In the summer of 2023, the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) published a Glossary of Medical Terms affirming that there is no medical need for induced abortion — the intentional and direct killing of preborn child (embryo or fetus) — 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.

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” 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 — the baby.

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.

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

Conflating the intentional killing of preborn babies with lifesaving procedures done to protect women in emergency situations serves one purpose: to deceive.

ACOG contradicts itself in attempt to serve a pro-abortion agenda

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” — in effect, denying that procedures induced preterm delivery and C-sections exist as medical interventions. 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.

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

“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.

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 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 the lives of their preborn children.

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 even doctors to report abortion complications. When women are harmed by abortion, their physical and emotional injuries are often kept hidden.

Clearly, induced abortion is different 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 from preterm delivery statistics.

ACOG ignores its own definition of abortion

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

ACOG claimed that some “pregnant people… need an abortion including during miscarriage management…”

ACOG president, Dr. Stella Dandas, has also conflated miscarriage care and induced abortion. Speaking 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…”

It’s no wonder the public is confused when ACOG isn’t even sticking to its own definitions.

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 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 that are prohibited but acts that are aimed at killing. (Recent media articles have attempted to claim that D&C procedures are banned in certain states, for example. This is false.)

ACOG knows that the goal of an induced abortion is to ensure the baby is dead — 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.

Many ACOG members are abortionists themselves, including Dandas — who works for pro-abortion Kaiser Permanente — and the group’s president-elect Dr. Steven J. Fleischman, who works at Sound OBGYN where abortion is listed as a service.

“ACOG’s conflation of induced abortion with miscarriage management is not only medically incoherent; it’s also legally false,” said AAPLOG. “Every pro-life state law in the country makes a distinction between miscarriage management and induced abortion; for example, Texas explicitly excludes miscarriage management from its definition of abortion.” This is supported by the fact that Planned Parenthood still provides miscarriage management in pro-life Texas.

When is maternal-fetal separation necessary?

As AAPLOG explained, maternal-fetal separation is necessary “to prevent the mother’s death or immediate, irreversible bodily harm…” If such a circumstance arises during pregnancy, doctors separate the mother and child through an emergency C-section (which takes less than an hour) or an induced delivery. Efforts would be made to save the baby’s life as well when possible. This is not the same as the intentional killing of the child carried out in an induced abortion.

Induced feticide by abortion is not necessary for preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), anemia, ectopic pregnancy, elevated blood pressure, HELLP syndrome, molar pregnancy, or other diagnoses in pregnancy. It is not the standard of care in any of these situations.

For more on ACOG’s redefinition of commonly used and well-known terms to fit its pro-abortion agenda — including the denial of a fetal “heartbeat” or the claim that “late-term abortion” has “no clinical or medical significance,” read more here.

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by Live Action News.]

SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!