A former abortionist-turned pro-life advocate wrote at Conservative Review Monday that, even in South Dakota, media are pushing the leftist narrative that state laws restricting abortion are harming women in difficult pregnancies.
Patti Giebink, M.D., author of Unexpected Choice and a former Planned Parenthood abortionist, took to task a South Dakota Searchlight reporter who claimed “physicians feel ‘trapped’” by the state’s abortion trigger law by noting the media’s “dishonesty” about several key facts.
Reporter Makenzie Huber made the claim that pregnant family physician Dr. Laura Hoefert was one of the victims of the South Dakota law that states:
Any person who administers to any pregnant female or who prescribes or procures for any pregnant female any medicine, drug, or substance or uses or employs any instrument or other means with intent thereby to procure an abortion, unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
“Even if they know, medically, that continuing a pregnancy could lead to risks for the health or life of the mother, would that hold up in court?” Huber wrote. “Or would they be charged with a felony for trying to save their patient?”
Hoefert, Huber said, was “worried she had an ectopic pregnancy, a rare condition where the egg is fertilized outside of the uterus, leading to a rupture and life-threatening internal bleeding.”
“Who would help her?” Huber described as Hoefert’s worry, suggesting that South Dakota’s post-Roe v. Wade trigger abortion law would prohibit women with ectopic pregnancies from being treated.
Giebink, who noted Huber “pushed the left’s abortion narrative, taking cheap shots at pro-life policies and being dishonest about key facts,” said she had attempted to submit her rebuttal of the piece, but it was refused at the Searchlight and at two other South Dakota publications.
“As a former abortionist and having over 30 years of experience delivering babies, I can tell you Huber got this piece all wrong,” the doctor asserted. “It is more opinion than reporting. Publications like The New York Times, Washington Post, and Harvard Gazette tout the myth that mothers are no longer protected in a post-Roe world and that states’ trigger laws will not allow doctors to help women with ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions.”
“This is a blatant lie,” Giebink declared, explaining that “treating ectopic pregnancies is not the same thing as getting an abortion. Ectopic pregnancies threaten the life of a mother, and it’s extremely rare that babies survive these pregnancies.”
Giebink also noted that, although Huber reached out to her for comment about issues related to protection of the mother, the reporter “disregarded” the fact that “abortion in South Dakota law refers to the elective termination of an unborn human life, for no other reason than the mother’s choice.”
“This does not refer to the premature separation of the preborn life due to any life-threatening medical condition of the mother,” the physician explained.
Giebink then went on to expose the other “blatant lie” reported by Huber and other anti-life media, namely that pregnant women with “cancer, epilepsy, kidney disease, or another chronic illness” cannot receive care under the South Dakota law.
The doctor explained further:
Not all chronic illnesses are life-threatening, but when they are, doctors like me treat each unique scenario first and foremost to protect the mother. As medical professionals, we don’t take life-altering decisions lightly. In South Dakota, our trigger law is clear: Doctors must use their best “judgment” in deciding what is the best medical route for safeguarding the life of the mother. This is not a disputable point.
In an interview with The Star News Network in September 2022, Christina Francis, M.D., CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), noted the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has joined with its allies in the abortion industry to ramp up abortion myths that tout the narrative that abortion is somehow “lifesaving medical care”:
There has been so much intentional fear-mongering and spreading false information not only by the media, but also, unfortunately, from the mainstream medical organizations who really should know better than just say some of the things that they’re saying. And, you know, not only does this represent false information coming from physicians, but it also, I think, has a harmful impact on the health of our patients because many patients are going to be concerned that they can’t access actual health care services that they need, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Francis said among the top falsehoods AAPLOG is challenging is that women will not be able to obtain treatment for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages in states that have outlawed abortion.
“Which, of course, is not true,” she said. “All you have to do is look at the state laws and look at the language in the state laws that are on the books to see that they don’t outlaw those kinds of treatments.”
“But, also, look to the practices of those of us who have practiced medicine our entire careers, or practices of hospitals that did not allow abortion, such as Catholic hospital systems, where we’ve always been able to treat those conditions,” Francis continued:
And what about when a woman’s life is in danger because of a pregnancy complication? While that may be termed by some an “abortion,” one, it’s allowed by state laws that are very clear about ending a pregnancy early, prematurely separating mom and baby in situations where the mom’s life is in danger, but also, again, looking to our everyday practice, you know, as an OB hospitalist, I am managing high risk OB patients, I am taking care of those rare situations where mom’s life is in danger because of a pregnancy complication. And in those circumstances, I, as well as every other competent physician knows, that’s not the same as an elective abortion.
Francis said she and other trained OB/GYN’s can still intervene in these emergencies, noting that “well-trained OBs know how to identify signs that a woman is becoming sick before she becomes critically ill so that we can intervene before.”
“That’s the other piece of misinformation that we’re hearing,” Francis added, “that women have to be going to the ICU before you can intervene – which is not true at all.”
“That’s medical malpractice, if physicians are waiting until that point to try to intervene,” she asserted.
“It is misleading and an outright lie to confuse” abortion with a life-threatening medical condition that would require an unborn baby to be delivered early, Giebink declared.
“No doctor in South Dakota or any pro-life state needs to fear a felony when it comes to saving the life of the mother,” she asserted. “But again, reporters choose to turn a blind eye.”
– – –
Susan Berry, PhD is national education editor at The Star News Network. Email tips to [email protected].
Image “Dr. Patti Giebink” by SDVoteYesForLife.
