Pro-abortion rhetoric continues to expand in the United States as abortion advocates dive deeper into the claim that induced abortion — the direct and intentional act of killing a preborn baby — is somehow a treatment for health conditions during pregnancy, including cancer. Poll results released this fall showed that a third (33%) of oncology fellows report that they “perceived” that pro-life laws “affected their ability to deliver at least one aspect of quality care for their patients.”

The results of the poll were published as “Perceived impact of abortion access on quality of cancer care and on future practice location decisions among oncology fellow physicians” by JCO Oncology Practice, an American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Journal. Of the 1,884 US medical oncology fellows who took the ASCO Medical Oncology In-Training Exam (ITE), 1,254 opted to partake in a post-ITE survey assessing “perceived (1) effect of abortion policies on ability to provide 9 key aspects of quality cancer care, including care access and delays, trust, and professional well-being and (2) impact of abortion restrictions on quality care in decisions of future practice location.” Thirty-three percent said that they believed pro-life laws would affect their ability to deliver at least one aspect of quality care for their cancer patients.

In addition, 51% of all fellows reported they will likely consider the abortion-related laws of a state when deciding where to practice medicine. However, the research notes that “More fellows training in states where abortion is legal report being likely to consider the impact of local abortion policies on care in future practice location decisions (55%) than those training in abortion-restricted states (45%).”

This signifies that those who trained in oncology in states with pro-life laws were less likely to see those laws as a threat to their ability to care for their pregnant oncology patients.

Women who have been through pregnancy while facing cancer diagnoses offered their stories as examples of how doctors trained to see abortion as a treatment for cancer often usher women toward abortion rather than actually treat them and their babies both as patients. They say that it was only after they refused abortion that doctors presented them with true options.

Susie Derkins said on X, “Did my oncologist talk to me about vitamin D? NO! Did my oncologist talk to me about my diet? NO! What did my oncologist want to talk about at my last visit? ABORTION RIGHTS! They really don’t care about you.”

Another, Mr Commonsense, tweeted a quote from a woman named Sarah Hull, who was diagnosed with cancer while pregnant.

She said, “People are talking about the medical necessity of abortion to save the mother’s life. I was one of those mothers. I was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer that was cutting off my airway at 20 weeks of pregnancy. I will never forget when the first doctor, an oncologist, mentioned abortion. We had gone through years of infertility to get pregnant. I knew I would rather die and give birth. Then I met with another doctor who listed all of the problems the baby would have if I did not terminate. I stood my ground and refused. He said, ‘That is ok. The baby will probably spontaneously abort anyway.’ I searched and found good doctors that supported me, and I gave birth to a healthy baby at 34 weeks. I will be celebrating 10 years cancer free in May. I have a healthy, beautiful, bright, precious 10 year old daughter who is a living reminder that doctors do not know everything.”

Another woman, Maria La Loca, wrote, “When I was diagnosed with cancer, the oncologist recommended that I have an abortion in order for me to get chemo. I said if I can’t have chemo while pregnant, I will wait until the baby is born. After that is when the doc came up with a whole new plan.”

In a followup tweet she explained, “I was able to have chemo while pregnant. At 6 months was on chemo. Did chemo until 35 weeks and then had a c-section early. To date, the baby, my adult son is thriving and currently serving the USA Army.”

She added, “I chose to die. I said I will wait till baby was born [to do chemo]. It was after that when he came with ‘oh wait, we can do chemo while pregnant.’ A choice is when both options are presented at the same time.”

When other X users responded that it was her “choice” to not have an abortion, she noted that she was only given a “choice” of not having an abortion after she said no to abortion. If she hadn’t said no to abortion, the doctor would not have told her about the other options that existed.

Studies from The Lancet and Lancet Oncology both report that children born to women who received chemotherapy during pregnancy exhibited normal development, including IQ, hearing, and heart function.

Breast cancer, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, melanoma, and leukemia can all be treated during pregnancy primarily in the second trimester if chemotherapy is needed. Read more on abortion and treatment of cancer during pregnancy here.

Call on President Trump to pardon the FACE Act prisoners on his first day in office.

