Blaze News original: OB/GYNs not fleeing pro-life states after all, new study shows



A new study from the University of California at Berkeley, of all places, reveals that physicians specializing in obstetrics and gynecology are not fleeing states that have restricted induced abortions in the wake of the 2022 Dobbs decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

To better understand the implications of the study, Blaze News spoke with Dr. Christine Francis, a board-certified OB/GYN with decades of experience, a current obstetrics hospitalist who specializes in high-risk pregnancies and deliveries, and the CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

'Opposite to the expected finding if OBGYNs were leaving states where abortion is threatened.'

The study, published by JAMA on April 21, which obviously presumes abortion to be a critical component of "quality" OB/GYN care, surveyed more than 60,000 OB/GYNs to determine whether the Dobbs decision might impact where they decided to practice medicine. To the surprise of authors Becky Staiger and Valentin Bolotnyy, abortion policies in the individual states "did not significantly" affect the number of OB/GYNs working there.

The authors attempted to minimize the results, stating only that "there were no significant differences in trends in OBGYNs’ practice locations across states with different abortion-related policy environments after the Dobbs decision."

But that assertion ignores a key finding from the study: States with the most permissive abortion laws post-Dobbs saw the smallest increase in the number of OB/GYNs. While all states apparently had an increase, according to the study, permissive states saw just a 7.7% increase, while states with abortion bans saw an increase of 8.3% and those that have "threatened" abortion saw a startling 10.5% increase.

These results left Staiger and Bolotnyy scratching their heads. Staiger has a Ph.D. in health policy and management and has attempted to identify "racial health disparities" in public health insurance programs in New York. Bolotnyy's Ph.D. is in economics, and he is tied to the Deliberative Democracy Lab at the Center on Democracy at Stanford University.

"The only statistically significant difference suggested that the share of physicians who are OBGYNs decreased less in threatened states than in protected ones, opposite to the expected finding if OBGYNs were leaving states where abortion is threatened," the authors ultimately determined (emphasis added).

The conclusion of the study was so out of step with liberal orthodoxy that Dr. Francis made a point of expressing her appreciation to Staiger, Bolotnyy, and JAMA for publishing it even though "it theoretically goes against the ... prevailing political narrative."

"We need to give credit where credit is due," Francis said.

'Induced abortion can't be part of comprehensive reproductive health care if reproductive health care specialists ... are not doing it.'

Unlike the authors and the journal, though, Dr. Francis is not at all surprised by the findings of the study. She told Blaze News that they merely reaffirmed what she and her group, AAPLOG, have known all along: that restrictions on abortion would not have any meaningful impact on the vast majority of practicing OB/GYNs.

The main reason they were so confident that Dobbs would have little effect on OB/GYNs is that so few OB/GYNs perform induced abortions. According to statistics Francis cited, anywhere from 76% to 93% of all practicing OB/GYNs do not offer abortions.

"Induced abortion can't be part of comprehensive reproductive health care if reproductive health care specialists, the vast majority of them, are not doing it," Francis explained.

Francis noted that such statistics cast doubt on talking points and narratives promulgated by what she called "the abortion industry." Such narratives have attempted to dupe people into thinking that any abortion restrictions will lead to compromised medical care for women.

False though it may be, the presumption that quality health care for women depends on the ready availability of elective abortion appears to be far-reaching. A quick internet search turned up articles and research that all insisted the Dobbs decision posed a real threat to women and doctors:

  • "In states with strict abortion policies, simply seeing an OB/GYN for regular care can be difficult," claimed a headline from NBC News.
  • "States With Abortion Bans See Continued Decrease in U.S. MD Senior Residency Applicants," warned a study from the Association of American Medical Colleges.
  • "Over time, the inability of abortion-restrictive states to recruit new and existing clinicians will exacerbate widening health workforce disparities, with negative consequences for health care access, quality, and outcomes," wailed a Health Affairs Scholar study.

