MediaRead Next
Abortion Pill
FedEx shareholders warn of legal risks if company ships abortion pills
Nancy Flanders
·Spotlight Articles
WATCH: Lila Rose defends the pro-life position on the Dr. Daf Show
In a recent debate against a large panel of pro-abortion women on the Dr. Daf Show, Live Action founder and president Lila Rose answered a host of pro-abortion challenges to pro-life beliefs.
On the Dr. Daf Show, Live Action founder and president Lila Rose discussed various pro-life beliefs in a debate with a panel of pro-abortion women.
Rose addressed multiple issues, including whether women should be jailed for miscarriage and whether the "burning IVF clinic" scenario proves anything at all about human dignity or worth.
Other pro-abortion myths were mentioned and addressed, as well.
One debater on the Dr. Daf panel of women attempted to equate miscarriage to involuntary manslaughter:
"So... suppose abortion is made illegal...
How would we deal with miscarriages? Would that be like involuntary manslaughter?... If a fetus or an embryo is equivalent to a human life, I mean, like, if a child dies under your care, typically you'll be investigated if you were negligent.
So, I mean, I think that every miscarriage would have to be investigated to make sure that they didn't they weren't actually lying and they had gotten an abortion or something or if they were underweight, overweight, if they'd been drinking, if they did drugs.
I mean, if they had, like, thyroid issues, diabetes, and then I mean, we'd have to do what we'd have to do, right? We'd have to put them away for like one to three years in the county jail."
Well... no.
What would be the purpose of jailing a woman who has no idea how or why her natural miscarriage occurred, or how she might have prevented it?
The vast majority of first-trimester miscarriages are caused by chromosomal abnormalities, which are out of the woman's control. And in general, if half of all miscarriages are caused by undeterminable factors — so, how would charging a woman with involuntary manslaughter bring about justice in such situations?
WebMD notes that while there are some possible common contributors to miscarriage (emphasis added), "Be aware that you can do everything 'right' and still have a miscarriage. Try not to add guilt or self-blame to your emotional burden."
The debater clearly portrayed all women who miscarry naturally as guilty — and women who grieve their miscarriages already tend to blame themselves, so these comments are highly insensitive to those women:
"But if you miscarry and it's your fault because you're underweight, overweight, you have diabetes, thyroid issues. That would be... just incredible negligence, right? Because you would have killed a person. If if a fetus or an embryo is a person, you would have killed it. Even if you didn't mean to, it would be very tragic. But it would be, you know, it would be because of you."
Rose responded to the debater by saying that no pro-life law in any state prosecutes women for miscarriage, and that intentional killing by abortion is not the same as an accidental death (miscarriage), adding, "In a miscarriage, that is something outside of your control as a woman and it's a tragedy that happens." She added:
"I think it might be different if a woman was intentionally trying to cause a miscarriage, ultimately an abortion by taking an abortion drug or something of that nature.
But if she has a medical condition, a lot of women cannot help that.
So the pro-life states that have banned abortion, miscarriage is absolutely in no way, shape, or form criminalized."
In some cases, there have been suspicious circumstances surrounding miscarriage which were then investigated (largely, illicit drug use) which have led to manslaughter charges based on certain interpretations of state manslaughter statutes. However, such cases were also happening well before Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, and more than 95% of these cases involved maternal substance abuse during pregnancy.
As LegalOverview.com pointed out, "The key legal question is always intent." The site also states, "... People have gone to jail after pregnancy loss, though not for miscarriage itself. Prosecutors use related charges like feticide, illegal abortion, or drug delivery to an unborn child."
It's as Rose stated: natural miscarriage itself is not criminalized.
The same debater then made the false claim that later abortions are only done for life-threatening cases or in cases of fetal abnormality, as members of the panel nodded along (emphasis added):
"They only happen, um, if like, the the fetus is like, not viable at all or if the mom is going to die, and it's typically a very horrible experience for everyone involved because that baby is very much wanted. Um, that's like, that's a third trimester abortion."
This is incorrect, and pro-abortion research has been refuting this idea for, quite literally, decades.
As Live Action News previously reported (emphases added):
A 1988 Guttmacher study noted that only 2% of women seek late-term abortions because of a fetal abnormality.
Pro-abortion researcher Diana Greene Foster has stated, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service, that abortions for fetal abnormalities “make up a small minority of later abortion.” Foster’s 2013 study published by the Guttmacher Institute states, “data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”
In addition, a 2010 paper from Julia Steinberg with the pro-abortion Bixby Center for Global Health states, “Research suggests that the overwhelming majority of women having later abortions do so for reasons other than fetal anomaly (Drey et al., 2006; Finer et al., 2005, 2006; Foster et al., 2008).”
