No, abortion is not a 'cure-all' for pregnancy complications

In California, where Planned Parenthood is shutting down nine of its primary care clinics while keeping abortion in place, Attorney General Rob Bonta is attempting to force Catholic hospitals to commit abortions. This dedication to abortion is the result of years of media propaganda and corrupt medical organizations convincing Americans that intentionally killing preborn children is "health care."

Key Takeaways:

• Two California lawsuits are currently pending to force Catholic hospitals to commit abortions. Induced abortion (intentional killing, as opposed to emergency induction/delivery) is not medically necessary.

• It is clear that many hospitals and medical professionals have known for decades that intentional killing by induced abortion is not the standard of care for any pregnancy emergency.

• Yet, this summer, ACOG released advisory guidelines claiming that "abortion is health care" and that "abortion care should be offered to all patients" who experience PPROM in order to prevent possible adverse outcomes (not including death) to the mother.

The Details:

If major media outlets are to be believed, abortion is the cure-all for pregnant women. The lies about abortion are so widespread that if a doctor or hospital doesn't commit an induced abortion on a woman who thinks she needs one, they could face lawsuits.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is currently suing the Catholic hospital, Providence St. Joseph Hospital (SJH) in Eureka, because it did not commit an induced abortion on Anna Nusslock, whose water broke at 15 weeks of pregnancy with twins.

Known as Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes (PPROM), the standard of care for PPROM is not induced abortion — which is the direct and intentional killing of preborn children. However, the doctor that Nusslock saw at SJH informed her that this was what she needed.

Shouldn’t doctors know the difference between natural death and intentional killing?

The standard of care for PPROM has largely and historically been to admit the patient to the hospital, attempt to prevent labor, and watch for signs of infection — treating mother and child both as patients. If it is determined that the pregnancy must end, the standard of care is to induce labor and deliver a baby, even if too premature to survive.

Instead of providing her with that standard care, SJH advised her to abort, and then sent Nusslock to a different hospital. When she arrived, she gave birth naturally to one of her sons, who died shortly after due to prematurity. But her second son was then actively killed via a D&E dismemberment abortion, in which his legs and arms would have been torn from his body. It's a horrific practice and completely unnecessary, as she could have delivered her second child naturally and intact, as she had her first.

2nd Trimester Abortion | Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) | What Is Abortion?

SJH failed to provide Nusslock with the care she and her babies deserved; instead, one of her twins was treated as less than a valuable human being.

While a medical neglect lawsuit is plausible in this case, Bonta is taking the opportunity to try to force SJH, and thereby other Catholic hospitals in the state, to actively kill preborn children, even when a woman's life is not at risk.

The lawsuit alleges SJH violated California’s Emergency Services Treatment Requirement law by not committing the abortion. In September of 2024, when Bonta first filed the suit, he said:

With today’s lawsuit, I want to make this clear for all Californians: abortion care is healthcare. You have the right to access timely and safe abortion services. At the California Department of Justice, we will use the full force of this office to hold accountable those who, like Providence, are breaking the law.

In September 2024, Rachel Harrison went to a California hospital associated with Catholic Dignity Health: Mercy San Juan Medical Center. She claims that she was denied an abortion when, like Nusslock, she suffered from PPROM at 17 weeks.

Doctors allegedly told her that, because the hospital is Catholic and her baby had a heartbeat, there was nothing they could do for her. Like Nusslock, Harrison was denied any proper care, which might have saved her child's life as it has saved the lives of other children when their mothers experienced PPROM at 17 weeks.

Pressured to end her pregnancy due to PPROM, she held on… and witnessed a miracle

But then it happened again when Harrison was pregnant a second time in March 2025. She suffered PPROM again and was denied care again, this time by a different Dignity Health hospital: Mercy General Hospital. She is suing Dignity Health for not committing two abortions, but she should be suing because the doctors failed to try to save her babies.

The Main Issue:

The main issue in all of this is that, despite the fact that induced abortion has never been the immediate go-to or standard of care for PPROM, certain medical authorities and agencies have been captured by pro-abortion ideologues who believe the intentional killing of preborn human beings is "health care."

In June 2025, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in apparent counter to the assertion of pro-life medical groups that expectant management (and, if necessary, early delivery, not intentional feticide) is best in cases of PPROM, issued a new practice advisory. ACOG suggests that intentionally killing preborn children in such a case is "health care" and may be the best option.