Even a January 2024 article from JAMA suggested that abortion bans had created an "occupational health crisis for OB-GYNs," who reported experiencing anxiety and "moral distress," fears about possibly violating the law, and even symptoms of depression.

Not only does the new study challenge some of those reports, since the number of OB/GYNs seems to be growing across the board despite Dobbs, but, according to Francis, the increase in numbers of OB/GYNs in pro-life states likewise suggests better medical care for the women living there.

"Women that live in states that decided to protect life, it seems, have actually better access to the care of an OB/GYN," she explained.

Francis described that trend as "encouraging" and "heartening" and expressed hope that it will continue.

Francis cautioned that while the study indicates that states that ban or restrict abortion have enjoyed a higher increase in OB/GYN counts since Dobbs, the study did not attempt to determine the reasons that some physicians moved to a new state.

In fact, Francis said she personally knows multiple physicians who left Indiana and its near-total abortion ban specifically because they wanted to continue performing elective abortions. Still, she claimed that pro-lifers should be encouraged that abortion restrictions have not prompted OB/GYNs to leave states in droves, as had been expected.

"At the very least," she said, "these pro-life laws are not discouraging OB/GYNs from either coming to that state to practice or remaining in that state if they were already in that state."

Moreover, Francis continued, by staying put regardless of abortion restrictions, OB/GYNs are signaling the irrelevance of abortion to the overall care they provide. To demonstrate her point, Francis imagined how she might react to restrictions on an obstetrics procedure she considers essential.

"If I was trying to practice in a state that said you can't do a C-section for any reason," Francis explained, "then I would probably leave that state because I wouldn't be able to provide good care to my patients."

Though promising, the new study is by no means a game-changer and will likely have no impact on any abortion laws at the local, state, or national level. However, it does at least call into question prevailing pro-abortion assumptions as well as demonstrate a willingness from apparently doctrinaire leftists to follow the truth wherever it leads.

As Francis neatly summarized, "This study just goes into that group of studies that help support the notion that we see in real-life, everyday practice that induced abortion is not a part of good health care.

"It's not a part of essential reproductive health care."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Abortion Facilities Are Less Regulated Than Tattoo Parlors, And It Kills Women

Blue state legislators are more interested in pushing abortion access than they are in ensuring women’s safety.

Blaze News original: 'Child still had a spine': Late-term abortionist left woman maimed for life, lawyer says



Last week, an Indiana woman filed a lawsuit, alleging that an OB/GYN in Illinois botched a late-term abortion and left her permanently scarred.

Blaze News spoke with Jane Doe's attorney, Richard Craig, to learn more about the incident and what Craig and his client hope to accomplish through the litigation.

Doe's D&E: A 'bad choice' made worse

On April 1, 2023, Jane Doe walked into Equity Clinic in Champaign, Illinois, seeking an elective abortion. At that point, she was 22 weeks pregnant and was scheduled to undergo a procedure called a dilation and evacuation, which requires patients to visit the clinic on two consecutive days.

On April 2, Doe returned to the clinic, having experienced no issues the previous day, and Dr. Keith Reisinger-Kindle and other members of the Equity Clinic staff continued the procedure, removing the unborn child from Doe's womb using a "combination of a 15 suction catheter and ... a Sopher clamp under ultrasound guidance," the lawsuit said.

Afterward, Kindle was required to account for all of the baby's body parts — referred to as the "products of conception" in the patient's chart — to make sure nothing remained in the woman's uterus. The "products of conception were visibly inspected and found to be complete," said a note regarding Doe generated by Kindle, according to court documents.

Medical staff performed a laparotomy that revealed 'half of a deceased pre-born human being' still inside her uterus.

Only Kindle could not possibly have done that, Craig told Blaze News.

