While questioning Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., implied that pro-life state laws do not allow physicians to provide emergency treatment for incomplete miscarriages.

Cortez Masto’s line of questioning followed a familiar playbook. Since the Dobbs decision in 2022, the abortion lobby, with the help of sympathetic media outlets, have created confusion with the intent of turning Americans against pro-life laws, falsely alleging that they will not allow critical medical care in pregnancy emergencies. They then point to examples of poor-quality medical care that caused harm to pregnant women as proof of their assertions.

As an obstetrician-gynecologist practicing in Texas for more than 30 years, I have practiced when few restrictions existed on elective abortion, and when abortion limits have been enforced. I would like to set the record straight.

Pro-life laws don’t prevent me and other physicians from providing quality medical care.

Elective abortion is not essential medical care. The vast majority of U.S. abortions are performed for social, financial or other reasons having nothing to do with serious health concerns. Nearly 96% occur on a healthy unborn child being carried by a healthy mother. In addition to ending the lives of unborn children, abortion harms many women emotionally, physically and socially, and is a poor solution to the crises American women face.

I have been honored to spend my career caring for the needs of both my patients, a mother and her unborn child. On rare occasions, I have needed to deliver a baby prematurely in a pregnancy emergency to protect the mother’s life, and sometimes, tragically, the baby does not survive. This is not an abortion, which must involve the intent to cause the death of an unborn child. My intent in such circumstances was to save the mother, even if I was unable to save her child.

All state laws allow doctors to determine the best course of action based on their “reasonable” or “good faith” medical judgment. That means physicians must continue to practice according to the standard of care and use their clinical skills and knowledge to make decisions.

Moreover, no state requires the risk to the mother to be “immediate,” that a physician be “certain” that a woman will die, or that “consensus” exists among all physicians about the necessary action, before life-saving care can be given. The Texas and Idaho Supreme Courts have affirmed this.

Despite the widespread fearmongering promoted by the abortion lobby, threatening that physicians making these decisions will be targeted by the state, no state has prosecuted any physician for performing an abortion for the life of the mother since the Dobbs decision. In fact, according to a recent study, only two cases could be found of physicians being prosecuted for this reason in U.S. history. Both convictions were reversed on appeal.

While misinformed physicians or those driven by pro-abortion ideology may be suspicious of the lawmakers’ intent, it is clear that pro-life laws do not prioritize the unborn child’s life over a woman’s life. Pro-life laws aim to protect both lives, while also allowing life-saving interventions to protect mothers in emergencies, even if it results in the unborn child’s death. In almost every circumstance, it’s possible to do both, and there are countless physicians who do protect both lives every single day.

These laws clearly do not apply to interventions when the unborn child’s life has already tragically ended in miscarriage. Miscarriage can never be conflated with elective abortion. In a miscarriage, the unborn child has died naturally, while, as stated before, an elective abortion intends to cause the death of an unborn child. This distinction is reflected in pro-life state laws.

Sometimes a pregnant woman will present with bleeding or pain and is concerned she may be miscarrying, but the unborn child’s heart is still beating. If the mother is stable, expectant management with close monitoring is appropriate. No intervention should be performed if the diagnosis of miscarriage is uncertain because the symptoms may resolve, and the pregnancy may continue to a healthy birth.

Other times, however, physicians recognize that a miscarriage is in process and the child will not survive, called an “inevitable” or “incomplete” miscarriage. In those situations, the law allows physicians to use their clinical judgment. This may require intervention to protect a woman from life-threatening bleeding or infection by completing the removal of the baby and pregnancy tissue.

Further, many state laws explicitly exclude the treatment of ectopic pregnancy from the definition of abortion. Even if they don’t, treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is otherwise covered in any “life of the mother” exception, because it has the potential to become a life-threatening crisis for the mother. In fact, ruptured ectopic pregnancies are responsible for around 4%-10% of pregnancy-related deaths.

Given these facts, where did this confusion come from?

Following the Dobbs decision, pro-abortion media immediately began reporting confusion among physicians in their care for pregnant women. This media misinformation became a self-fulfilling prophecy, as there was very little confusion among physicians before this media blitz.

Normally, when a new law impacts the practice of medicine, professional medical organizations assist their members in understanding how to comply with the law, but that has not happened in response to the pro-life laws. Some pro-abortion medical organizations, like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, specifically blame pro-life laws when women have not received appropriate medical care. It’s possible that the irrational fear engendered among obstetricians by media misinformation and lack of guidance from medical organizations has resulted in harm to women because of delayed, necessary medical interventions.

This is not, however, the fault of the laws.

Spreading lies about pro-life laws is not only unjust and immoral, but also dangerous to women. Rather than parrot these lies in the hopes of pushing pro-abortion policies, Americans must realize these lies have had devastating, and sometimes fatal consequences for women who didn’t receive appropriate medical care due to physician confusion or fear. With proper education paired with an end to fearmongering, we can prevent these needless tragedies.