"Do Strict Pro-Life Laws Lead to Denial-of-Care?"
- Stephani Evans
- 4 days ago
- 7 min read
“I consider myself generally pro-life, but I cannot vote for current pro-life laws because they are so strict that women who need urgent abortion care in order to save their lives are being left to die.”
Denial-of-Care
Unless you’ve been completely absent from social media following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, you’ve likely heard this argument, or some variation of it, before.
I sometimes hear this statement from Latter-day Saints who believe and support the Church’s position against elective abortion, but are unwilling to support “strict” pro-life laws (Idaho and Texas come to mind) because they are concerned that these laws restrict women from getting access to life-saving medical care.
*Before I go on, I want to point out that this is a different argument than another one used by some Latter-day Saints, which is that they cannot vote for “strict” pro-life laws because they don’t allow for the exceptions outlined in the Church’s official position. That is a separate argument which I will not discuss today (but intend to in the future).
Latter-day Saints are not alone in this concern about “strict” pro-life laws. Stories claiming that pro-life laws have caused the death of women, either by “denial-of-care” or “delay-of-care” are so widely circulated by the media that many people have just accepted these claims as being true. In fact, if you Google this question, you might get an A.I. response that looks something like:
“Yes, evidence indicates that strict abortion bans and restrictions often cause women to be denied, or experience delays in, necessary medical care for pregnancy complications. Legal uncertainties, fear of criminal penalties, and vaguely defined medical exceptions often lead physicians to delay care until a condition becomes life-threatening, rather than treating it immediately.”
How We Should NOT Respond
Before I dive into the truth of these claims, I want to explain that there are some things we, as pro-lifers, should NOT do when discussing these stories.
We should NOT immediately dismiss these stories OR be afraid of looking into them.
These stories are tragic. These women’s deaths were preventable and should never have happened. It is NOT helpful to dismiss their deaths out of hand in favor of blindly supporting a pro-life law, as we may discover that we have a great deal of common ground with those who are deeply concerned by the fates of these women and what may have caused their deaths.
In addition, from a purely practical standpoint, these claims, whether true or not, can and do sway people’s opinions about abortion-related laws. Ireland’s pro-life amendment was overturned in 2018 at least in part because of stories like this. It is imperative that we pursue the truth to understand how to respond to these claims accurately and with sincerity.
So, with that in mind...
Are these claims true?
Fortunately, there are plenty of videos and articles out there which dissect the truth of each of these stories for us. Unfortunately, they can be difficult to find unless you know where to look. Here are some excellent resources that I recommend:
In this episode from the Equal Rights Institute, Monica Snyder from Secular Pro-Life discusses some of these cases and delves into the sensationalism and inaccuracies of the articles. (I highly recommend listening to this entire episode in order to understand this topic better).
Secular Pro-Life’s website has a “debunking” section in which many of these cases are addressed individually.
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) is another good source for accurate information on this topic.
Individual Cases
I have linked articles and provided a quick summary of some high profile cases that have been used to push the narrative that pro-life laws have led to women’s deaths:
Tierra Walker died of preeclampsia at 37 years of age when she was 20 weeks pregnant. ProPublica makes the case that Tierra Walker should have been offered an abortion for her high-risk pregnancy, as Tierra was suffering from hypertension and seizures. However, due to Texas’ strict abortion ban, every doctor (and she apparently saw more than 90 of them), dismissed her questions about whether it would be safer for her overall health to end her pregnancy.
Response: Monica Snyder of Secular Pro-Life points out that ProPublica’s objectivity when reporting on these cases is dubious at best. She also interviewed Dr. Christina Francis, of AAPLOG, who stated that Walker was discharged from a hospital at 20 weeks pregnant with medication when she should have been hospitalized in order to control her blood pressure. This behavior is not explained by her doctors being afraid of Texas’ abortion restrictions. In addition, Dr. Francis pointed out that if proper care had been given and serious risks to Walker’s health had persisted, Texas’ abortion law WOULD allow for intervention.
