{"id":319149,"date":"2024-09-23T12:44:10","date_gmt":"2024-09-23T17:44:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=319149"},"modified":"2024-09-23T00:49:43","modified_gmt":"2024-09-23T05:49:43","slug":"acog-terminology-medically-incoherent-false","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/acog-terminology-medically-incoherent-false\/","title":{"rendered":"ACOG’s pro-abortion terminology has become ‘medically incoherent’ and ‘legally false’"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

In the summer of 2023, the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) published a Glossary of Medical Terms<\/a> affirming that there is no medical need for induced abortion<\/em> \u2014 the intentional and direct killing of preborn child (embryo or fetus) \u2014 in any circumstance. The organization noticed that this struck a nerve with pro-abortion advocates at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), many members of which actively commit abortions.<\/p>\n

AAPLOG explained in its glossary that “medically-indicated maternal-fetal separation” is a term that encompasses treatment for ectopic pregnancy, and preterm delivery for situations such as severe cases of pre-eclampsia and other life-threatening medical conditions in pregnancy (further explained in the group’s “Concluding Pregnancy Ethically<\/a>” guide). These acts include preterm induced delivery or emergency C-section to protect the lives of both mother and child, which are easily distinguishable from acts of induced abortion that carry the intent to kill one of the patients \u2014 the baby.<\/p>\n

Acts of medically-indicated maternal-fetal separation are carried out “to prevent the mother’s death or immediate, irreversible bodily harm, which cannot be mitigated in any other way,” explained AAPLOG.<\/p>\n

In response, ACOG added and attacked the term “maternal-fetal separation” in its pro-abortion Guide to Language and Abortion<\/a>, labeling the “misleading” before making contradictory and erroneous claims, deliberately blurring the lines between induced abortion and emergency induced delivery\/C-sections.<\/p>\n

Conflating the intentional killing of preborn babies with lifesaving procedures done to protect women in emergency situations serves one purpose: to deceive.<\/p>\n

ACOG contradicts itself in attempt to serve a pro-abortion agenda<\/strong><\/p>\n

ACOG first claimed that the term ‘maternal-fetal separation” is used by pro-life doctors “to disguise the fact that a person needs or has had an abortion or to imply that there is a medical intervention that is an alternative to abortion” \u2014 in effect, denying that procedures induced preterm delivery and C-sections exist as medical interventions. <\/em>Then, it immediately claimed that the term is used “to justify or to mandate performing medical procedures that carry more risk for the patient, such as cesarean deliveries or inductions of labor, rather than abortion,” thereby admitting that these medical procedures do exist as alternatives to killing via abortion.<\/em><\/p>\n

There are absolutely<\/em> alternatives to intentionally killing a preborn child (even well-known medical websites fail to recommend induced abortion as a treatment<\/a> for pregnancy-related emergencies). With its language, ACOG displays its pro-abortion bias in saying that certain medical procedures carry “more risk for the patient<\/em>.” To which patient are these obstetrician<\/strong><\/em>-gynecologists referring? After all, obstetricians<\/em> care for at least two<\/strong> patients during a pregnancy: both mother and baby (or babies), monitoring the health and wellbeing of both<\/strong>. ACOG seems to be admitting that, to them, there is only one<\/em> patient of value: the woman<\/em>. They ignore entirely the other patient at risk of certain death in an induced abortion<\/em> who might otherwise be saved during a preterm delivery or C-section.<\/p>\n

“In addition to the fact that they are ignoring the inherent dangers of abortion procedures later in pregnancy, it’s important to point out that it cannot both be the case that (1) there is no such thing as an alternative to induced abortion and (2) there are alternatives to induced abortion that are more dangerous for patients,” said AAPLOG.<\/p>\n

AAPLOG’s language of “maternal-fetal separation” and its definitions on how to ethically deal with emergency situations (without treating the child as instantly and automatically expendable and devoid of value compared to his mother) is vastly<\/em> different than ACOG’s language. ACOG’s language, however, should be incredibly troubling for women seeking to find doctors who value both their lives and<\/em> the lives of their preborn children.<\/p>\n

Not only is there no need to intentionally kill a baby, but it is difficult to truly compare risks of certain procedures when one side is entirely skewed due to a lack of reporting. Only 28 U.S. states require<\/a> even doctors to report<\/em> abortion complications. When women are harmed by abortion, their physical and emotional injuries are often kept hidden.<\/p>\n

Clearly, induced abortion is different<\/em> than an induced delivery (without intentionally ensuring a baby’s death) or a C-section to protect a mother’s life, because induced abortion statistics are compiled separately<\/em> from preterm delivery statistics.<\/p>\n

ACOG ignores its own definition of abortion<\/strong><\/p>\n

AAPLOG pointed out that ACOG’s glossary<\/a> defines induced abortion<\/em> as “a medical intervention that ends a pregnancy such that it does not result in a live birth<\/strong>” (emphasis added). Yet, ACOG and its president conflate induced abortion<\/strong><\/em> and miscarriage care<\/strong><\/em> to purposefully cause confusion.<\/p>\n

\"\"

ACOG Glossary<\/p><\/div>\n

ACOG claimed that some “pregnant people… need an abortion including during miscarriage management…”<\/p>\n

ACOG president, Dr. Stella Dandas, has also conflated miscarriage care and induced abortion. Speaking<\/a> to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Dandas claimed, “Abortion is provided for a number of reasons. We use it, as well, for miscarriage management…”<\/p>\n

It’s no wonder the public is confused when ACOG isn’t even sticking to its own definitions.<\/p>\n

Though miscarriage care and induced abortion often involve similar procedures such as using drugs to expel pregnancy tissue and embryonic body parts, or a D&C procedure<\/a> to scrape the uterine lining, they are different because their intention is different. And it is absolutely crucial to note that in pro-life states, it is not procedures<\/em> that are prohibited but acts that are aimed at killing<\/em><\/strong>. (Recent media articles have attempted to claim that D&C procedures are banned<\/a> in certain states, for example. This is false.)<\/p>\n

ACOG knows that the goal of an induced abortion<\/em> is to ensure the baby is dead<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 it admits this in its definition of “induced abortion.” Yet it willingly breeds confusion out of a desire to keep abortion legal at any time for any reason.<\/p>\n