OPINION: Is lethal injection of a preborn child 'modern healthcare'? 

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this guest post are solely those of the author.

A new medical publication from the Society of Family Planning (SFP), developed jointly with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and slated for publication in the October 2025 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, addresses the induction of fetal asystole (cardiac arrest) prior to abortion, stating, “…induction of fetal asystole prevents the infrequent but serious occurrence of unanticipated expulsion of a fetus with cardiorespiratory activity.”

Translated to non-medical jargon, this endorses the idea that healthcare providers should consider deliberately stopping the preborn baby’s heart prior to abortion, if abortion is performed after the gestational age when the baby can survive outside the womb (periviable) so that the abortion procedure does not result in the birth of a living baby.

Undeniably violent acts

This guidance outlines specific procedures to induce fetal demise prior to the birth of the child, including transection of the umbilical cord while the child is still in the womb to facilitate exsanguination. It also discusses procedures for injecting of cardiotoxic chemicals, like digoxin, potassium chloride, and lidocaine, into the baby’s heart to cease cardiac activity. 

This guidance describes methods that are undeniably violent acts against an unborn child.

The deliberate cessation of a fetal heartbeat through chemical injection or exsanguination via umbilical cord transection before birth raises profound ethical questions regarding the definition of "healthcare."

The assertion that "abortion is healthcare" becomes highly problematic when considering procedures that involve the lethal injection of a child in the womb. Such actions challenge conventional understandings of healthcare, which typically aims to preserve life and well-being, not to intentionally end it. Equating these procedures with healthcare fundamentally redefines the term in a way that is inconsistent with its traditional meaning and ethical foundations.

Is this what we now call “modern healthcare”?

3rd Trimester Late-Term Abortion | Induction Abortion | What Is Abortion?

Since when does healthcare include feticide by lethal injection of preborn babies? Healthcare, by its very definition, aims to preserve life, alleviate suffering, and promote well-being.

Any action that deliberately causes the cessation of fetal cardiac activity prior to birth is antithetical to the healing and life-affirming mission of medicine.

A basic tenet of medical ethics is the principle of "primum non nocere," which translates to “first do no harm”.

Shall we try to convince ourselves as medical professionals, and as society as a whole, that injecting toxic chemicals into an unborn child’s heart is anything less than harmful to that child? Is not the deliberate cutting of the umbilical cord before the child is born not causing direct harm?

Obstetrical healthcare providers have an ethical duty to protect the preborn child as well, alongside their primary commitment to the pregnant woman. As a board certified OBGYN physician who proudly practices life-affirming care, I find it a privilege and an honor to care for both.

Circumventing 'born-alive' protections

This new publication seems to provide steps to circumvent “born alive” legislative protections for children who survive abortions.

As of September 21, 2025, a sizable number of U.S. states have enacted born-alive laws, and there have been ongoing legislative efforts at both state and federal levels to strengthen or introduce such protections. The federal Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act has been a recurring legislative proposal, aiming to establish federal requirements for medical care for infants born alive after an abortion attempt.

This soon-to-be-released medical guidance acknowledges the conundrum of having the unexpected result of a child being born alive after an attempted abortion. Rather than taking a stance for providing life sustaining care to a baby who survives abortion, the Society of Family Planning together with the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine addresses this possibility by ensuring fetal death while still in the womb.

Should this not bother us as a society? Should this not bother us as trained medical professionals who took an oath to first do no harm?

As a specialist in women’s healthcare, I find this new guidance disturbing and heartbreaking. We can do better for our patients than offer them lethal injection of their preborn child.

We can do better than offer them the option of draining the blood from their preborn baby prior to its birth.

It is time to take a stand for the preborn child. It is time to take a stand to first do no harm.

Bio: Hector O. Chapa, M.D. is an OBGYN and Diplomate for the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.