New York City, N.Y., May 22, 2019 / 04:51 pm (CNA).- Following an op-ed in the New York Times claiming that all pregnancies are life-threatening, a Catholic doctor emphasized that pregnancy is a natural and healthy condition, and that complications which may arise can be treated without abortion.
“[Pregnancy] is not a serious health risk to the vast majority of women in this country. And unless these women have some underlying medical problems to begin with, most pregnancies are perfectly normal by any means,” said Dr. Mary Jo O’Sullivan, a high-risk obstetrician and Professor Emeritus of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Miami.
“There are pregnancies that are complicated by diabetes, hypertension, previous Caesarean sections, some of those things that he mentioned. But they are uncommon, and with good medical care there is no reason why a woman who is desirous of continuing her pregnancy cannot do so,” she told CNA.
In an op-ed published Tuesday in the New York Times, a Colorado-based late-term abortion doctor argued that because women are more likely to die in childbirth than from complications related to an abortion, “pregnancy is dangerous; abortion can be lifesaving.”
“Pregnancy is a life-threatening condition. Women die from being pregnant. We have known that for thousands of years,” abortion doctor Warren Hern wrote May 21.
Hern wrote the piece in response to recent developments related to abortion in Alabama, where the governor recently signed a near-total abortion ban into law. In Alabama last year, nearly six out of every 100,000 white women who gave birth died as a result of their pregnancy. Among black women, it was 27.6, he said.
Hern claimed from this data that a ban on abortion would disproportionately harm black women, citing data suggesting an abortion procedure is much less risky than giving birth. He offered a list of potential complications that can result from pregnancy, as well as risk factors that can make pregnancy, in his view, especially dangerous.
O’Sullivan argued, however, that the op-ed was “bombastic” and employed scare tactics. She reiterated that although any pregnancy carries some risk, it is not a “serious” threat to a woman’s health, especially in the United States. The United States has a higher maternal death rate than Europe, for example, but maternal deaths are still very rare, even in rural areas.
“She doesn’t have a 50/50 chance of dying, unless she has some very serious cardiac problems. So I really think that this is scare tactics to prevent women from getting pregnant at all.”
O’Sullivan acknowledged that maternal death rates are higher in black women, especially those of lower socioeconomic status. She pointed out that these women also have a higher risk of hypertension, obesity, diabetes, poor nutrition, and previous Caesarean sections, all of which are risk factors for maternal death.
Better medical care to address these issues is what is needed, she said, especially for women who are at risk for conditions like hypertension, who should seek medical care earlier rather than later in their pregnancy.
For the United States overall, the maternal mortality ratio was 20.7 in 2018, meaning that about 20 mothers die for every 100,000 live births. The rate of death for mothers in Sierra Leone, with the highest maternal mortality ratio in the world, is seventy times that.
In his piece, Hern argued, “Pregnancy itself poses a ‘serious health risk’ — including the risk of dying and losing all bodily functions.” He said that “A woman’s life and health are at risk from the moment that a pregnancy exists in her body, whether she wants to be pregnant or not.”
O’Sullivan expressed doubt that the statistics Hern quotes were entirely accurate.
“There are still issues with proper recording of maternal deaths,” she said. “We’re getting better, but we’re very poor at that in the United States. And also, what we call a ‘maternal death’ might be a different definition than other countries may use. So we have to be careful with that too.”
In addition, the statistics Hern used to demonstrate the “safety” of abortion procedures did not include adequate follow-ups on the women it studied, she added, meaning there may have been deaths or complications later on that the study missed.
O’Sullivan pointed out that throughout her medical career, she has aided women through many difficult pregnancies, and had never once had to perform an abortion.
“Abortion is not absolutely indicated under any circumstances,” she said.
There are occasions, she clarified, when a lifesaving procedure for a mother may indirectly result in a child’s death, but this is not the same as an abortion. An example, she said, could be the situation of a severe hemorrhage in a mother’s placenta, known as Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC).
“In that case, we have to deliver the placenta,” she explained.
“The secondary thing that’s going to happen is that that baby is not going to survive…the intent is not to kill the baby, but the intention is to remove the placenta. So in that case, yes, if you do not deliver her, [the mother] could well die.”
Even a situation like DIC is extremely rare, she reiterated.
“The most important thing is that pregnancy is generally followed by a very good, healthy outcome for both mother and baby,” she concluded. “And with good medical care, even better.”
Users who left comments on the New York Times website argued that all successful abortion procedures, even if they may be “safer” for the mother, result in the death of the unborn child.
“Every child has a right to life. Every child,” O’Sullivan said.
[…]
By 
The same majority that denies the Real Presence?
Accuracy in measures is not always consistent with reality due to variables. In the instance of Pope Francis’ popularity among Catholics at 83%, you can bet the farm that the number of actual practicing Catholics among those claiming to be Catholic in America is 17% [portend of Benedict’s remnant Church]. “In the latest survey, 90% of Catholic Democrats expressed a favorable opinion of the pope, compared with 73% of Catholic Republicans and GOP leaners” (Claire Gecewicz for Pew). That Republicans favor the Pontiff’s views that high [73%] spells great difficulty for the Church to recover what it once was, even stretching back as recent as the seventies. If Gecewicz’s figures are reasonably accurate the large statistic in favor of Francis is consistent with a belief that attending Mass [the vacant or sparsely attended churches worldwide is a strong indicator] receiving the sacraments, following an Apostolic moral code is irrelevant to salvation [one can have far more fun and still be saved at crunch time]. Again, if the figures are more or less correct, what is the message, if not the popularity of Francis’ doctrine of mercy that surpasses divine justice contemporaneously, that is, in respect to how we live our lives? The tragedy of those beguiled to follow this view is the stark reality of final judgment, that belongs to God, not Francis.
Instead of “opinions,” has the overloaded public reverted back mostly to impressions? Lest we forget everything, governance by “pollsters” came into use in the mid-twentieth century precisely because the term sounded so much like hucksters.
You said it!
Define “Catholic” before I even consider this survey. In my mind, a Catholic is someone who through baptism believes ALL that the Church holds to believe. When I say “ALL” I mean all.
So what?
Polls utilizing specious, at best, methodologies are to the illiterate as smack is to a junkie.
I’m willing to bet that the more likely a Catholic is to practice their faith, attend Mass regularly and the more likely to actually believe what the Church teaches (and apply it to their everyday lives), the lower their opinion of Pope Bergoglio.
To me the mercy of Pope Francis takes after that of the Parable of the Dishonest Manager, who wrote off the debts(sins) of others(world) to ingratiate himself. This could explain the polls.