The first sign that something was terribly wrong was the severe cramping. Doe called the clinic on April 3 to complain of "heavy cramping," only to be told to take ibuprofen or Tylenol. When she called back five hours later, still in some pain and now having difficulty breathing and experiencing "a lot of pressure" in her rear end, she was instructed to take a laxative, the lawsuit said.

When she called back yet again the following day, having taken two laxatives that did not lead to a bowel movement, Doe was told to try an enema and perhaps consider going to an urgent care clinic or ER.

Thankfully, she took that advice and went to Community Hospital South in Indianapolis, where medical staff performed a laparotomy that revealed "half of a deceased pre-born human being" still inside her uterus, the lawsuit said.

The remains of the baby were removed from Doe's uterus, and pieces of "fetal skull" were likewise removed from her intestines, the lawsuit claimed. Her uterus also required treatment for a perforation that allegedly occurred during the abortion.

Craig's description of the abortion complications was even more gruesome. Rather than "half" of a baby still inside Doe, records showed it was "closer to two-thirds," he told Blaze News.

"The child still had a spine and an upper torso."

Because of the medical reports from the hospital, Craig reiterated that Kindle could not have "visibly inspected" all of the child's body parts following the abortion and "found" them "to be complete" as noted in Doe's chart.

"There's no way that he inspected the uterus and determined that everything had been removed because there's no way that he could have missed that."

Kindle did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

A message left at Equity Clinic — which features an LGBTQ+ flag on its webpage and slams the term "late-term abortion" as an attempt to "shame people," not necessarily women, who have abortions late into pregnancy — was not returned.

Abortion aftermath

Though Doe did recover from the allegedly botched abortion, she was apparently left permanently scarred. The lawsuit claimed that the incident resulted in "psychiatric damages and physical damages that will affect her ability to carry and deliver children for the rest of her life."

Craig told Blaze News that Doe undoubtedly suffered permanent physical injury from the abortion and subsequent complications.

"It's unclear whether she would ever be able to deliver except by C-section — and it's unclear whether she'll ever be able to deliver again at all," he said.

'He just wanted to get her off the phone.'

Craig also blames Kindle's apparently dismissive treatment of Doe for her ongoing emotional injuries, and to illustrate, he pointed to an exchange Doe and Kindle had three days after the procedure.

On April 5, 2023, Doe called Kindle and asked him whether her unborn child had been a boy or a girl. Kindle's alleged response was nothing short of "callous," Craig claimed, since the child's remains were already long since gone.

"Instead of telling her, 'It didn't occur to me to check. I don't know, and I will never know,' he said, 'I don't know, but I'll go back, and I'll look, and I'll let you know if I find anything out,'" Craig claimed.

"He basically gave her an answer just to get her off the phone because he knew that there's no way he would be able to tell whether it was a boy or a girl at that point. He should have leveled with her," he continued.

"He just wanted to get her off the phone."

Kindle was apparently equally as unhelpful when he spoke with a general surgeon from Community Hospital South who also called on April 5. The surgeon wanted to inform Kindle about the laparotomy on his patient and to inquire about what happened during the abortion procedure.

Kindle "refused to answer any questions or provide any information ... about the Abortion procedure, claiming lack of consent" from Doe, the lawsuit said.

Doe and Craig are not the only ones dissatisfied with Kindle and his job performance both during and after Doe's abortion.

An unnamed board-certified OB/GYN who has performed more than 1,000 first- and second-trimester surgical abortions reviewed Doe's case and determined that "Kindle deviated from a reasonable standard of care" by causing a uterine perforation and then failing to notice and by "failing to adequately examine the fetal parts obtained during the suction D&E procedure," the physician wrote in a sworn affidavit.

According to a glowing 2023 article about abortionists in the Chicago Tribune, Kindle has spent his entire adult life assisting and performing abortions. He also bragged about his bedside manners with scared abortion patients.

"I was holding their hand and wiping away their tears and being their emotional support," Kindle recalled to the Tribune.

"And for a lot of our patients, having men in their lives fill that role is unheard of. That just fueled me. I was like, we need men — and particularly white men — to use their experience and their privilege and their place in the world to show folks that this is actually how we treat people and how we support people. Once you’re a part of that, you can’t do anything else," he continued.

"The only reason I went to medical school was to be an abortion provider."

Until recently, Kindle was a clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine in Dayton, Ohio, as well as the OB/GYN director of a women's health clinic affiliated with the school. In fact, he parted ways with the university so recently that, as of Thursday morning, he remains listed on the school website among the OB/GYN faculty "leadership."

Screenshot of Wright State University website

However, when Blaze News emailed Kindle at the Wright State address listed, we received a reply stating, "As you may have heard, I have submitted my resignation to Wright State University." The reply also provided Kindle's personal email address as well as his email address associated with Equity Clinic. Kindle did not respond to the emails sent to those addresses.

A representative of the OB/GYN division at Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Looking for 'justice'

When speaking with Blaze News, attorney Richard Craig did not attempt to dodge the moral component of abortion or Jane Doe's culpability in procuring one. In fact, that was one of the reasons he decided to keep her real name out of the lawsuit, to protect her from online "vitriol."

"She's a good person. ... She made a bad choice," Craig said regarding the abortion. "We all do. We're all human beings."

"I think she'd be the first to step up and say, 'I made a bad choice.'"

'Our society presents the process of abortion in a very sterile way.'

However, Doe is still a victim in this case, he averred.

"She is a good person that made a bad choice. She was harmed by a bad person who made a deliberate choice to do what he did," he explained, referring to Kindle. "And when faced with the knowledge that he caused her real harm, he reacted in a very callous and disinterested way."

Many pro-life advocates and groups agreed.

"This is far from healthcare. This is far from ‘pro-woman,'" wrote CatholicVote.

"Is this the kind of 'healthcare' women can expect from Illinois? This mother and her baby deserve justice," added the American Association of Pro Life OBGYNs.

The lawsuit accuses Kindle of failing to inspect the baby's body parts as required by protocol, causing and then failing to address Doe's uterine perforation, failing to provide adequate post-abortive care, and overall carelessness and negligence. It is seeking an amount "in excess of the jurisdictional minimum" of $50,000.

"I'm hoping to achieve a semblance of justice for my client, who was gravely injured because of this," Craig told Blaze News.

Additionally, Craig hopes that the lawsuit will warn other women, particularly young women, that abortions like the D&E Jane Doe underwent pose serious risks and to consider carrying their unborn child to term instead.

"Our society presents the process of abortion in a very sterile way and in a way that does not fully reflect just how ... [much] the human body resists the effort," Craig stated. "It's not something that is easily accomplished."

"I hope that many would ponder maybe it would be a better approach to stick it out as opposed to undergo this procedure."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘The first red flag’: Ob-gyn busts myths on the tragic Amber Thurman case



Dr. Christina Francis is the CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists — and she’s exposing the truth about media misinformation surrounding abortions and miscarriages.

One tragic example of this is the recent story of Amber Thurman, which made headlines when Democrats began wielding it as a weapon to push the pro-choice agenda. They claimed that the late mother lost her life to Georgia’s pro-life laws that left them refusing to perform an abortion for her.

What really happened is even more heart-wrenching.

Thurman was mother to a six-year-old boy and decided to get an abortion after learning she was pregnant with twins. She made the trip to North Carolina from Georgia for the procedure, as she was too far along to legally be given the abortion in Georgia.

After arriving back home in Georgia and taking the abortion pills, she fell ill and rushed to the ER with heavy bleeding and signs of an infection. While the doctors did give her antibiotics and performed a D&C, the procedure was not done in time to save her life.

“She ended up dying, which is tragic all around,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” tells Dr. Francis, who agrees that it’s a tragic situation “that could have been avoided.”

