By Dave Andrusko
As you would expect, the Abortion Industry greeted the reversal of Roe v. Wade with panic, fear and trembling, and an avalanche of lies, some of them egregiously misleading. Dr. Patti Giebink, a former abortionist, tackled several of the most blatantly untrue statements in a post for The Federalist headlined “Yes, Abortion Laws Protect The Life Of The Mother.”
Reporter Makenzie Huber’s story ran under the headline “Physicians feel ‘trapped’ by SD’s abortion trigger law. They’re hoping to change it” in the South Dakota Searchlight.
The objective of Dr. Giebink’s rebuttal is found in the subhead of her piece for The Federalist: “The media are lying about state trigger laws and treating women with ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions.”
As a former abortionist and having over 30 years of experience delivering babies, I can tell you Huber got this piece all wrong. It is more opinion than reporting. Publications like The New York Times, Washington Post, and Harvard Gazette tout the myth that mothers are no longer protected in a post-Roe world and that states’ trigger laws will not allow doctors to help women with ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions. This is a blatant lie.
Treating ectopic pregnancies is not the same thing as getting an abortion; even Planned Parenthood admitted as much on its website. Ectopic pregnancies threaten the life of a mother, and it’s extremely rare that babies survive these pregnancies.
But she’s not finished correcting the record:
Another falsehood pushed by the media is that pregnant women who have “cancer, epilepsy, kidney disease, or another chronic illness” (which Huber covered as well) cannot be helped. Not all chronic illnesses are life-threatening, but when they are, doctors like me treat each unique scenario first and foremost to protect the mother. As medical professionals, we don’t take life-altering decisions lightly. In South Dakota, our trigger law is clear: Doctors must use their best “judgment” in deciding what is the best medical route for safeguarding the life of the mother. This is not a disputable point.
Ms. Huber reached out to Dr. Giebink who provided documentation for what she said. “But of course, she disregarded these facts and published her slanted piece anyway.”
Will this slow down the tsunami of falsehoods? No, but thanks to Dr. Giebink and others we have ammunition to rebut their slanted presentations.
This is a fascinating story which you should read. Let me end with Dr. Giebink’s final paragraph which is a beautifully summary:
Corporate media are not our friends. They rarely portray the truth and are hardly interested in publishing the other side of the story. Don’t believe their lies about mothers not being protected — the life of the mother will always be a doctor’s first priority