GUEST POST: A physician’s main purpose is to save lives through the practice of healthcare, but if you listen to the abortion advocates disguised as doctors, you might think aiding and abetting the industry of death was a part of the job description. Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, mainstream media has been uplifting wayward physicians who push abortion above quality, standard care practices —like Stanford maternal-fetal medicine fellow Hayley Miller who’d rather kill babies with congenital heart disease than treat them.
Miller recently published a paper with colleagues in the Green Journal, run by the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), on how abortion restrictions will increase the number of babies born with complications from congenital heart disease. She does make valid points in the study, and her well-developed model estimates the increase in these defects will occur “an additional 9 cases per 100, live births.”
However, her competence as a physician should be questioned considering her subsequent analysis that abortion is necessary to prevent these congenital heart defects.
Miller and her co-authors’ biggest objection to these babies being born is resource utilization; that there are not enough resources available and the patient load increase caused by pro-life laws will add undue stress to the healthcare system. They are absolutely correct that increasing the demand to treat congenital heart disease will prove a challenge as physician shortages, among other issues, certainly exist.
Her first mistake, however, was the assumption the preborn children are not already patients. The American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNS (AAPLOG) asserts that from fertilization (conception), doctors are caring for two patients – both mother and child.
Yet the most glaring flaw of this paper is Miller’s shift away from Hippocratic ideals to a utilitarian philosophy, clearly evident in her normalization of abortion. Termination for medical reasons is not the standard of care women and preborn children deserve — frankly, it borders on negligence.
The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia states that staged reconstruction is the standard of care for this category of various single ventricle cardiac defects, not abortion as it ends the life of the preborn child. No physician worth their salt would make the claim that abortion treats congenital heart defects or any other condition.
Miller and team include that they have found an increased incidence for morbidity as more babies are born with this condition, and that’s logical. If more cases of a disease occur, a higher number of deaths from that disease may, as well. However, we can’t forget that treatment for single ventricle defects in newborns has an immediate survival rate approaching 98%. You can’t get much better than that in the profession of medicine. While individuals born with cardiac defects may live shorter lives than those without, any life lived in a success in the medical field.
If pro-abortion physicians are concerned that they may not be able to successfully save a life from instances outside their control (like congenital heart disease), they need to choose a different profession. Lives do unfortunately get lost despite best efforts, but a physician should never bloody their own hands by taking a one.
The mainstream media and shameful medical professionals like Miller will mourn that these additional lives are born due to the Dobbs decision. We should be jubilant, however, that these children get to be born and continue the lives they were already living in utero. This is also the mindset we should demand of our healthcare providers.
After all, it doesn’t take a medical degree to know you’re a bad doctor if you’d rather see lives terminated than try to save them.
Share this post