Tell the Truth (6/17)

I think that as believers in Christ, we should be responsible for discerning truth from error. That may take a bit of extra effort, but by so doing, we can find ourselves with credibility in countering false information. Our lives should be characterized by a dogged pursuit of truth. In Hebrews 5, the writer calls the reader to spiritual growth and understanding of truth:
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.
14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

The first week of May, a Pulitzer Prize was given to ProPublica for an article that, according to WORLD Magazine, was not true.  The opening paragraph of the article, published on May 5, stated: 

On Monday, a ProPublica article about the effects of pro-life laws received the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for public service journalism. The article falsely claimed that laws protecting babies from abortion were making doctors afraid to care for pregnant mothers, leading to their deaths.

WORLD noted that in September of 2024, Leah Savas wrote an article "exposing the errors." 

Maybe it's just me, but should truthfulness be part of the criteria for winning a Pulitzer?

Well, here's what Savas said in that September article:

A ProPublica article published Sept. 16 highlighted the story of Amber Thurman, a young Georgia woman who consumed abortion pills in 2022 after obtaining them in North Carolina. Body parts of Thurman’s aborted twins or other pregnancy tissue remained inside of her for days after she took the drugs, causing an infection. She died after doctors failed to clean out her uterus in time. The article blamed the delayed emergency care on Georgia’s law protecting unborn babies from abortion once they have detectable heartbeats. That law went into effect in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court released its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Then, according to Savas: 

On Sept. 18, ProPublica published the story of a second woman who died of complications after taking abortion pills because she was afraid of facing legal penalties if she sought treatment.

“The people who created these laws knew women would die,” wrote pro-abortion writer Jessica Valenti on her Substack on Sept. 19. “Everything they say now is the result of decades of work preparing for this moment.”

Louisiana OB-GYN Damon Cudihy was interviewed for article; he is quoted as saying:

“It’s so blatantly a lie,” he said. “It is absolutely a misrepresentation and a flagrant lie, if it is claimed that any laws in the states that have outlawed induced abortions would prevent legitimate treatment for caring for a woman who has had a miscarriage—for treatments to remove the remains of a child that’s died.” Cudihy added that no law prohibits the removal of a baby that died in utero, even as a result of an induced abortion.

Suzanne Guy, a Georgia pro-life activist that had actively supported the legislation, said, "My whole life is dedicated to helping women in crisis. So everything I do is as much for that mom as it is for the baby..." The article reports: 

Once a draft of the heartbeat bill was ready, Guy met with a group around her own kitchen table to proofread the text. She said those who worked on it were careful to account for difficult pregnancy cases. “We were just trying to be … very intentional that women would be protected if they found themselves in an emergency situation,” said Guy. “That’s why I say over and over, our heartbeat law did not end the life of that precious woman.”

Savas, from WORLD Magazine, notes:

Georgia’s law clarifies that removing an unborn child who died in a “naturally occurring” miscarriage is not considered an abortion. The ProPublica article acknowledges that and admits the medical staff who treated Amber Thurman at Piedmont Henry Hospital have not explained why they did not immediately remove her retained pregnancy tissue when she presented with an infection. But the writers suggest Thurman died because doctors knew she had used drugs to abort the babies and worried removing what remained would violate the law.

The hospital did not respond to WORLD's request for a comment prior to the article being published. 

The WORLD article did say that:

ProPublica and other media outlets have quoted doctors who feel pro-life state laws inhibit them from intervening when a pregnant woman faces a health concern. But that experience isn’t universal. Cudihy and other OB-GYNs WORLD interviewed said physicians in their circles haven’t had to change their approach to pregnancy complications because of pro-life state laws.

Pro-life physicians interviewed include former Meeting House guests William Lile and Ingrid Skop. 

One could say that ProPublica engaged in agenda-based journalism and distorted the facts of the Amber Thurman case in order to score political points. And, there is evidence that it was not the Georgia heartbeat law that inhibited the doctors to the point that the women were denied proper medical care.  WORLD reports that, "Michael Seibel, a medical malpractice attorney in New Mexico who analyzed the ProPublica article in a guest post on the pro-life group Live Action’s website, told WORLD that details in the article suggest doctors had a nonpolitical reason for delaying the D&C."

I would contend that it is not Georgia's pro-life law that is the problem, but the pervasive act of women attempting to take the lives of their unborn children through the abortion pill - chemical abortion has become rampant, and new data shows that this act is far more dangerous than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would lead people to believe. 

The availability of this drug has endangered unborn children in the womb, as well as their mothers.  But, to pursue the pro-abortion agenda that promotes the taking the lives of the unborn, people are willing to distort facts - we have to be aware of when this is occurring and be armed with facts if we are engaging in discussion about the dangers of chemical, or mail-order abortion.  The most compelling facts in the abortion debate are the ones that are based in Scripture about God's view of the sanctity of life and the scientific facts, that can be presented through ultrasound technology, about the life of an unborn child.  Science is consistent with the Bible, and when you have those who use emotions for a desired outcome based on their political agenda, we have to be discerning to know and stand on the truth.