In recent headlines, Vice President Kamala Harris blamed the death of Amber Nicole Thurman, a Georgia woman, on the state’s abortion restrictions, pointing a finger at Republicans, particularly Donald Trump. This assertion, echoed by many in the mainstream media, is part of a broader effort to weaponize tragic deaths to push a pro-abortion agenda. However, a closer examination of the facts reveals a more complex picture, one that highlights the dangers not of abortion restrictions but of the recklessness with which abortion-inducing drugs are dispensed.

Amber Nicole Thurman’s death, as reported by ProPublica, occurred following complications from taking the abortion pill mifepristone. She developed a severe infection, but tragically, her doctors delayed performing a D&C—a procedure to remove fetal tissue—until 20 hours after her admission to the hospital. This delay is being pointed to as the cause of her preventable death, but is Georgia’s pro-life law truly to blame?

It is crucial to clarify that Georgia’s heartbeat law, which prohibits abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, does not prevent doctors from performing necessary medical interventions when the life of the mother is at risk. Georgia law allows for exceptions in cases of medical emergencies, meaning that Thurman’s doctors could have acted sooner without fear of legal consequences. The notion that the state’s law prevented her treatment is simply untrue.

Pro-life advocates have long maintained that abortion bans include life-saving exceptions, a fact often ignored or distorted by the pro-abortion media. In Georgia, it is perfectly legal to perform a D&C to save a woman’s life, as was needed in Thurman’s case. Her tragic death appears to stem not from legal restrictions but from medical hesitation, likely due to the confusion and misinformation surrounding abortion laws. It raises the question: Did her medical team mistakenly believe the law restricted their ability to act? If so, the fault lies not with Georgia’s law, but with those who have misrepresented it.

The story of Candi Miller, another woman who died after taking abortion pills, highlights the dangers of self-administered chemical abortions. Miller, who had lupus, diabetes, and hypertension, purchased abortion pills online and ultimately died from a combination of fetal tissue retention and painkillers, including fentanyl. Her death underscores the risks posed by mail-order abortion pills, a growing concern in a post-Dobbs America. The push to expand access to chemical abortions without proper medical oversight has made it easier for vulnerable women like Miller to obtain dangerous drugs without adequate follow-up care.

The pro-abortion movement, in its fervor to maintain unfettered access to abortion, often downplays the risks associated with chemical abortions. The FDA’s own records reveal that out of nearly six million women who have taken mifepristone since 2000, 32 deaths were reported. While the abortion industry likes to frame these numbers as negligible, each of those deaths represents a preventable tragedy. Moreover, studies show that chemical abortions are four times more likely to result in complications than surgical abortions. Yet, the FDA has consistently loosened restrictions on these pills, now allowing them to be prescribed without an in-person examination.

This reckless expansion of chemical abortions, rather than state abortion bans, is the real threat to women’s health. When women take these powerful drugs without medical supervision, the risk of complications such as infection, incomplete abortion, or hemorrhage increases dramatically. In Amber Thurman’s case, her infection spiraled out of control after taking mifepristone. Had she received proper care immediately, her death might have been avoided. Blaming pro-life laws for her death distracts from the real issue: the dangers posed by chemical abortion drugs and the irresponsible way they are being distributed.

The deaths of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller are heartbreaking, but they are not indictments of pro-life laws. They are tragic examples of what happens when we place politics above the sanctity of life. Pro-life laws are designed to protect both mother and child, ensuring that women receive life-saving care when needed. But the abortion industry, in its single-minded pursuit of abortion access, has sown confusion and fear, making it harder for doctors to do their jobs and for women to make informed decisions.

We must also recognize the moral dimension to these tragedies. Both of these women were trying to end the lives of their unborn children. Abortion is not healthcare; it is the deliberate termination of a human life. The culture of death promoted by the abortion industry treats life as disposable, and that disregard for life often spills over into how we treat the lives of women. Amber Thurman and Candi Miller’s lives mattered, and their deaths should prompt us to reflect on the dangers of a society that views abortion as the ultimate solution.

In conclusion, the narrative pushed by Vice President Harris and others that pro-life laws are killing women is misleading and dangerous. It ignores the fact that Georgia’s laws do allow for life-saving interventions and that the real culprit in these cases is the misuse and over-prescription of chemical abortion drugs. Instead of blaming pro-life advocates, we should be demanding better medical care and accountability from the abortion industry. We should be working toward a culture that values and protects all human life—born and unborn.