Four women sue Arkansas over pro-life law, but did they 'need' abortions?

Four women have joined a lawsuit against Arkansas over the state's pro-life law protecting most preborn children from abortion. The law, Act 180, allows induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of a child in the womb — only when the mother's life is considered to be at risk.

Key Takeaways:

• The complaint claims that Arkansas's pro-life law is "destroying not only the healthcare infrastructure of the state, but countless lives and families."

• The lawsuit alleges that each named woman needed an induced abortion and was denied one, but this is an untrue and harmful claim.

• When looking at the details of each woman's case, it is clear that induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of the preborn child — was unnecessary.

The Details:

The complaint, filed by Emily Waldorf, Theresa Van, Chelsea Stovall, Allison Howland, and Chad B. Taylor, M.D. "on behalf of himself and his patients," claims that Arkansas's pro-life law...

• is "destroying not only the healthcare infrastructure of the state, but countless lives and families."

• violates the state Constitution, which "promises its citizens extraordinary rights" including the "'inherent and inalienable rights' of 'enjoying and defending life and liberty' and 'of pursuing their own happiness."

• is "unconstitutionally vague."

From the start, the lawsuit ignores and even denies the humanity of preborn children and their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It isn't laws protecting preborn children that are "destroying...lives and families"— it's abortion itself.

Arkansas's Constitution promises the right to "enjoying and defending life," which cannot occur when abortion is legally permissible, as abortion ignores human rights by disregarding the child in the womb.

The lawsuit alleges that each named woman needed an induced abortion and was denied one, but this is an untrue and harmful claim.

Woman #1: Emily Waldorf

The lawsuit says Waldorf's 2024 pregnancy "progressed normally" until 17 weeks of pregnancy (15 weeks post-fertilization). On September 16, 2024, she "began experiencing vaginal bleeding and thought she could feel something coming out of her cervix." She went to Washington Regional Medical Center, where she was employed as a physical therapist.

"Ms. Waldorf was told that patients who are less than 20 weeks pregnant must ordinarily go through triage in the emergency room," says the complaint. "When she informed staff that she was experiencing an obstetrical emergency, they sent her to the hospital’s labor and delivery department for triage."

An OB/Gyn examined her and performed an ultrasound, which showed that "her amniotic sac was ballooning out of her cervix, and with it, her baby's foot." She was then seen by a maternal fetal medicine specialist and her primary OB, and was diagnosed with cervical insufficiency. She was two centimeters dilated.

Though doctors allegedly discussed using an emergency cerclage procedure to stitch the cervix in hopes of preventing delivery, they ultimately told Waldorf that because of "the advanced stage of her condition and the high risk of infection... she was not a good candidate for the procedure." Waldorf was admitted for observation and was informed that her risk of infection was high and she was going to lose the baby.

The lawsuit claims that "because her baby still had a heartbeat, Arkansas's abortion ban prohibited [doctors] from inducing labor until her own physical condition deteriorated further."

She was told she would be kept for observation for 24 to 48 hours to see if her condition changed, and if it did not, they would discharge her. She requested prophylactic antibiotics to protect her against potential infection, which is standard when there is a risk of infection during a situation like hers; however, hospital staff refused.

In the middle of the night, she passed a "tennis ball" size blood clot, and doctors told her she was four centimeters dilated.

The lawsuit alleges:

Hospital staff were eager to discharge Ms. Waldorf and started explaining to her what she should do if she went into labor at home. Ms. Waldorf begged them to let her stay in the hospital, where they could monitor her condition for signs of infection and repeatedly said she did not feel safe going home. Hospital staff eventually allowed her to stay for continued monitoring.

Her condition did not change, and during one ultrasound, the doctor allegedly remarked that the baby was "opening and closing her mouth" — a remark that "felt cruel and dehumanizing given the circumstances."

She requested labor induction, but hospital staff refused. She claims one told her, "Make sure your friends vote differently."

She said, “I think about the Hippocratic Oath and do no harm. I was going to have a baby that was not going to live, but I am also a living person who has a family.”

