{"id":318040,"date":"2024-09-05T10:40:00","date_gmt":"2024-09-05T15:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=318040"},"modified":"2024-09-21T08:10:40","modified_gmt":"2024-09-21T13:10:40","slug":"npr-insurance-denied-life-saving-abortion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/npr-insurance-denied-life-saving-abortion\/","title":{"rendered":"NPR pushes false narrative that insurance denied woman’s ‘life-saving abortion’"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

A Wisconsin couple claims<\/a> they were denied a ‘necessary’ abortion when the wife experienced a miscarriage during her first pregnancy, and that she needed a “life-saving” abortion during her second pregnancy. This story is another example of how abortion advocates exploit circumstances and conflate authentic health care<\/em> with induced abortion<\/em> to garner support for legalized abortion on demand.<\/p>\n

Miscarriage treatment is not an abortion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ashley and Kyle were expecting their first child in 2022, but Ashley told NPR that at seven weeks pregnant, and just a few weeks after Roe v. Wade<\/em> fell, she began miscarrying. At this point, a pro-life law was in effect in Wisconsin protecting most preborn babies from abortion. Abortion was allowed in the state only to save the life of the mother (though induced abortion \u2014 the direct and intentional killing of a preborn child \u2014 is not medically necessary).<\/p>\n

NPR reported, “Ashley\u2019s life wasn\u2019t in danger during the miscarriage, but the state\u2019s abortion ban meant doctors in Wisconsin could not perform a D&E \u2014 dilation and evacuation \u2014 even during a miscarriage until the embryo died.”<\/p>\n

First of all, an abortion at seven weeks<\/em> would not<\/em> be a D&E (dilation and evacuation), because D&Es are carried out after<\/em> the first trimester. Instead, it would have been a D&C procedure; if used to intentionally kill the baby, this would have been prohibited by the state, but it would not be prohibited to remove a deceased baby from the womb. Sometimes a woman experiences the threat<\/em> of a miscarriage but the pregnancy continues. According to Cleveland Clinic<\/a>, a study found that of the 25% of women who experience bleeding in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, 60% go on to carry the baby to term.<\/p>\n

Once Ashley’s baby had died, however, doctors did administer miscarriage treatment<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The standard of care for a confirmed miscarriage<\/a> is not<\/em> typically to immediately treat with a D&C surgery or to administer misoprostol to induce contractions. At first, doctors frequently advise a ‘wait-and-watch’ approach to allow the miscarriage process to take place naturally. If that does not happen, it would be considered a missed miscarriage, and doctors may prescribe misoprostol or schedule a D&C if they deem surgery is necessary. A D&C is often the last resort.<\/p>\n

However, since Dobbs<\/em>, women have been led to erroneously believe that<\/strong><\/em> not being given an immediate D&C for miscarriage is the fault of pro-life laws. It’s not.<\/strong><\/em> Both misoprostol and a D&C carry risks and would only be advised if necessary. Once it was deemed necessary, Ashley received treatment<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Though a D&C is used to treat both early induced abortion and early miscarriage, they are not equal in intent. A D&C following a miscarriage is not<\/em> an induced abortion and is not prohibited by any law, because it is not being carried out with the intention<\/em> of producing a dead preborn child; an induced abortion intends to cause the child’s death.<\/em><\/p>\n