FACT CHECK: Are women being forced into C-sections due to pro-life laws?

A recent ProPublica article attempts to blame pro-life laws for the experiences of women in active labor who were coerced by hospital attorneys and judges into C-sections against their will.

ProPublica, a pro-abortion outlet, has repeatedly exploited tragedies with the goal of promoting pro-abortion legislation. This appears to simply be more of the same.

But is it likely that these incidents were the fault of pro-life laws?

Key Takeaways:

• One woman was in active labor at UF Health Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, when she was reportedly forced to attend a virtual hearing with a judge and hospital lawyers who coerced her into a C-section against her will.

• Doyley endured the three-hour hearing while laboring, and without a lawyer or advocate.

• ProPublica cited several other similar cases, most of which are decades old.

• Though these cases are not specifically linked to pro-life laws (including personhood laws), and some of them even predate such laws, ProPublica still attempts to blame the laws for these incidents.

The Details:

Writing for ProPublica, Amy Yurkanin recounted multiple troubling instances of women whose hospitals forced them to have C-sections:

Cherise Doyley

Cherise Doyley had been in labor for 12 hours at UF Health Hospital when a medical team came in with a computer tablet and instructed her to cover up. As Yurkanin reported:

A supervisor brought a tablet to Doyley’s bedside. Gathered on the screen were a judge in a black robe and several lawyers, doctors and hospital staff.

“It’s a real judge in there?” Doyley asked the nurse at the beginning of what would be a three-hour hearing. “Now this is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen.”

Doyley hadn’t asked for the hearing. The hospital had sought it. Doyley had mere minutes to prepare. She had no lawyer and no advocate — no one to explain to her what, exactly, was going on.

Judge Michael Kalil said the hospital had filed an emergency petition to force Doyley to have a C-section for the sake of her preborn child's health. Doyley had previously undergone three C-sections and didn't want a fourth, as she had experienced post-surgical complications in the past.

As reported by ProPublica:

Dr. Erin Burnett said during the hearing that she did not think Doyley could successfully give birth vaginally because she had a history of stalled labors. A long labor after prior C-sections could increase the risk of uterine rupture, which could kill Doyley and the child, she said.

She said the baby’s heart rate showed some signs of distress and told Doyley it would be better to have a C-section before it became an emergency. If the baby’s heart stopped or if she lost oxygen during delivery, the baby could suffer a brain injury or death.

Dr. John Davis, the chair of the obstetrics and gynecology department, testified that the hospital had been recognized for its low C-section rate and did not perform unnecessary surgeries. Doyley’s condition required intervention, he said.

Doyley was reportedly informed that she could "keep laboring unless there was an emergency." During the night, her baby's heart rate dropped for seven minutes, and Doyley was taken in for an emergency C-section. Her daughter was born "initially limp, [but] perked up and became responsive within a few minutes. Doctors took her to the NICU while Doyley went to recover."

The baby was in respiratory distress and was "placed on a continuous positive airway pressure machine to help with her breathing."

Doyley believes racism played a role in the way she was treated.

Brianna Bennett

Brianna Bennett, also mentioned by ProPublica, arrived at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital in labor. Like Doyley, she had undergone three previous C-sections, and wanted to avoid a fourth. With family members to care for, Bennett did not think she could handle recovering from a major abdominal surgery again.

After her labor continued for over 24 hours, hospital staff approached Bennett about a C-section, which she refused. The hospital then reached out to Jack Campbell, state attorney for the 2nd Judicial Circuit. An emergency hearing was established, which Bennett attended virtually from her hospital room.

Bennett said she found it offensive that so many people were concerned about the method of her delivery without taking into consideration how difficult it would be to take care of both herself and her baby while recovering from a C-section.

“Are any of you gonna help me bathe or shower? Are you gonna help change my pad? Are you gonna help lift the baby out of the bed and put me in the bed because I can’t lift my legs? Is anyone going to help me?”

But the baby's heart rate spiked, and Bennett ended up with a C-section. She claimed that "a doctor who visited her room during recovery told her she should never get pregnant again."

Prolonged labor is known to be dangerous — not just for the baby, but for the mother as well. After 24 hours, there are increased risks of infection, hemorrhage, incontinence, organ prolapse, and even uterine rupture.

Campbell said he had no regrets about his decision, claiming it saved two lives: Bennett's and her baby's. Bennett, however, was left emotionally traumatized.

“I’m real comfortable with what we did here,” Campbell said. “I hate the fact that she’s upset about it.”

A cry for help

Both Doyley and Bennett had three previous c-sections; a vaginal delivery is associated with numerous pros and cons. If successful, there is no denying that a vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC) is the safer, better option. But if the VBAC is unsuccessful, the risks (uterine rupture, hemorrhage, and death) are significantly higher than a scheduled C-section.

In both women's stories, they had experienced past trauma with C-sections. They were also well aware of the difficulties they had in recovering from a C-section while attempting to care for other members of the household, including a newborn. They were understandably fearful of going through it again.

These women needed supportive prenatal care to discuss and deal with past birth trauma and to make a birth plan; they needed supportive care during labor to help ease their pain and allay their fears (as pain and fear can stall labor); they also needed access to postpartum support once returning home.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s Deputy Director Dr. Deborah Allen said in 2021, "Having a well-informed, articulate, supportive person by your side, who knows the health care system... can be a buffer and a bridge when you’re dealing with medical providers and so on. [It] can really make the experience much more positive, much less stressful and, therefore, healthier for Black women.”

Risk for mom, baby... and doctors

While both women said they were willing to take the risk to continue laboring without a C-section, the risk to the lives of their children appears to be downplayed by ProPublica (likely due to its pro-abortion bias).