On Thursday morning, three days after arriving at the hospital, her water broke. She asked again to be induced and was allegedly told again that it was against the law. She claims doctors told her "Arkansas's abortion ban prohibited any intervention from the hospital to speed labor."

Allegedly, the on-call OB told Waldorf that "she had consulted with the hospital’s legal team and that they would not authorize induction of labor, as induction at that stage of pregnancy is an abortion.

According to the obstetrician, Ms. Waldorf only had two options: (1) she could stay in the hospital; or (2) drive herself to Kansas, where the laws are different. Ms. Waldorf asked if the hospital could medically transfer her to Kansas, given how quickly deadly infections can arise in her circumstance, but she was told the hospital could not provide a transfer either. Ms. Waldorf and her husband expressed concern that she would go into labor and/or start bleeding during the 240-mile drive through rural Arkansas and Missouri. These concerns were ignored."

On Friday morning, she hired attorney Molly Duane, who told the hospital it had to commit an abortion under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA). The hospital still refused to induce labor and Waldorf was ultimately taken to a hospital in Kansas City that would accept her. There, she is said to have undergone an "induction abortion" and her "blood pressure plummeted." She gave birth to a daughter named Bee, who died shortly after birth.

Waldorf continued to have complications, allegedly due to the delay in care. Her attorney reported Washington Regional to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for a potential violation of EMTALA, which determined that it had not violated the law.

The truth

Waldorf's condition did not necessitate an abortion, defined by Arkansas law as:

the act of using, prescribing, administering, procuring, or selling of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the purpose to terminate the pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the termination by any of those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child.

It allows abortion for medical emergency, noting:

'Medical emergency' means a condition in which an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

It also states, "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section if a licensed physician provides medical treatment to a pregnant woman which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child."

Two key facts show that what happened to Waldorf and Bee was not due to the pro-life law, but to medical neglect:

• Labor had already begun. It is not against the law to help labor along once it has naturally started. Induced labor is only considered to be an induced abortion if the baby is delivered with the intent to cause the child's death. In Waldorf's case, no one was trying to ensure her baby died; rather, preterm labor had already begun.

• Baby Bee was born alive, which means that she did not receive a lethal injection while still in the womb. Most induced labor abortions involve injecting the baby with a feticide such as digoxin to stop the heart before delivery. In some cases, a feticide is not used, and the baby is delivered alive with the intent that the baby dies. This is typically in cases in which the baby has received a prenatal diagnosis, and the parents have decided not to let the baby live. This is also not what happened in Waldorf's case. Her baby died as a result of a medical complication that caused preterm labor.

In 2023, a year after the Arkansas pro-life law took effect, there were 4,259 preterm births in the state, representing about 12% of all live births. According to a report, "When causes of death related to preterm birth are grouped together, preterm-related causes account for 23.8% of infant deaths in Arkansas." Yet these deaths due to preterm birth are not considered abortions.

Bee's birth was not considered an abortion.

The Pro-Life Reply to: "Is Abortion Ever Medically Necessary?"

Woman #2: Theresa Van

Theresa Van previously had an abortion in 2019 and suffered multiple pregnancy losses. In 2023, she got pregnant again, but the 20-week anatomy scan showed that her baby girl was measuring small and not moving much.

At a specialist appointment a couple of weeks later (in which the specialist was not present at the office but communicated with Van through an iPad), Van was told she had oligohydramnios — there was no amniotic fluid. The specialist said her daughter's organs would not fully develop, and if she survived to birth, she would not survive delivery. Van thought that if she left the state for an abortion, she would be a criminal. In addition, she thought traveling for an abortion would cause her "financial strain." According to the lawsuit, "She felt she had no choice but to continue her pregnancy until her daughter passed."

For weeks, she attended appointments to check on her daughter and eventually learned that she had developed placenta previa, in which the placenta was now covering part of the cervix. It carries risks of hemorrhage during delivery, the need for a C-section, and the need for a hysterectomy. Doctors warned her that the local hospital was not equipped for such a delivery.

Then, at one appointment, Van learned her baby had died. Van began to hyperventilate. She was 27 weeks pregnant when labor was induced to deliver her stillborn daughter, Cielle.

The truth

Induction of labor with the intention to cause the death of the baby is considered an abortion. Van did not need to have an abortion; her life was not at risk. In fact, a later abortion is just as risky, if not riskier, than giving birth with placenta previa. Most cases require a C-section, but Van was able to have a vaginal delivery.

In addition, there are treatments available for low or no amniotic fluid, including early delivery once the pregnancy is near full term. While there is no treatment that can completely correct oligohydramnios, there are options to try. It doesn't appear Van was given any of the options.

Woman #3: Chelsea Stovall

Stovall was pregnant with her third child when at 19 weeks, she underwent an anatomy scan, during which it was discovered that the baby had a congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). CDH is a condition in which the stomach and bowels move into the chest cavity and compress the lungs and heart. Doctors said the baby would not survive to term.

After a specialist confirmed the diagnosis, Stovall lost hope of her baby surviving. "She had a hole where her diaphragm should have been, and her intestines were wrapped so tightly around her lungs and her heart that they were not growing. It was not a matter of if I would have to say goodbye to her, it was a matter of when," Stovall said, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit further states, "The specialist explained that there was less than a 1% chance for her baby to make it to term and that while there were operations they could attempt, there was also less than a 1% chance of the baby surviving each successive surgery. The specialist explained that if she had been diagnosed just four weeks earlier, before Arkansas’s abortion bans took effect, the specialist would have been able to help Ms. Stovall and offer her immediate abortion care."

The truth

Stovall wanted an abortion, but aborting a baby because of a prenatal diagnosis is discriminatory, unnecessary, and therefore, against Arkansas law. She and her husband traveled to Illinois to undergo a second-trimester three-day abortion. She claimed that each time she went to the abortion facility, she had to "pass through protestors with signs, screaming at Ms. Stovall that she was killing her baby." She claims that on the third day, pro-lifers threw a bloody pad at her car.

This is quite the allegation, as pro-lifers are typically peaceful, offering women life-affirming options. Pro-abortion activists, however, have enjoyed using feminine hygiene products to harass pro-lifers.

Woman #4: Allison Howland

Howland learned she was pregnant after she was assaulted at a hotel while traveling for work. She filed a police report with the support of her husband, and was determined to have an abortion.

“I do not want to keep the product of this assault. It is not fair to me, and it’s my life. It is not fair to the potential child that could come out of it—to be born into a world where I feel the way I do is not fair. Call that selfish but I stand by it," she said in the lawsuit. "I was violated and put into extreme danger and living in a state like Arkansas—I was royally f***ed.”

Yet, she didn't have an abortion right away because she knew her baby would provide DNA evidence against the rapist. But the investigation faltered, and she alleges that after the police identified her rapist, they believed his claim that the sex was consensual, even saying he "seemed like a really nice guy."

She traveled to Illinois for an abortion while still in the first trimester.

The truth

Her baby was not a "product" — no baby is. Babies in the womb are fully human and do not deserve to be discriminated against because of the circumstances of their conception.

There is a myth that women who become pregnant from sexual assault would want nothing other than to have an abortion. That expectation is unfair to put on women who have suffered the trauma of rape.

One survey identified 37 women who had reported a rape-related pregnancy. Of them, 28 continued their pregnancy, five chose abortion, and four were lost to follow-up. Many of them did not have positive reactions to their pregnancies, as is understandable, but as the pregnancy progressed, their feelings became more positive.

In addition, a study of 164 such women found that the majority of those who had abortions regretted the abortion, which caused them additional issues. However, those who gave birth to a child conceived by rape reported higher satisfaction, and none shared any regret for having given birth.

The Pro-Life Reply to: "Abortion in Cases of Rape"

The Bottom Line:

There is no medical reason to intentionally kill a human being. When a pregnancy must end due to a complication or risk to the mother, the baby can be delivered and potentially saved.