Alvarez died at 31 weeks pregnant in Texas from hypertension following a complicated, high-risk pregnancy. The New Yorker tries to make the case that Alvarez should have been offered an abortion at some time during her pregnancy, and the fact that she was not contributed to her death.
Response: Monica Snyder of Secular Pro-Life points out that not only did Alvarez never indicate that she wanted an abortion, The New Yorker article even mentions that she would want her baby saved above herself, if it came down to it. This is clear evidence that her story is being used to push a narrative. In addition, Alvarez’ death was due to lack of adequate healthcare, as Alvarez was undocumented, did not have health insurance, could not take off work for hospitalization, and lived in a rural part of Texas where obstetrical care was poor. This story might evoke a discussion about the state of healthcare, and obstetrical care in particular, in America, but trying to make this a case about abortion law is ludicrous.
Amber Thurman died at 28 years of age following an infection which developed after taking the abortion pill and retaining fetal tissue inside her uterus. The argument is that Georgia’s abortion ban prevented doctors from performing a dilation and curettage (D&C) to remove the fetal tissue until it was too late.
Response: Alliance Defending Freedom points out that Amber Thurman died due to complications related to the abortion drug, which has a high complication rate. In addition, there should have been nothing stopping the medical team from performing a D&C given that Amber’s twins had already died, and the procedure would NOT have been an abortion. Even if a heartbeat had been present, Georgia’s law would have allowed for her treatment, given that it was a medical emergency.
Other high-profile cases you might come across include:
3 Key Tips to Remember
Here are some key points to keep in mind if and when you find yourself engaging with similar stories in the future, especially if you can’t yet find another viewpoint debunking the claims:
Pro Life Laws Already Have Exceptions Which Allow for Lifesaving Procedures:
Every state which has banned abortion has specifications in place which allow for treatment if a woman’s life is in danger.
-Idaho, for example, which prohibits abortion at all stages, allows for these exceptions. Their definition of medical emergency is as follows:
-"Medical emergency" means a condition that, in reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of the pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy without first determining postfertilization age to avert her death or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions. No condition shall be deemed a medical emergency if based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct that she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”
-Texas, which prohibits abortion at all stages, also allows for these exceptions:
-“in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.”
In addition, Texas recently passed Senate Bill 31 in 2025, which aims to clarify any ambiguity surrounding the treatment of ectopic pregnancies and premature rupture of membranes.
Of course, this has not stopped abortion advocates from claiming that these laws are too vaguely worded and that doctors are unsure what they can and cannot do without fear of prosecution. Even if that were the case, promoting the claim that doctors are in danger if they treat a woman facing a medical emergency only serves to spread further confusion about the topic, potentially inducing fear in doctors that is unfounded.
Doctors Have No Cause to Fear
NO doctor has been prosecuted for providing an “abortion” for a woman who was experiencing a life/health threatening medical complication in a state with abortion restrictions since Roe was overturned. In other words, the claim that doctors are afraid to treat due to fear of persecution has no basis in reality.
What is the Intent of the Article?
In my experience (although subjective), the argument that abortion laws are too strict to allow for adequate medical care is rarely (if ever) used for the purposes of reforming these pro-life laws. Rather, the intent appears to be to get rid of all pro-life laws. Abortion advocates make use of highly evocative stories in order to push this goal.
When researching these claims, it is important to understand the intent of the writers, and ask if these arguments are being made in good faith. If these stories are being used in order to “guilt” others into voting against all pro-life laws, then they are taking advantage of a tragedy in order to push a political goal.
Seek Truth
The claim that strict pro-life laws are what lead to denial of care is not supported by the evidence. As Latter-day Saints, we should seek for truth, discernment, and sincerity when absorbing and presenting information. When claims or narratives feel false, we should dig deeper, and always seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
Comments