Wisconsin and Texas may seem like a world apart — or at least, a country’s width apart, with politics as different as their weather. But two abortion stories out of these not-so-similar states lend credence to a shared truth: The “health of the mother” exception to abortion laws is not what it appears. 

In Wisconsin, legislators successfully passed an “abortion redefinition bill” that clarifies the difference between the intentional killing of a preborn baby (abortion) and the removal of a baby who has already died naturally (miscarriage). Democrats fought the measure, claiming it somehow would “interfere in medical decisions.”  

Democrat Kelda Roys noted, “As someone who has had three kids and a miscarriage, the last thing that we need or deserve is political interference from people who have no idea, no idea what we’re facing.” Her assumption that no Republican parents in the Wisconsin legislature have had children or faced a miscarriage is statistically absurd, given 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. Regardless, this rebuttal fails to make a concrete argument against clarifying the language surrounding abortion… which is motivated by common sense.  

Unfortunately, pro-abortion Governor Tony Evers conveyed that he would veto the measure if it reached his desk. 

Looking south now to Texas, a sad story has surfaced of a mother, Tierra Walker, who reportedly passed away from pre-eclampsia (a high blood pressure condition associated with pregnancy, and a condition she’d had before) at 20 weeks pregnant.  

Pro-abortion media can always be found skulking around the Lone Star State, scouring every corner for stories like Walker’s they can use in their quest to reinstate abortion in this pro-life state.  

The conclusion of the establishment media (ProPublica, in this case) in the case of Walker’s passing is that if she had sought an abortion, she would not have died of pre-eclampsia. And they use that premise to argue that Texas needs a “health of the mother” exception in the abortion law.  

Here’s the rub: The “health of the mother” is legal silly putty. In the legal language of Doe v. Bolton, “health” means abortion for any reason, at any time. “Pregnancy makes me feel tired” becomes a legally defensible health reason. ProPublica has pushed an admittedly tragic story — a woman with underlying conditions, including previous pre-eclampsia and pre-existing diabetes, who decided late in the game that she maybe wanted a late-term abortion – as if it described a common occurrence that threatens millions of mothers annually. 

Doctors who are known to steadfastly treat both mothers and babies as patients have noted time and again that abortion is never medically necessary – yes, even for cases like extreme pre-eclampsia. And that doesn’t mean the danger is understated; the danger is real, especially for a mother like Tierra Walker who was an obstetric patient with risk factors like advanced maternal age (she was 37). 

Good medicine aims to preserve the MOST life possible. The American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs has noted that in this rare case of severe pre-eclampsia, for instance, maternal-fetal separation is the Hippocratic approach. Put simply: Close monitoring by high-risk experts, early delivery, and every effort made to sustain the baby’s life afterward.  

Though difficult, it is wrong to demonize pro-life laws that have saved thousands of babies from having their lives brutally ended by abortion in service of singular tragedies. The lives of Walker and her baby mattered. The conversation should be that they may not have received the proper medical treatment, not that her baby should have been killed. 

Walker and her unborn baby are being used as political pawns by those seeking to re-open the abortion floodgate in Texas under the “health of the mother” scam that intentionally prohibits nothing – nothing, of course, other than preserving the most life possible.