Wendy Davis Did Not Have Two Abortions, As She Claims

The former Texas gubernatorial candidate may be hurting her cause by calling treatment for an ectopic pregnancy an abortion.

Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis gives her concession speech after her losing campaign for governor.AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Thursday night, Wendy Davis, the former Texas state legislator and candidate for governor, wrote a column for CNN about her personal experience with having two abortions. She held out her story as support for advocates asking the US Supreme Court to strike down a Texas law that would close abortion clinics, which the court is reviewing this term. Davis wrote:

My story begins when I had a medically necessary termination of a nonviable ectopic pregnancy. And then, even more heart-wrenching, I made the decision to terminate a much-wanted pregnancy, when, during my second trimester, my then-husband and I discovered that our baby daughter was suffering from a debilitating brain abnormality.

This isn’t the first time Davis has told this story. It’s also in her memoir. And while Davis may believe she’s helping keep abortion safe and legal, her confusion of the facts may prove counterproductive and harmful for the cause of abortion rights.

Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion, even under Texas’ restrictive abortion laws. That’s because, by definition, an ectopic pregnancy is never viable. It’s when an embryo misses the mark and implants somewhere other than the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube. While a baby cannot develop to term outside the uterus, such a pregnancy can be life-threatening for a woman because as the fetus develops, the tube can rupture and cause massive blood loss and deadly infection. Ectopic pregnancies account for anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of all maternal deaths in the United States.

When an ectopic pregnancy is caught early, doctors can now use a drug called methotrexate to dissolve the fertilized egg before it can do major damage to the woman, preserving her hopes of future pregnancies. Davis apparently wasn’t so lucky and says she had to have her fallopian tube removed. Even so, she lived to tell about it. But in her public comments, she insists on calling this surgery an abortion, which it isn’t. Even the Texas abortion law Davis is opposing, HB2, says quite clearly that “an act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:…(c) remove an ectopic pregnancy.”

By repeatedly defining this procedure as an abortion, though, Davis may be unfairly stigmatizing women who’ve had the procedure and boosting the arguments of some of the anti-abortion movement’s most extreme elements—the “ectopic personhood” activists who would like people to believe that a baby can really survive to term inside a woman’s ovary or fallopian tube, despite all evidence to the contrary. And she’s lending linguistic support to the arch-conservative Catholic bishops who have also insisted that ectopic pregnancy treatment is the equivalent of an abortion.

These bishops have required Catholic hospitals to withhold treatment for ectopic pregnancy until a woman is in mortal danger—a move that also can leave a woman infertile even if she lives. Many Catholic hospitals are banned from using methotrexate entirely because of its association with abortion, leaving women with ectopic pregnancies at a much higher risk of complications and infertility. A 2011 National Women’s Law Center study reported on observations of several doctors who’d seen many cases of unnecessary fallopian tube ruptures in Catholic hospitals because of these edicts.

If Davis really wants to help preserve women’s reproductive rights, she should get her facts straight. She had just one abortion, and that’s probably enough to make her case. She doesn’t need another one.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate