NARAL Lie That Pro-Life Bill Would “Let Women Die” Debunked

Opinion   |   David Schmidt   |   Nov 7, 2011   |   5:36PM   |   Washington, DC

Protect Life Act sponsor Rep. Joe Pitts wrote in a letter to the editor at the New York Times how his legislation would protect hospitals from being forced to perform abortions.

Pro-abortion activists including NARAL President Nancy Keenan have labeled Pitt’s legislation the “Let Women Die” bill because she claims that allowing hospitals to choose to not perform abortions will lead to women dying because they can’t get abortions in life threatening situations. First the need for life saving abortions is incredibly rare and alternatives like premature delivery can be used. When an unborn child is not developed enough to survive a premature delivery, that child would also not survive if their mother dies and so there is moral justification to act and save that life (the mother) which can possibility be saved.

The most direct debunking of the “let women die” label comes from Rep. Pitts directly as he writes:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or Emtala, explicitly requires doctors to provide emergency care to both a woman and her unborn child. My bill does not modify this requirement.

There you have it. The author of the bill himself outlining how existing federal law would ensure that no hospital will “let women die.” Will NARAL listen and correct themselves? I’m sure they know the truth but they would rather deceive the public through scare tactics because that builds more political support. That is quite shameful really. So much for an honest debate about conscience rights. Note: David Schmidt is the Media Director for Life Action, the pro-life group best known for exposing sexual abuse coverup at Planned Parenthood. David is a human rights activist who specializes in grassroots organizing with an emphasis on web technology and reaching today’s youth. This column appeared at the Live Action blog and is reprinted with permission.