There are several facilities that commit later abortions. One of those, the Dupont Clinic in Washington, D.C., advertises abortion past 26 weeks for any reason, stating (emphasis added), “If you are 26 weeks or later into your pregnancy, we can still see you, regardless of your medical history, background, or fetal indications. We do not require any particular ‘reason’ to be seen here – if you would like to terminate your pregnancy, we support you in that decision." (Note that the third trimester begins at week 28.)
In addition, any mother later in pregnancy whose life is at risk can have the baby delivered either by induction of labor or by emergency C-section; no intentional killing by abortion needs to happen in such a case.
Yet, the myth that later abortions are only done if the mother or baby are in a serious situation persists.
Other points the panel mentioned were the usual attempted "gotcha" questions, like:
"... Let's say an IVF clinic is on fire. There's a bunch of, you know, fertilized eggs in there. There's also a crying baby. Uh you can save one. You can grab an armful of the fertilized eggs or you can save the crying baby. Which one do you pick?"
But as Rose pointed out, which lives a rescuer chooses to save in a split-second emergency says nothing at all about the value or dignity of those human lives. The "burning IVF clinic" scenario was addressed in a previously released video from Live Action:
Rose responded:
"... I think just like if there were two kids in there, one was my kid and one was somebody else's kid, I'd run to my kid first, right?...
But if... I run to that newborn baby crying because I hear it crying, like, I want to go protect it. So, I'm going to run to it, right? And I'm going to try to save it.
That doesn't mean that the other babies on ice, these embryos that are, you know, literally on ice... doesn't mean that they don't have human value.
... So who you save in an emergency situation, like a fireman who goes into a house and he saves the baby before maybe he saves the adult man, right? It doesn't mean the baby has more human value than the adult man....
If I go into an emergency situation, I'm saving a crying baby because it's crying and I want to grab it and protect it, right? And those those embryos on ice... I'm going to run and try to save them, too. But that doesn't mean that the embryos on ice aren't human, aren't individual human lives, and don't have value.
And it doesn't also mean that it would be... moral to go and kill those embryos....
In the burning... building situation, me saving the baby versus the man doesn't mean that all of a sudden it's okay to go and kill the man.
That's what we're talking about right now."
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Nancy Flanders
·
Human Interest
Bridget Sielicki
·
Media
Isabella Childs
·
Abortion Pill
Cassy Cooke
·
Human Rights
Nancy Flanders
·
Human Interest
Nancy Flanders
·
Investigative
Kelli Keane
·
Abortion Pill
Kelli Keane
·
Investigative
Kelli Keane
·
Issues
Kelli Keane
·
Fact Checks
Kelli Keane
·WATCH: Lila Rose defends the pro-life position on the Dr. Daf Show
In a recent debate against a large panel of pro-abortion women on the Dr. Daf Show, Live Action founder and president Lila Rose answered a host of pro-abortion challenges to pro-life beliefs.
On the Dr. Daf Show, Live Action founder and president Lila Rose discussed various pro-life beliefs in a debate with a panel of pro-abortion women.
Rose addressed multiple issues, including whether women should be jailed for miscarriage and whether the "burning IVF clinic" scenario proves anything at all about human dignity or worth.
Other pro-abortion myths were mentioned and addressed, as well.
One debater on the Dr. Daf panel of women attempted to equate miscarriage to involuntary manslaughter:
"So... suppose abortion is made illegal...
How would we deal with miscarriages? Would that be like involuntary manslaughter?... If a fetus or an embryo is equivalent to a human life, I mean, like, if a child dies under your care, typically you'll be investigated if you were negligent.
So, I mean, I think that every miscarriage would have to be investigated to make sure that they didn't they weren't actually lying and they had gotten an abortion or something or if they were underweight, overweight, if they'd been drinking, if they did drugs.
I mean, if they had, like, thyroid issues, diabetes, and then I mean, we'd have to do what we'd have to do, right? We'd have to put them away for like one to three years in the county jail."
Well... no.
What would be the purpose of jailing a woman who has no idea how or why her natural miscarriage occurred, or how she might have prevented it?
The vast majority of first-trimester miscarriages are caused by chromosomal abnormalities, which are out of the woman's control. And in general, if half of all miscarriages are caused by undeterminable factors — so, how would charging a woman with involuntary manslaughter bring about justice in such situations?
WebMD notes that while there are some possible common contributors to miscarriage (emphasis added), "Be aware that you can do everything 'right' and still have a miscarriage. Try not to add guilt or self-blame to your emotional burden."
The debater clearly portrayed all women who miscarry naturally as guilty — and women who grieve their miscarriages already tend to blame themselves, so these comments are highly insensitive to those women:
"But if you miscarry and it's your fault because you're underweight, overweight, you have diabetes, thyroid issues. That would be... just incredible negligence, right? Because you would have killed a person. If if a fetus or an embryo is a person, you would have killed it. Even if you didn't mean to, it would be very tragic. But it would be, you know, it would be because of you."