“I think that we can actually draw different, very different, conclusions than what the media and politicians are drawing from that,” Dr. Francis says. “As she said, she was pregnant with twins, which would increase her risk some of complications from abortion drugs.”

“Because she got delayed by traffic, it said that the abortion facility could not hold her appointment for longer than 15 minutes. And so instead, a clinic employee offered her the abortion drugs. To me, that was the first red flag,” she continues, asking, “Where was the physician?”

“Where was the person who could truly give her informed consent about the risks of those drugs?” she asks, noting that it wasn’t just the abortion clinic that failed her.

The Georgia hospital that treated Thurman should have known immediately that she was showing signs of sepsis, which would require “immediate initiation of IV antibiotics and a D&C procedure.”

“That’s the only way that you can get an infection like this under control, you cannot control it with antibiotics alone,” Dr. Francis explains, adding, “Every competent ob-gyn should know that.”

While the media and politicians are claiming that this was due to Georgia’s pro-life laws, the doctors who took care of her aren’t even blaming Georgia’s pro-life laws.

“Georgia’s law would not have applied to Amber Thurman for two reasons,” Dr. Francis explains. “Her babies were not alive when she presented to the emergency room, and Georgia’s law clearly states that it does not apply in situations where a fetal demise or the babies have already passed.”

“Second of all,” she continues, “Georgia’s law has clear medical exceptions when women are facing life-threatening complications, that the doctors could have intervened immediately. So we need to be pointing fingers at the right things. We need to be pointing fingers at these abortion drugs.”

Dr. Francis also notes that these infections are known to be caused by abortion drugs, and “over 30 women have died in the U.S. now, that we know of, since taking these drugs.”


Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Deliver us from the 'natural birth' fallacy



What is the opposite of “natural?”

The obvious answer is “artificial.” The obvious answer is not the correct one.

I worry that the rhetoric around 'natural birth' has gone too far by neglecting the question of prudence, the possibility of good doctors, and the reality of the dangers of childbirth.

“Artificial” come from the Latin artificialis/artificium: "handicraft." It is defined by that which is made or produced by human beings. “Art,” as expression through a medium, shares the same etymology.

Art and nature

I recently attended a lecture by Oxford philosopher Dr. Jan Bentz entitled “Objective Beauty in a Subjective World: Introduction to the Philosophical Question of Beauty.” Bentz began with the same question but argued in favor of the classical worldview — held by Plato, Aristotle, and later Aquinas — that art, properly understood, is a continuation of nature, rather than its opposition. Nature, to the ancients, was not the wilderness per se, but God’s imagination: logos. So, Dr. Bentz argues, the opposite of nature is in fact the opposite of logos: It is chaos.

Good art, he went on to say, corresponds to nature by reflecting its material and spiritual reality. Beautiful art must have three components: integritas (wholeness), consonantia (proportion), and claritas (clarity). By these standards, we can judge beauty.

Good art is not capricious or random in its execution, as we so often see in modern art galleries. Truly good artists must be trained (brought out of chaos through order) to imitate nature through their chosen media. Furthermore, good artists are made better by interdisciplinary study. The art forms, in the classical worldview, are not discrete mechanisms of autonomous expression but varied modes with a unified purpose: discovering and articulating truth.

Just prior to the lecture, I’d been chatting with my girlfriends about one conflict in the ongoing mommy wars: “natural” birth versus medically assisted birth, which is coded in the discourse as “unnatural” or artificial. A dear friend has just been through a very difficult experience: an early cesarean section after placenta previa followed by several days in the NICU with her little warrior.

False dichotomy

It struck me during the lecture that perhaps the home-birth vs. hospital debate is mired in the same false dichotomy as the modern art world, which emphasizes non-relational autonomy and prioritizes ideas over technique.

Many home-birth advocates imagine that any form of medical intervention necessarily disrupts the “natural” process of birth, which requires only instinct to facilitate.