ProPublica also failed to mention that these sorts of situations can also create significant financial liability for hospitals and doctors — yet, inexplicably, this wasn't discussed as playing a possible role in pressuring the women to have C-sections.

Paula Sullivan, senior VP at Marsh (a global services firm that deals with insurance and risk management), discussed in 2022 why malpractice insurance costs are so high for OB/GYNs (emphases added):

“...[T]he primary driver of obstetric claims tends to be birth injuries, and those tend to be the largest claims that we see in medical malpractice. …These babies, if they survive, could have profound physical damages that often require round-the-clock care for the remainder of their life. Typically, what’s awarded is a life-care plan, and those run into the tens of millions of dollars.”

If the largest medical malpractice claims are due to a child's birth injuries, could this be why some women are pressured to have C-sections? The MSD Manual states (emphasis added):

Overall, the rate of birth injuries resulting from difficult or traumatic deliveries is much lower now than in previous decades because more fetuses are assessed with prenatal ultrasounds, forceps are being used less, and because doctors often do a C-section if they foresee an increased risk of birth injury.

While the hospital carried out these emergency hearings and court orders in an indefensible manner, the issue itself becomes much thornier when the reality of the situation is made clear — a mother is making a decision the doctor feels could lead to increased risks of harm or death. These are potential outcomes that no doctor or hospital — or insurance provider — wants to risk.

Zoom In:

Blaming "personhood laws"

While the article displayed beautiful photos of the mothers and their children today, Yurkanin also spent the length of the piece diminishing "fetuses" and essentially arguing that the health and safety of those same beautiful children shouldn't have been considered at all while they were in the womb.

Instead of considering other possible reasons for these women's circumstances, Yurkanin pointed her finger at personhood laws.

These laws acknowledge that preborn children have the inherent right to life, though in varying measures; some states allow abortion, but put penalties into place for crimes against pregnant women and their babies (such as assault or homicide) or by allowing wrongful death suits.

Are these cases the fault of personhood laws?

Yurkanin took issue with multiple state laws and cases, using them as examples of the dangers of personhood laws:

Multiple states had laws allowing women to be arrested and jailed for using drugs while pregnant.

Minnesota: A 1986 law recognized preborn children as victims in homicide cases

Florida: A woman was prosecuted for drug use during pregnancy in 1989 (a conviction which was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court) and used it as an example of the dangers of personhood laws. In 1999, Laura Pemberton refused a C-section in Tallahassee, Florida, and left against medical advice. "A local judge sent law enforcement to her house to bring her back. Once she returned to the hospital, the judge ordered her to have a C-section, which doctors carried out. She later sued in federal court and lost," notes the article. The 1999 decision by a federal district judge noted that Pemberton's "personal Constitutional rights in this situation... clearly did not outweigh the interests of... Florida in preserving the life of the unborn child." Yurkanin wrote: "The decision marked a legal turning point in prioritizing fetal rights over the religious freedom and bodily autonomy of the mother."

But to which "fetal right" is Yurkanin referring? Life.

If you take this most basic of rights away from anyone — "fetal" or not — none of the other rights can ever be obtained. Yurkanin is arguing here that controlling one's own body is a more crucial right than the very life of someone else — particularly, the life of someone who is completely defenseless and voiceless.

Court-ordered C-sections

In 2009, Samantha Burton had a premature rupture of membranes at 25 weeks pregnant. The hospital wanted her to remain as an admitted patient on bed rest until she delivered, but Burton wanted to go home and care for her other children. The hospital called for a hearing to force Burton to remain, and obtained a court order allowing her physician to make medical decisions for her. Three days later, Burton underwent a c-section, and her baby was stillborn.

Yurkanin noted that the Supreme Court refused to rule on the constitutionality of court-ordered c-sections in 1994; the first court order she cited took place in 1980 in Georgia, where a hospital was able to legally force a woman to have a c-section.

Not motivated by pro-life laws

➡ The majority of the cases Yurkanin cited took place before Roe v. Wade fell in 2022, and before pro-life laws of any kind were put into place.⬅

In Florida, for example, where many of these cases occurred, the first pro-life law to take effect was a 24-hour waiting period requirement in 2015. The Florida Unborn Victims of Violence Act, in which someone who assaults a pregnant woman and causes the death of the child will be held criminally accountable for the death, was passed in 2014.

Similar dates can be found across the country, making it clear that these actions are not motivated by pro-life laws.

But according to ProPublica, all of these cases happen because pro-life legislatures simply want to control women.

“All of it essentially is about the state’s ability to decide that a fetus, at any point during a pregnancy, is more important than the person who’s pregnant,” Rutgers University law professor Kimberly Mutcherson told Yurkanin.

Of course, this makes little sense, given that even under Roe v. Wade (to which every state was subject before June of 2022, when it was overturned by the Supreme Court) states could put laws in place protecting preborn children after a certain gestation. As Live Action News previously noted:

Roe v. Wade created a “trimester” framework for state abortion laws, where states could place some regulations on it in the third trimester and very few in the second. 

Roe required that states leave the first trimester entirely alone, forbidding them from doing anything to protect children at this stage of life.

The Bottom Line:

Obstetricians have two patients, not just one, which OB/GYNs typically acknowledge. An OB/GYN can face a difficult ethical decision when a woman is choosing a course of action that could potentially place the preborn child's life at risk.

However, every mother deserves support and sensitivity to her needs during her labor; subjecting a laboring mother to a virtual court hearing adds stress and fear at a time when a woman is already experiencing enormous amounts of pain, stress, and fear.