“I am very sorry, but it is too dangerous for you to remain pregnant any longer. We will need them to hand you over.”

This is one of my least favorite things to say to a pregnant patient, especially when the baby is too small to survive outside the womb. As an OB-GYN, my goal is to have a healthy mother and a healthy baby, and it breaks my heart when pregnancy complications make this outcome impossible.

But when a patient’s water breaks prematurely, it is imperative that you closely monitor her for infection and separate her from her unborn child at the first sign of it, as it can spread quickly and be life-threatening. Failure to act quickly can result in the loss of both mother and baby.

Unfortunately, in my 21 years of post-residency practice in Texas, I have had to perform my share of pre-preventable births knowing that the baby would not survive if I did, but neither the mother nor the baby would survive if I did nothing. The way I deal with these tragic situations remains the same both before and after the passage of the abortion law in my home state.

It’s a decision that we, as OB-GYNs, hate to make, but we are trained to make. It’s also perfectly legal.

Although I would caution against making judgments without reviewing medical history, some Texas doctors have reportedly expressed confusion about whether our state law allows them to do what I just described.

A Texas woman named Josseli Barnica died of sepsis after her hospital waited 40 hours to deliver her 17-week fetus when she went into labor prematurely, ProPublica reported last week. The report stated that her doctors said it would be a crime to intervene until the fetus stopped beating. However, the standard of care for a life-threatening condition during pregnancy, regardless of the heartbeat of the fetus and not prevented by any abortion law in the country, would have been to give birth earlier. These maternal-fetal separations, carried out to save the life of the mother, are different from induced abortions, which aim at the death of the fetus. His doctors’ claim that they could not legally intervene is simply not true.

Texas abortion law defines abortion as “the act of using or prescribing an instrument, drug, medication or any other substance, device or means with the intent to cause the death of the fetus of a woman known to be pregnant.” The “intention” part is key when analyzing cases like Barnica. When doctors like me deliver a baby prematurely to save the mother’s life, our intention is not to cause the baby’s death; It is to prevent the death of the mother.

State law further clarifies this point by allowing doctors to terminate a pre-pregnancy in the case of a medical emergency, defined as “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a doctor, puts the woman in danger of death or at serious risk of substantial impairment of an important bodily function, unless an abortion is performed.” It also notes that “an imminent threat to life or impairment of a major bodily function is not required” for the medical emergency clause to apply, meaning a woman does not need to be on the verge of death before so your medical team can intervene.

My team and I regularly provide life-saving care to women in the exact situations described by law, such as ectopic pregnancies, premature pregnancy loss, and other tragic situations that include saving the mother’s life.

It is important for physicians to be well informed about the many laws that regulate our practice, including abortion laws. However, while we can typically rely on professional medical organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to offer guidance to physicians who may be confused, these organizations have been of little help on the issue of abortion.

A few weeks ago, ACOG published a statement Blame the abortion laws themselves.not the misunderstandings and inaccurate information surrounding them, but the cases we have seen in the news of women not receiving the care they need. They describe state pro-life laws as “designed to impede life- and health-saving reproductive health care” and argue that the only way to ensure women get the timely care they need is to repeal them.

As a physician who provides the type of life-saving care that ACOG says is impossible to provide under my state’s law, I object to these claims. In fact, my approach to treating patients with pregnancy complications has not changed since the Texas abortion law went into effect. I suspect the same is true for the many OB-GYNs in my state who do not perform induced abortions, either out of personal conviction or because of their employer’s policy.

Instead of stoking fear about Texas’ abortion law, organizations like ACOG should offer guidance on how to practice well under them.

The medical team at my hospital demonstrates every day that not all women’s stories have to end tragically like Barnica’s. We, as doctors, are called to do everything in our power to ensure that is not the case, and the Texas abortion law does not prevent us from doing so.

Sudheer Jayaprabhu is a board-certified OB-GYN in Texarkana.

We appreciate your thoughts in a letter to the editor. Check out the guidelines and send your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can email it to [email protected]