But if we consider medicine as an art form, as it was for Hippocrates, then the practice itself is not “unnatural” but rather a continuation of nature, as evidenced by the original Hippocratic oath.

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment.

I will reverence my master who taught me the art. Equally with my parents, will I allow him things necessary for his support, and will consider his sons as brothers. I will teach them my art without reward or agreement; and I will impart all my acquirement, instructions, and whatever I know, to my master’s children, as to my own; and likewise to all my pupils, who shall bind and tie themselves by a professional oath, but to none else.

With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage. Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child. Further, I will comport myself and use my knowledge in a godly manner.

I will not cut for the stone, but will commit that affair entirely to the surgeons.

Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient; and I will willingly refrain from doing any injury or wrong from falsehood, and (in an especial manner) from acts of an amorous nature, whatever may be the rank of those who it may be my duty to cure, whether mistress or servant, bond or free.

Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast. If I faithfully observe this oath, may I thrive and prosper in my fortune and profession, and live in the estimation of posterity; or on breach thereof, may the reverse be my fate!

If medicine is so practiced, with reverence for the body and nature, and the determination to restore it to wholeness in proportion to whatever condition it presents with clarity, then it is indeed the art of medicine and is not only not unnatural, but a beautiful cooperation with nature. The act of helping other people is arguably the most natural part of the human experience, in the sense that God created us for one another, to live in harmony and cooperate with His will in community.

Something less than art

Growing skepticism toward the medical community, however, has been earned. I gave birth to all my children at home with an excellent team of midwives. I began my journey as a home-birth mom during 2020, when nurses, doctors, and hospital administrators were behaving in such a way as to inspire distrust, peddling falsehoods about the COVID vaccines, making care inaccessible and inconvenient, and violating HIPAA as a matter of course.

In obstetrics specifically, the cause for mistrust goes back farther. The standardization of abortion — the willful destruction of human life — made the art of medicine something less than art, because such an act fundamentally violates nature. The “cascade of interventions,” as well as the administration of medications with financial gain in mind, is also frequently cited by home-birth or free-birth advocates as a reason they avoid hospitals. Many of us know women who have had terrible outcomes because of medical abuse or neglect. This represents, in many cases, a failure to respond proportionally to the patient and an essentially hubristic approach that too frequently results in more damage than necessary.

A good doctor is hard to find. Still, I worry that the rhetoric around “natural birth” has gone too far by neglecting the question of prudence, the possibility of good doctors, and the reality of the dangers of childbirth. The hubristic, radical autonomy implicit to the exponents of the “free birth” movement is not a proper “return to nature,” as they have branded themselves, but a fetishization of chaos made plausible by the betrayals of modern medicine. Ironically, this is a true betrayal of nature, despite the crunchy exterior.

Perhaps the conflict is necessary to bring to light the shortcomings of both sides and to help women make prudential decisions about where to give birth. I fear that the highly politicized battles, one-upsmanship, and snide condescension on both sides may encourage the opposite. Either way, I think the question of art adds a new dimension to the discussion that might help.

At The Heart Of Kate Cox’s Abortion Lawsuit Is A Disrespect For Texas Voters

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Screenshot-2023-12-19-at-6.37.42 AM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Screenshot-2023-12-19-at-6.37.42%5Cu202fAM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]Although her baby has a small chance at survival, the people of Texas voted to protect all children, even those with tragic diagnoses.

OBGYN draws analogy between abortion and a person removing a bug that creeps into their ear



An OBGYN who recently made the absurd claim that transgender figure Dylan Mulvaney is a woman has drawn a parallel between an individual having an abortion and removing a bug that has crept into their ear. She similarly drew a comparison to eradicating a bacterial infection.

"People who are like 'but a fetus in you isn't your body so you can't control it and have an abortion' um excuse me but if a bug crawled in your ear are you also forced to host it or do you say wtf get this thing out?! Does the same go for bacterial infections?" Jennifer Lincoln tweeted last week.