Doctors save pregnant woman’s life without deliberately killing her preborn baby

In a press release announcing the advisory, ACOG president Steven J. Fleischman said (emphases added):

“It’s never been more important for clinicians to have clear guidance on how to treat previable and periviable PPROM. This guidance is critical because it rightly affirms that abortion care should be offered to all patients experiencing previable and periviable PPROM.

While expectant management should remain an option for certain patients, the higher rates of morbidity associated with expectant management—which may be greater than previously reported—must be part of the conversations that we have with our patients as they are making their care decisions.”

Morbidity is not the same as mortality. What this guidance is saying is that killing children is perfectly acceptable in order to potentially prevent an "unexpected health condition attributed to or complicating pregnancy and childbirth that has a negative impact on well-being or functioning" — not including the death of the mother.

Many parents in dire situations already feel medically coerced into aborting their children; will this guidance increase abortion coercion?

The release also claims, "timely access to abortion care can be lifesaving," and then touts its allegedly "unbiased" perspective (while blatantly revealing its biased perspective). Fleischman added (emphases added):

“Opponents to abortion, in an effort to diminish the role of abortion as a part of comprehensive health care, may suggest that expectant management of PPROM is a universally effective, appropriate approach for all patients.

ACOG’s unbiased, scientifically validated guidance should be a powerful rebuke to that allegation and a clear statement once again that abortion is health care.”

But this is a straw man.

AAPLOG's guidance clearly states that in a case of PPROM, delivery may become necessary, but intentionally killing the child is not.

If all hospitals adopt ACOG's guidance, it is likely that obstetricians and gynecologists will begin promoting abortion first, instead of expectant management and care for both patients, to all women experiencing PPROM.

ACOG has a history of changing its terminology to move the goal posts, but not in the interest of advancing science or clinical practice or of saving lives. Despite the fact that obstetricians are supposed to care for both mother and preborn child, ACOG is clear that it believes killing human beings prior to birth is "health care." ACOG was taken over by eugenicist population control enthusiasts shortly after its founding. Over the years, in response to pro-life efforts, it has:

• Changed it stance on the reality of the prenatal heartbeat while admitting that "early pregnancy loss" is evidenced by the lack of a preborn baby's heartbeat

• Changed the definitions of early and late abortion

• Redefined when life begins

... and more.

At least for the moment, it appears that induced abortion (intentional killing of a preborn child) is not part of the listed standard of care for PPROM on some medical websites, like Cleveland Clinic, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and others.

Has ACOG decided to stick with population control rather than human lives, and will they convince others to do the same?

Why It Matters:

The motivation behind these lawsuits is not based on a desire to see women and children treated with proper and respectful medical care, but to prop up the false idea that intentionally killing preborn human beings is a normal part of "health care." Many medical professionals and hospitals seem to know that if a pregnancy must end, doctors can deliver the baby without first killing him.

But if these lawsuits are successful, the lie of "medically necessary" feticide will be supported by the court system.

Within a year of Bonta filing his lawsuit, UC Berkeley School of Public Health published a study in Medical Care Research and Review that found that "Catholic-acquired hospitals were more likely to preserve or expand access to mission-oriented services — such as chaplaincy and charity care — and less likely than their non-Catholic counterparts to eliminate obstetrics care, even as many rural hospitals across the country are shuttering these units."

One would imagine this would inspire positive media attention for the Catholic-acquired hospitals. Not so.

UC Berkeley Public Health went on to say, "...Catholic hospitals also adhere to religious directives, which prohibit many other services, such as abortion, contraception, and sterilization..."

Decades upon decades of pro-abortion propaganda in the U.S. have led to this false notion that abortion, contraception, and sterilization are somehow health care. The nation has become obsessed with abortion as a treatment for pregnancy complications, seemingly unable to even understand the difference between ending a pregnancy through delivery and ending a pregnancy through intentional killing like dismemberment.

The Bottom Line:

The end result of these combined efforts to prop up abortion will be a state full of places to kill your baby and few places to receive adequate pregnancy care that cares about women and their preborn children.

In the mind of pro-abortion ideologues, the only good medicine is the kind that kills. And any hospital providing maternity care in areas where other hospital networks are closing maternity units, pro-abortion ideologues claim those hospitals provide substandard care for refusing to intentionally kill preborn babies by induced abortion.

If California abortion advocates win in court, similar cases will pop up across the country, and more doctors will be forced to violate their consciences or lose their jobs.

The loss of pro-life doctors and hospitals will leave mothers and children much more vulnerable to coercive abortion from medical staff, and more babies will be targeted for death.