Stonewall, LA

In the second Presidential debate, John Kerry brought up the old argument of “saving the life of the mother” as a legitimate reason for justifying abortion. It is absolutely amazing that this argument has been allowed to go without challenge for so long. This pro-abortion argument is based on a false scenario - that there are situations where the only choice to save the mother’s life is to destroy the child.

In 1978, I was in a meeting with Dr. C. Everett Koop, who later became Surgeon General during the Reagan administration. Dr. Koop told us that he had recently spoken to a group of over 2000 OB/GYNs and had asked them if any of them had ever had a case where they had to abort the child to save the mother. Not one in 2000 had ever had such a case!

The fact is that when the mother’s life may be in danger, there are always methods that can be used to save BOTH mother and child. Sometimes the child must be taken early for the sake of the mother. But, this can always be done in an effort to save the child.

Before abortion-on-demand became the law of the land, medical science had developed far past the idea that there were cases where the only way to save the mother’s life was to destroy the child. Yet, we have allowed that false scenario of the pro-abortionists to go unchallenged. Why?

Back to Top