The tweet earned pushback on social media.

Someone responded by writing, "I can't believe a real, live doctor thinks a human and a bug are equal and a logical comparison."

"A real, live doctor thinks it's disgusting people think they can force a person to remain pregnant. That's terrible enough. That y'all are mad at my analogy but not forced birth is the tell," Lincoln replied.

"A fetus is a human being with human rights. A bug is not a human being and does not have human rights. Yes, the same goes for the non-human bacterial infection," the pro-life organization Live Action tweeted.

\u201cA fetus is a human being with human rights.\n\nA bug is not a human being and does not have human rights.\n\nYes, the same goes for the non-human bacterial infection.\u201d
— Live Action (@Live Action) 1687184338

"And once a child is born he's like a bug that got in through a window. You should be able to kill him for invading your home and being a nuisance, right?" Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon tweeted.

Lincoln includes "she/her" pronouns on her Twitter profile.

She has also tweeted, "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. I know you want it to be that way because you want us to exist solely to make babies and stay home and raise them for you, but that's not how it works."

\u201cConsent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.\n\nI know you want it to be that way because you want us to exist solely to make babies and stay home and raise them for you, but that\u2019s not how it works.\u201d
— Dr. Jennifer Lincoln | OBGYN (@Dr. Jennifer Lincoln | OBGYN) 1687055878

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

OBGYNs claim Dylan Mulvaney is a woman



As debate over radical leftist ideology continues to rage, some OBGYNs have publicly made the absurd assertion that Dylan Mulvaney is a woman.

"Is this person a woman?" Ahmad Malik tweeted, sharing photos of Mulvaney, a man who identifies as a transgender woman. Malik's tweet has apparently since been deleted.

"Gynecologist here. The answer is yes. And you're a bigot. Not a good look for a physician," Michele Quinn responded.

Quinn's Twitter profile indicates that she is an "Ob-Gyn, abortion provider," and "minimally-invasive gynecologic surgeon."

\u201cGynecologist here. The answer is yes. And you\u2019re a bigot. Not a good look for a physician\u201d
— Michele Quinn, MD, FACOG (@Michele Quinn, MD, FACOG) 1685886977

Quinn's tweet earned pushback on the social media platform.

"That's a person born a boy with male parts and Y chromosome. Man confirmed," one person wrote in response to her preposterous claim that Mulvaney is a woman.

But Quinn replied by calling the commenter a "bigot" and declaring, "My daughter is trans so you can f*** all the way off. Like seriously. You are a toxic hate mongering blight on humanity."

Jennifer Lincoln, whose website states that she is "an OBGYN whose passion is helping girls, women, and those assigned female at birth understand their bodies and feel empowered to advocate for themselves," also responded to Malik's post by claiming that Mulvaney is a woman. "OBGYN here and the answer is yes. Move on and stop spreading hate," she wrote.

\u201cOBGYN here and the answer is yes.\n\nMove on and stop spreading hate.\u201d
— Dr. Jennifer Lincoln | OBGYN (@Dr. Jennifer Lincoln | OBGYN) 1685912436

Both Quinn and Lincoln include "she/her" pronouns on their Twitter profiles.

Bud Light has been enduring a groundswell of consumer backlash since earlier this year when Mulvaney released content advertising the beer brand. But Anheuser-Busch remains completely supportive of the LGBT agenda. "This year, Bud Light will donate $200,000 to the NGLCC in support of its Communities of Color Initiative," a recent press release states, referring to the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Nanostockk/Getty Images

American College of OB-GYNs bans pro-life doctors from conference after they show up

The national OB-GYN association can’t defend its unscientific pro-abortion positions, so it banned pro-life doctors from its conference.

OB-GYNs Shatter Nine Of The Most Common Abortion Myths The Left Peddles To Spook Women

This is the truth about women's health the media don't want you to know about.