangers the life of a pregnant mother, it is the duty of the physician to make his or her best effort to save both patients, mother and preborn child, giving equal care to both. This duty prevents the doctor from performing an abortion, which as we know from the definition above is the direct and intentional killing of a human being in utero. There is a critical difference between the intentional destruction of a preborn child and the unwanted death of a preborn child due to necessary medical intervention.

For example, if a pregnant woman has a cancerous uterus that imminently threatens her life, the uterus may be removed even though such removal would result in the death of the preborn child. Similarly, when a fertilized ovum lodges in the fallopian tube and grows there, the damaged portion of the tube containing the preborn child may be removed where it is clearly necessary to save the mother’s life. In both scenarios, the death of the preborn child was not intentional and therefore not an abortion.

Such operations are justified by the principle of double effect, because the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation justified to save the mother’s life. They do not involve the intentional killing of a preborn child. *Now, if the physician performed an abortion prior to an operation to save the mother’s life, this would constitute an abortion, as the killing of the preborn child would therefore be direct and intentional.

“Legally,” Pro-Life Wisconsin’s Legislative Director, Matt Sande, explains, “such operations that result in the unintended death of a preborn child are not considered abortions. The removal of such conditions has never been prosecuted in this country, even when the mother’s life was not immediately threatened. Therefore, there is no need to provide a specific exception for such cases in a statute or constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion.”

“Moreover, an explicit exception for the life of the mother is dangerous,” Sande says. “One should never attempt to codify in law the importance of one innocent human life over and above another. Physicians should never be given a license to intentionally kill either the mother or the child. In addition, many abortionists believe that the very condition of pregnancy itself is a life-threatening condition. Consequently, a life-of-the mother exception can become a massive statutory loophole through which to drive abortion on demand.”

There is, however, a moral and effective way to address the mother’s life in pro-life legislation. Sande provides the excerpted language from 2006 South Dakota House Bill (HB) 1215 which provides a good example of requiring equal protection for mother and child and granting the physician immunity if he or she follows the requirement. The language reads:

“No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice. Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child is not a violation of this statute. (Section 4, 2006 South Dakota HB 1215)”

More information on exceptions here.