Lila Rose

And I'm not talking about the removal of an ectopic pregnancy.

In that case, the child's growing in a hostile environment.

The intention is not to take their life.

You have to remove the child anyways.

It's not going to be able to survive there.

The mother's life is threatened.

I'm also not talking about miscarriage care where the baby's heart has already stopped beating.

Removing that baby during a procedure is not the direct and intentional taking of a life.

But in any other case, if there's a medical scenario where there is some sort of

emergency situation, the mother is having a health crisis, there's a whole world of medicine to support and care for both mother and baby and to advocate for both of those lives in a

in a life-threatening emergency, an early delivery may be necessary of that baby.

But in that case, you do everything you can to save, again, both lives.

So it changes entirely the posture of our medical system, which today is basically saying, well, life is disposable.

Have the abortion because it's easier.

Have the abortion because the baby's disabled.

Have the abortion because you may have this health complication.

I mean, I have a sibling, beautiful family, my brother who's married, beautiful kids.

One of his children is missing part of his hand because of an amniotic band issue in the womb.

Immediately, recommendations to abort were made to him and his wife at 20 weeks.

It's happened to many other friends of mine.