This week ProPublica reported on the tragic death of Amber Nicole Thurman. Thurman obtained chemical-abortion pills in North Carolina. After returning home to Georgia, she experienced a rare complication. She had not yet expelled all of the fetal tissue. She checked into Piedmont Henry Hospital to receive a dilation-and-curettage (D and C) procedure to remove the fetal remains. There were delays in her treatment, her condition deteriorated, and she tragically died. ProPublica reports that a state committee deemed Thurman’s death “preventable” and argues that delays in Thurman’s care were caused by Georgia’s pro-life laws.
Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media opportunistically pounced on this tragic story. It was covered by the New York Times, Slate, Mother Jones, People, and numerous other mainstream media outlets. Countless politicians and elected officials got in on the act. Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris mentioned the story on Twitter, stating that “Trump Abortion Bans prevent doctors from providing basic medical care.” Harris even plans to give a speech today in Georgia where she will tout her support for legal abortion and will likely blame Georgia’s pro-life laws for Thurman’s untimely death.
Thurman’s death is certainly tragic. However, there are aspects to her story that we simply do not know. ProPublica, which broke the story, indicates that an official state committee tasked with examining pregnancy-related deaths deemed Thurman’s death “preventable.” However, the full review of her patient case is not public. Furthermore, the ProPublica article contains no information from medical professionals directly involved with Thurman’s care. Communications staff from this hospital and the Georgia Department of Public Health also did not provide comments on Thurman’s case.
More importantly, as my Charlotte Lozier Institute colleague Dr. Christina Francis points out in her recent Atlanta Journal Constitution opinion piece, Georgia’s pro-life heartbeat act was not responsible for Thurman’s death. That is because the law allows physicians to intervene in cases of medical emergencies or if the preborn child has no detectable heartbeat. Both of these clearly applied in Thurman’s case. Furthermore, a D&C to remove the remains of an unborn child that has died is not an abortion and is not criminalized in Georgia.
In this case, Thurman’s death was caused by chemical-abortion pills. However, mainstream media outlets steadfastly refuse to cover the risks of these chemical-abortion drugs. The FDA’s own labeling states that one in 25 women will have to visit the emergency room after taking mifepristone. Furthermore, research from multiple peer-reviewed journals show that chemical abortions have four times the complication rate of surgical abortions. Even so, the FDA has removed safeguards over time and now women can obtain chemical abortions without an in-person medical examination.
Unfortunately, the playbook here is all too familiar. Supporters of legal abortion and their mainstream media allies have been all too willing to exploit the tragic deaths of pregnant women to strike down pro-life laws. The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012 was used to repeal pro-life protections in Ireland. Similarly, the tragic death of Indiana teenager Becky Bell in 1988 was used to discourage states from enacting pro-life parental-involvement laws. In both cases, there was no consensus among medical professionals that pro-life policies caused these tragic deaths.
The media narrative is often for pro-lifers difficult to overcome. Indeed, better reporting would show that chemical abortions pose serious health risks for women. It would also show that pro-life laws are specifically drafted to allow medical professionals to assist pregnant women in need.