Five women sue Texas claiming to have been harmed by pro-life laws

A group of women is suing the state of Texas, claiming its laws protecting preborn children from abortion put their lives at risk. All five women claim they were denied medically-necessary abortions; however, induced abortion in which a child is directly and intentionally killed is not medically necessary.

The women are being represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion advocacy group. The lead plaintiff is Amanda Zurawski, whose story made national headlines. Zurawski claimed she needed an abortion after experiencing incompetent cervix at 18 weeks. Though Zurawski clearly suffered medical neglect, induced abortion — the intentional killing of the baby — has never been the standard treatment for an incompetent cervix.

“Many times, if infection is ruled out, women can be treated with a stitch, called a cerclage, which is placed in her cervix to hold the unborn baby in until he or she can survive outside the mother,” Dr. Christina Francis, board member and CEO-elect of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists explained to Live Action News. “An attentive physician should be able to detect signs of infection early and, if present, provide the appropriate treatment – which would be induction of labor. This treatment is not prevented by any abortion restriction in the country.”

In a press release, the Center for Reproductive Rights announced Zurawski v. State of Texas, and claimed pro-life laws are putting women’s lives at risk.

“Texas officials claim the bans they passed protect ‘life,’ but there’s nothing pro-life about them. I nearly died as a direct result of the anti-abortion restrictions in Texas,” Zurawski said. “What’s more, they put the lives of my potential future children at risk, as the damage done to my body has already had a negative impact on my reproductive health.”

The lawsuit is asking for the state’s laws to be clarified by creating a “binding interpretation” of the already-existing medical exceptions and allowing doctors to exercise “good faith judgment” in committing abortions.

“This is the first lawsuit of its kind. It is the first lawsuit in which individual women have sued a state for the harm that they endured because abortion care has been criminalized in the wake of Roe’s reversal,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said. “We are seeking a ruling from the court that clearly permits doctors to provide a pregnant patient with abortion care when in the doctor’s good faith judgment, and in consultation with the patient, the doctor determines that the patient has a medical condition that poses a risk to their life or health. No one should be forced to wait until they are at death’s door to receive healthcare.”

Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, the abortion industry has publicly promoted the myth of medically necessary abortions. In every single case trumpeted by the media, women have been victimized by pro-abortion doctors who have refused to provide them with the standard of medical care they need and deserve. While it may sometimes be necessary to perform a C-section or labor induction to save a woman’s life, the intentional killing of a preborn child through induced abortion is never medically necessary.

Did you know that as little as $10 a month is enough to reach more than 3,000 people with the truth about abortion that no one else is telling them? Click here to start saving lives 365 days a year.