Rose responded to the debater by saying that no pro-life law in any state prosecutes women for miscarriage, and that intentional killing by abortion is not the same as an accidental death (miscarriage), adding, "In a miscarriage, that is something outside of your control as a woman and it's a tragedy that happens." She added:
"I think it might be different if a woman was intentionally trying to cause a miscarriage, ultimately an abortion by taking an abortion drug or something of that nature.
But if she has a medical condition, a lot of women cannot help that.
So the pro-life states that have banned abortion, miscarriage is absolutely in no way, shape, or form criminalized."
In some cases, there have been suspicious circumstances surrounding miscarriage which were then investigated (largely, illicit drug use) which have led to manslaughter charges based on certain interpretations of state manslaughter statutes. However, such cases were also happening well before Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, and more than 95% of these cases involved maternal substance abuse during pregnancy.
As LegalOverview.com pointed out, "The key legal question is always intent." The site also states, "... People have gone to jail after pregnancy loss, though not for miscarriage itself. Prosecutors use related charges like feticide, illegal abortion, or drug delivery to an unborn child."
It's as Rose stated: natural miscarriage itself is not criminalized.
The same debater then made the false claim that later abortions are only done for life-threatening cases or in cases of fetal abnormality, as members of the panel nodded along (emphasis added):
"They only happen, um, if like, the the fetus is like, not viable at all or if the mom is going to die, and it's typically a very horrible experience for everyone involved because that baby is very much wanted. Um, that's like, that's a third trimester abortion."
This is incorrect, and pro-abortion research has been refuting this idea for, quite literally, decades.
As Live Action News previously reported (emphases added):
A 1988 Guttmacher study noted that only 2% of women seek late-term abortions because of a fetal abnormality.
Pro-abortion researcher Diana Greene Foster has stated, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service, that abortions for fetal abnormalities “make up a small minority of later abortion.” Foster’s 2013 study published by the Guttmacher Institute states, “data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”
In addition, a 2010 paper from Julia Steinberg with the pro-abortion Bixby Center for Global Health states, “Research suggests that the overwhelming majority of women having later abortions do so for reasons other than fetal anomaly (Drey et al., 2006; Finer et al., 2005, 2006; Foster et al., 2008).”
There are several facilities that commit later abortions. One of those, the Dupont Clinic in Washington, D.C., advertises abortion past 26 weeks for any reason, stating (emphasis added), “If you are 26 weeks or later into your pregnancy, we can still see you, regardless of your medical history, background, or fetal indications. We do not require any particular ‘reason’ to be seen here – if you would like to terminate your pregnancy, we support you in that decision." (Note that the third trimester begins at week 28.)
In addition, any mother later in pregnancy whose life is at risk can have the baby delivered either by induction of labor or by emergency C-section; no intentional killing by abortion needs to happen in such a case.
Yet, the myth that later abortions are only done if the mother or baby are in a serious situation persists.
Other points the panel mentioned were the usual attempted "gotcha" questions, like:
"... Let's say an IVF clinic is on fire. There's a bunch of, you know, fertilized eggs in there. There's also a crying baby. Uh you can save one. You can grab an armful of the fertilized eggs or you can save the crying baby. Which one do you pick?"
But as Rose pointed out, which lives a rescuer chooses to save in a split-second emergency says nothing at all about the value or dignity of those human lives. The "burning IVF clinic" scenario was addressed in a previously released video from Live Action:
Rose responded:
"... I think just like if there were two kids in there, one was my kid and one was somebody else's kid, I'd run to my kid first, right?...
But if... I run to that newborn baby crying because I hear it crying, like, I want to go protect it. So, I'm going to run to it, right? And I'm going to try to save it.
That doesn't mean that the other babies on ice, these embryos that are, you know, literally on ice... doesn't mean that they don't have human value.
... So who you save in an emergency situation, like a fireman who goes into a house and he saves the baby before maybe he saves the adult man, right? It doesn't mean the baby has more human value than the adult man....
If I go into an emergency situation, I'm saving a crying baby because it's crying and I want to grab it and protect it, right? And those those embryos on ice... I'm going to run and try to save them, too. But that doesn't mean that the embryos on ice aren't human, aren't individual human lives, and don't have value.
And it doesn't also mean that it would be... moral to go and kill those embryos....
In the burning... building situation, me saving the baby versus the man doesn't mean that all of a sudden it's okay to go and kill the man.
That's what we're talking about right now."
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Nancy Flanders
·Human Interest
Bridget Sielicki
·Media
Isabella Childs
·Abortion Pill
Cassy Cooke
·Human Rights
Nancy Flanders
·Human Interest
Nancy Flanders
·Investigative
Kelli Keane
·Abortion Pill
Kelli Keane
·Investigative
Kelli Keane
·Issues
Kelli Keane
·Fact Checks
Kelli Keane
·