Pro-life laws don't need to be overturned. Doctors need to read them.

Emily Waldorf, one of the four women suing Arkansas to overturn the state's pro-life law, recently appeared on CNN to explain her story — and it proves that doctors trained under the reign of Roe v. Wade need to learn what an induced abortion is and how it differs from actual medical procedures.

Key Takeaways:

• Emily Waldorf went to the hospital at 17 weeks, where she was diagnosed with cervical insufficiency.

• Her amniotic sac and her baby's foot were protruding from her cervix.

• Doctors said Waldorf was not a candidate for the standard treatment, and monitored her until her water broke three days later; then they refused to intervene despite Waldorf's repeated requests.

• With her baby's foot protruding and her water broken, helping labor along would not have been considered an induced abortion as defined by Arkansas' law, because the intention of the procedure was not to cause the child's death.

The Details:

Emily Waldorf, the lead plaintiff in the case, told CNN last month that she was "admitted to the hospital on a Monday, and I sat in that hospital on a labor and delivery bed.... for five days." She added that she spent "almost a week... pleading with the medical staff to either give me care or transfer me to a place where I could receive care," but "they continued to refuse."

Waldorf stated that she even "called the governor after my water had been broken for over 24 hours to ask for help" and she was "advised to seek legal advice, and I was told that they could not and would not help me."

She continued:

"I believe that no other woman should have to suffer like I did. And I want Arkansans to have access to care that I was unable to have and was delayed in having and it almost cost me my life. I hemorrhaged after I delivered because of my delay in care."

Waldorf's care appears to have been wrongly delayed, but not because of the state's pro-life law.

It was delayed because, after 50 years of living under the rule of Roe, doctors seem to have either largely forgotten or never learned the difference between an induced abortion (which is intentional killing), and treatments and procedures carried out for a pregnant woman's health (which do not intentionally kill).

Laws must be made clear, but doctors also have a responsibility to understand:

• An induced abortion involves directly and intentionally causing the death of the preborn child. The goal of an induced abortion is that the baby dies.

• Medical procedures, including miscarriage care or preterm delivery are not induced abortions. The goal of these procedures is to protect the mother, not to intentionally ensure the death of her child.

• While some procedures are used in both ethical medical treatments and unethical induced abortions, only when they are used to intentionally kill are they considered induced abortions.

The Pro-Life Reply to: "Is Abortion Ever Medically Necessary?"

The Backstory:

At 17 weeks pregnant, Waldorf went to the hospital and learned that her amniotic sac and her baby's foot were protruding from her cervix. She was diagnosed with cervical insufficiency, and doctors determined that she was not a candidate for a cerclage to stitch her cervix closed because of the advanced stage of her condition.

They decided to keep her for 48 hours to monitor her, saying she may be sent home if her condition didn't change. She requested prophylactic antibiotics to protect her against potential infection, which is standard when there is a risk of infection during a situation like hers; however, for unknown reasons, hospital staff refused.

Though they initially moved to discharge her when the 48 hours were up, hospital staff allowed Waldorf to stay at the hospital longer, but only after she pleaded with them. Three days after she arrived, her water broke, and she was four centimeters dilated. At this point, there was a choice to be made:

• Either Waldorf should have been given the option to try to stop labor and receive antibiotics

OR

• She should have been given the option to help labor along (which had already begun) because of the advanced stage of her condition.

Instead, she was told that there was nothing the doctors could do.

Even the hospital's legal team seemed not to understand that in a medical situation such as this, induced labor is not an induced abortion. The goal of the delivery would not have been to cause the child's death.

Waldorf ultimately left that hospital, and her husband drove her to Kansas, where she gave birth to her daughter, Bee, who died shortly after birth due to her prematurity.

More on her story, and the stories of the other women suing Arkansas, can be read here.

The Big Picture:

Arkansas law defines abortion as:

the act of using, prescribing, administering, procuring, or selling of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the purpose to terminate the pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the termination by any of those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child.

This definition alone is problematic because it implies that it would be illegal for a doctor to carry out any procedure — such as a preterm induced delivery — that would likely lead to the death of the baby.

At 17 weeks, Waldorf's baby was not going to survive such a preterm birth. Doctors knew that, which meant they wrongly believed that, despite the advanced stage of Waldorf's condition, they could not proceed.

But that's not all the law says. It also states that abortion is allowed for a medical emergency:

'Medical emergency' means a condition in which an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

In addition, it notes:

It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section if a licensed physician provides medical treatment to a pregnant woman which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child.

And that's the key part of the law that allowed doctors in Arkansas to intervene for Waldorf.

Her medically necessary treatment — assisting labor — would have led to the "accidental or unintentional" death of her baby.

Based on this, what happened to Waldorf and Bee was not due to the pro-life law, but to medical neglect because both the doctors and the hospital's attorneys failed to act properly.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse, why is there no blame being placed on those who should know the law in order to properly care for patients?

As previously reported by Live Action News:

• It is not against the law to help labor along once it has naturally started. Waldorf may not have been experiencing contractions, but her water had broken, and her baby's foot was protruding from her cervix. Induced labor is only considered to be an induced abortion if the baby is delivered with the intent to cause the child's death. In Waldorf's case, no one was trying to ensure that her baby died.

• Baby Bee was born alive, which means that she did not receive a lethal injection while still in the womb. Induced labor abortions often involve injecting the baby with a feticide such as digoxin to stop the heart before delivery. In some cases, a feticide is not used, and the baby is delivered alive with the intent that the baby dies. This is typically in cases in which the baby has received a prenatal diagnosis, and the parents have decided not to let the baby live. This is also not what happened in Waldorf's case. Her baby died as a result of a medical complication that caused preterm labor.

Delivering Bee was not an abortion. It was a delivery caused by a medical complication.

The Bottom Line:

Doctors in Arkansas were wrong to not help Waldorf deliver Bee. They added unnecessary stress to an already stressful and emotionally painful situation.

The Arkansas law should better define induced abortion as what it is: an act done with the deliberate intent of causing the baby to die.

But the law should not be overturned, as that would cause more confusion about what is and isn't an abortion, leading to further death and destruction.