top of page
Search

Clinical OBGYN says "There's no Such Thing as Medically Necessary Abortion"

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Abortion Museum. However, we do post content from both sides of the issue in order to foster intelligent discourse.

A team of surgeons.

The phrase “medically necessary abortion” is a popular talking point these days. Women, obviously, should not be denied life-saving medical care. And if abortion saves lives, then women should be allowed access to abortion. But, in a post from March 2, 2026, Dr. Christopher Stroud begs to differ. As a practicing OBGYN and host of All Things Women’s Health, he says, “there’s no such thing” as medically necessary abortion. ‘No Such Thing’ – Really? You heard that right. He says there’s no such thing as "medically necessary abortion." As a licensed OBGYN, he is undoubtedly aware of different life-threatening pregnancy complications, and he would know that some pregnancies need to end early for the mother’s health. He’s apparently talking about the direct intentional killing of the child-in-utero. In his words . . .

A screenshot of Dr. Christopher Stroud's reasons on whether or not abortion is every necessary.

Christopher Stroud, posted March 2, 2026 at: https://www.facebook.com/reel/2401997903556527

To be clear, he’s not talking about miscarriage or stillbirth, as those are not “abortion” in the legal or moral sense. And he’s not talking about indirect and incidental killing of the child-in-utero, for example, if the pregnant mother has cancer and needs immediate chemotherapy, which is liable to kill the child. That’s called “cancer treatment,” not abortion. Anti-abortionists, in general, have no real objection to life-saving self-defense measures. And he's definitely not talking about the treatment plan if the child is stillborn and needs to be extracted to prevent infection. Those life-affirming steps are legal in every state in the US, so that no woman has to die because over an abortion ban. Anti-abortionists generally grant that when life is really on the line, and it’s impossible to save both lives, then it’s better to save one life than let both of them die.

But how does he get around the fact that pregnancy complications can threaten the mother’s life? Clearly, some pregnancies can’t be carried to term, right?

Yes, and yes. The solution, however, isn’t abortion. As he explains in the reel, there are safer options that don’t involve directly and deliberately killing the baby (abortion). If the pregnancy cannot safely continue, the normal, life-affirming treatment plan is to induce delivery when that’s an option.


Inducing delivery isn’t just some “pro-life” workaround either. It's typically the safer option for the mother, since it’s less invasive with less cutting, prying, crushing, and tearing. With third-trimester pregnancies in particular, abortion risks increase as the tools for those abortions are aggressive and powerful. To extract the fetal human, they have to be able to dismember a child-in-utero into small enough pieces to pull through the cervix. Plus, the riskier abortion methods - at that stage - add to the fact that the mother is already suffering from pregnancy complications. For these reasons, it’s generally safer for the mother to induce early. What about when inducing early isn’t an option? When early induction isn’t an option, as Stroud notes, the go-to medical solution is to treat the complication directly. With ectopic pregnancy, for example, the embryo implants in the fallopian tube instead of the womb. The normal treatment plan isn’t suction abortion, dilation and curettage (D&C), dilation and extraction (D&E), or pill abortion. The required treatment is tubal ligation, cutting out the affected part of the fallopian tube and stitching the the tube back together. The child-in-utero typically dies, but that's not an "abortion procedure" in the legal or moral sense, because there was no direct and deliberate killing involved. Failing to save both lives is substantially different ethically from deliberately intending the death of the child in utero.

What about the real women in red states who’ve lost their lives over anti-abortion laws? Critics might chime in with stories of women who have died in recent years, allegedly because they were denied “life-saving abortion care.” This claim has been addressed elsewhere. But we can pause here to note that every life lost should be mourned. Whatever our politics might be, we should take a moment to mourn those who've died, especially when it could have been prevented. We can also seek justice for these women. And justice requires making sure the political narratives don't override the facts of the case.

We can take Dr. Stroud’s comments and apply them here. No doubt, since Roe was overturned, some pregnant women have died from pregnancy-related and abortion-related complications in recent years. And there might be legally ambiguous language in some cases. But, as he points out in the video, and the Charlotte Lozier Institute agrees, every abortion ban in the country currently allows for life-saving measures for the mother. That includes treating ectopic pregnancy, eclampsia, and more. Where legal language can be improved, it should be improved. But life-saving medical interventions are still allowed in every state in America, so that physicians have the freedom and medical duty (with consent) to save the mother's life even if that means endangering the child in utero. Inducing early delivery is allowed in every state. And treating serious pregnancy complications is also entirely permitted.


In short, no woman has to die for lack of abortion access, since abortion isn’t medically necessary. Before jumping to the conclusion that women are dying because of abortion bans, one has to rule out the possibility that the real culprit is medical malpractice. Sadly, medical malpractice is a real possibility. Some physicians might not realize how much freedom they still have - even under "abortion bans" - and they might endanger their patients as a result. Still other physicians could even be depriving their patients on purpose, to make a political point. These are real possibilities that need to be considered before concluding that abortion bans are preventing women from getting life-saving medical care.

 

Comments

bottom of page