ProPublica ignores its own findings about pregnant women in pro-life states

ProPublica, which received a Pulitzer Prize this month for its misleading reporting on “preventable” deaths in pro-life states, recently published an analysis that contradicts its own reporting — and proves it isn’t pro-life laws that are leading to women’s injuries and deaths.

Yet despite its own finding that medical leadership’s lack of guidance is to blame for worse outcomes for pregnant women, ProPublica continues to blame pro-life laws — specifically the Texas Human Life Protection Act.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• ProPublica found a lack of guidance from hospital/medical leadership on the law is the true cause of physician confusion, which can harm patients — but the outlet still blames the pro-life laws.

• Texas’s law (and every other pro-life state law) clearly defines abortion, and the law should inform hospital policy — not the media’s claims about a law.

• The education of medical personnel regarding how a hospital follows the law makes a difference in patient outcomes.

• The media, including ProPublica, have played a significant role in misleading both the public and the medical community about the clarity of pro-life laws.

WHY IT MATTERS:

Texas’s definition of abortion is what should be informing hospital policy, and the law is clear about what is and is not allowed.

Texas defines abortion as (emphasis added):

The act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. 

It is not procedures that are outlawed, but the act of carrying out with the intent to kill. It’s clear from ProPublica’s analysis that some hospitals understand this and others don’t.

Some hospitals believe women must be at death’s door before they can induce a preterm delivery or remove a deceased preborn child using a D&C procedure, ProPublica found.

“Heeding the advice of hospital lawyers, many doctors withheld treatment until they could document patients were in peril,” said ProPublica (emphasis added). “They sent tests to labs, praying for signs of infection, and watched as women lost so much blood that they needed transfusions.”

However, it noted, “Not every hospital tolerated this new normal…” It said that hospitals in Dallas allowed for interventions as a patient’s health worsened, and “induced deliveries and performed procedures to empty the uterus.” And yet, “In Houston, most did not.”

FACTS:

• As is clear under Texas law, “induced deliveries” and “procedures to empty the uterus” are not necessarily abortions. When the intent is to protect the mother’s life or health and not to intentionally cause the child’s death, these procedures are completely legal.

• This difference in policy between different hospitals operating under the same state law is a clear indication that it isn’t the state law, but hospital policy, that is a problem.

If hospitals in Dallas can intervene in medical emergencies during pregnancy without facing civil action or losing funding, then hospitals in Houston can do the same.

Despite this evidence, ProPublica seems unwilling to point its finger at anything other than the pro-life law.

It argued (emphasis added), “This marks the first analysis in the wake of abortion bans that connects disparities in hospital policies to patient outcomes. It shows that when a state law is unclear and punitive, how an institution interprets it can make all the difference for patients.”

The law is clear in how it defines abortion (see above); however, ProPublica is making it unclear for readers by failing to report this definition and by implying that induced delivery and D&C procedures for miscarriages/emergencies are abortions and are illegal — when they are not.

ZOOM IN:

A clear reading of the law reveals that intent matters.

If intending to cause a preborn child’s death to end a pregnancy, that is abortion under Texas law. If not intending to kill a preborn child when ending a pregnancy, that is not an abortion. So why the discrepancy?

Doctors at Baylor Scott & White, a hospital in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, told ProPublica that leadership there has always interpreted the law to allow ending pregnancies when patients face a high-risk second-trimester pregnancy complication.

“Our policies are developed to comply with those laws, and we educate our teams on those policies,” it said (emphasis added).

Since ProPublica wrongly considers an “induced delivery” (even when the child’s death is not intended) an abortion, this could easily mean that doctors at Baylor Scott & White are carrying out standard procedure for medical emergencies in pregnancy — induced delivery when necessary — not intentional killing.

Yet, as ProPublica reported, not all hospitals are educating their teams in this same manner.

In 2022, Dr. Judy Levison, an OB/GYN at Baylor College of Medicine, reportedly emailed her department chair, Dr. Michael Belfort, to ask about training on how to care for patients under the new law and support for doctors to intervene in high-risk situations, but he allegedly refused, claiming that if he provided guidance, the hospital could lose funding.

“I came to realize that he was in a really difficult place because he risked losing funding for our residency program if Baylor and Texas Children’s didn’t interpret the law the way they thought the governor did,” said Levison (emphasis added).

It is alarming, to say the least, that any hospital would create policy based on assumptions instead of on a clear reading of the law.

Although Texas abortion law is clear and currently allows exceptions for circumstances in which the mother’s life is at risk, following ProPublica’s lackluster and agenda-filled reporting on the tragic deaths of Texas women, Texas legislators are seeking to clarify the law. The Life of the Mother Act is making its way through the Texas House, but while its goal is to make the law clearer to hospitals and doctors, some fear it may create loopholes that allow for abortion outside of medical emergencies.

REALITY CHECK:

Despite the supposed fear of retribution, no doctors or medical professionals have ever been arrested or convicted for violating the state law, and no hospital has lost funding.

“[A]ccording to a recent Texas Health and Human Services Commission report, physicians reported 116 abortions for medical emergencies and physical health between July 2022 and May 2024,” board-certified OB/GYN Dr. Ingrid Skop noted in a post on X.

Notably, that Texas report does not list induced preterm delivery as one of the reported methods of abortion, though ProPublica claims it is abortion. (Clearly, the state of Texas disagrees.)

ProPublica also noted that although Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said he would file civil action against hospitals that commit induced abortions outside of the law, he has not filed a single one.

Under the law, physicians are allowed to use their professional medical judgment if a pregnant woman is in an emergency situation; though multiple medical professionals have stated that there is no reason to ever intentionally kill a preborn child, Texas law would allow for the use of any method to immediately end a pregnancy if a physician genuinely believed based on medical judgment that it was the necessary way to protect a mother’s life in that specific instance of dire emergency.

There has also been no evidence or account that the state has removed funding from any hospital because of its policies on medical emergencies during pregnancy.

THE BIG PICTURE:

Any confusion surrounding pro-life laws and medical emergencies exists thanks to the pro-abortion media blitz that has intentionally misreported tragic deaths, and the lack of medical guidance from hospital leaders (as ProPublica admits) and from the extremely pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

“Under every pro-life law, including in Texas, physicians can intervene to save women’s lives in pregnancy emergencies,” said Skop. “The pro-abortion lobby is trying to scare women into thinking they can’t be treated during a pregnancy emergency. The pro-abortion @acog [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] also refuses to provide any guidance or support for doctors who are confused about these laws. The combination is deadly, and we’ve unfortunately seen women harmed as a result.”

Preventable maternal deaths occur in every state, regardless of the state’s abortion laws. ProPublica, however, seems unwilling to research preventable maternal deaths in pro-abortion states or share that information in any of its articles on the matter.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

ProPublica continues to dishonestly blame maternal deaths on pro-life laws even now, when its own analysis shows that the real blame lies at the feet of those who refuse to provide medical guidance — perhaps because their support of pro-abortion ideology is stronger than their desire to truly practice medicine.