Pro-abortion rhetoric continues to expand in the United States as abortion advocates dive deeper into the claim that induced abortion — the direct and intentional act of killing a preborn baby — is somehow a treatment for health conditions during pregnancy, including cancer. Poll results released this fall showed that a third (33%) of oncology fellows report that they “perceived” that pro-life laws “affected their ability to deliver at least one aspect of quality care for their patients.”

The results of the poll were published as “Perceived impact of abortion access on quality of cancer care and on future practice location decisions among oncology fellow physicians” by JCO Oncology Practice, an American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Journal. Of the 1,884 US medical oncology fellows who took the ASCO Medical Oncology In-Training Exam (ITE), 1,254 opted to partake in a post-ITE survey assessing “perceived (1) effect of abortion policies on ability to provide 9 key aspects of quality cancer care, including care access and delays, trust, and professional well-being and (2) impact of abortion restrictions on quality care in decisions of future practice location.” Thirty-three percent said that they believed pro-life laws would affect their ability to deliver at least one aspect of quality care for their cancer patients.

In addition, 51% of all fellows reported they will likely consider the abortion-related laws of a state when deciding where to practice medicine. However, the research notes that “More fellows training in states where abortion is legal report being likely to consider the impact of local abortion policies on care in future practice location decisions (55%) than those training in abortion-restricted states (45%).”

This signifies that those who trained in oncology in states with pro-life laws were less likely to see those laws as a threat to their ability to care for their pregnant oncology patients.

Women who have been through pregnancy while facing cancer diagnoses offered their stories as examples of how doctors trained to see abortion as a treatment for cancer often usher women toward abortion rather than actually treat them and their babies both as patients. They say that it was only after they refused abortion that doctors presented them with true options.

Susie Derkins said on X, “Did my oncologist talk to me about vitamin D? NO! Did my oncologist talk to me about my diet? NO! What did my oncologist want to talk about at my last visit? ABORTION RIGHTS! They really don’t care about you.”

Another, Mr Commonsense, tweeted a quote from a woman named Sarah Hull, who was diagnosed with cancer while pregnant.

She said, “People are talking about the medical necessity of abortion to save the mother’s life. I was one of those mothers. I was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer that was cutting off my airway at 20 weeks of pregnancy. I will never forget when the first doctor, an oncologist, mentioned abortion. We had gone through years of infertility to get pregnant. I knew I would rather die and give birth. Then I met with another doctor who listed all of the problems the baby would have if I did not terminate. I stood my ground and refused. He said, ‘That is ok. The baby will probably spontaneously abort anyway.’ I searched and found good doctors that supported me, and I gave birth to a healthy baby at 34 weeks. I will be celebrating 10 years cancer free in May. I have a healthy, beautiful, bright, precious 10 year old daughter who is a living reminder that doctors do not know everything.”

Another woman, Maria La Loca, wrote, “When I was diagnosed with cancer, the oncologist recommended that I have an abortion in order for me to get chemo. I said if I can’t have chemo while pregnant, I will wait until the baby is born. After that is when the doc came up with a whole new plan.”

In a followup tweet she explained, “I was able to have chemo while pregnant. At 6 months was on chemo. Did chemo until 35 weeks and then had a c-section early. To date, the baby, my adult son is thriving and currently serving the USA Army.”

She added, “I chose to die. I said I will wait till baby was born [to do chemo]. It was after that when he came with ‘oh wait, we can do chemo while pregnant.’ A choice is when both options are presented at the same time.”

When other X users responded that it was her “choice” to not have an abortion, she noted that she was only given a “choice” of not having an abortion after she said no to abortion. If she hadn’t said no to abortion, the doctor would not have told her about the other options that existed.

Studies from The Lancet and Lancet Oncology both report that children born to women who received chemotherapy during pregnancy exhibited normal development, including IQ, hearing, and heart function.

Breast cancer, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, melanoma, and leukemia can all be treated during pregnancy primarily in the second trimester if chemotherapy is needed. Read more on abortion and treatment of cancer during pregnancy here.

Call on President Trump to pardon the FACE Act prisoners on his first day in office.