There is something particularly despicable about exploiting the deaths of two mothers to advance a political agenda — especially when those doing so have no interest in admitting the significant role they played in those deaths.
Yet, that’s exactly what Jessica Mackler, president of EMILY’s List, does in her recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution opinion column[1]. She points to the deaths of Amber Thurman[2] and Candi Miller[3] as evidence that Georgia’s LIFE Act[4] is dangerous to women. What she conveniently leaves out are the facts that undermine her entire argument.
If we’re going to invoke these women’s names to make political arguments, we owe them and everyone else the truth. All of it.
Amber Thurman: The Law Didn’t Prevent Her Care, Doctors Delayed It
Amber Thurman was a 28-year-old mother, approximately nine weeks pregnant with twins, when she traveled to a North Carolina abortion clinic and obtained chemical abortion pills. After taking them, her unborn babies died, but her body did not completely expel their remains. She developed a severe infection and sought emergency care at a Georgia hospital.
Doctors discussed performing a D&C to remove the remains of her deceased unborn babies but inexplicably delayed the procedure for approximately 20 hours while her condition worsened catastrophically. She died shortly after the procedure.
Georgia’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee determined that Amber’s death was preventable and that the delay of care significantly contributed to it. The committee additionally faulted the hospital’s lack of policies and procedures for promptly treating septic abortion.
That is an appalling failure and should be addressed immediately.
But here’s the question we should be asking Jessica Mackler: What does any of that have to do with Georgia’s LIFE Act?
Georgia law does not prohibit the treatment Amber needed. And you don’t have to take a pro-life organization’s word for that.
On Sept. 25, 2024, the Georgia Department of Public Health issued a formal Notice to Health Care Providers Regarding Misinformation About Abortions in Georgia.[5] This was an official notice from our state’s public health agency explicitly stating that removing a deceased unborn child is not prohibited by Georgia law, that physicians are not required to wait until a mother’s death is imminent to treat a medical emergency, and that lifesaving treatment must be provided without delay.
The Department also warned that failing to provide appropriate emergency care could constitute malpractice and result in regulatory consequences for providers and facilities.
That’s right: Georgia’s own public health agency explicitly told medical providers that lifesaving care is permitted, expected, and must not be delayed.
So why are we pretending the LIFE Act prohibited Amber’s doctors from treating her?
Candi Miller: When The Fear-Mongering Works
Candi Miller was a 41-year-old Georgia mother of three with serious underlying health conditions. She obtained abortion pills online and took them at home. After experiencing severe complications over several days, she ultimately died.
Her family’s account indicates that fear surrounding Georgia’s law influenced her decision not to seek medical care. The Maternal Mortality Review Committee reportedly identified that fear as a factor.
Candi’s death deserves serious attention. No woman should be afraid to seek emergency medical treatment.
The question Jessica Mackler and the pro-abortion politicians she represents seem unwilling to address is: Where did that fear come from?
For years, abortion advocates have aggressively promoted a narrative claiming that pro-life laws prevent emergency treatment, criminalize care, and leave women to die. Those claims have been repeated in headlines, political advertisements, fundraising campaigns, and public statements.
The fear is real. But the claims perpetuating it are not.
If abortion advocates want to claim they care about Candi’s death, they need to acknowledge their role in creating the fear that prevented her from seeking help.
You cannot spend years convincing women that pro-life laws make it dangerous to seek medical care, and then point your bloody fingers at us when they believe you.
Who Benefits When Abortion Remains the Only Answer?
A particularly inconvenient fact Mackler would prefer we all ignore: Both Amber Thurman and Candi Miller died after taking chemical abortion pills.
Both women obtained and took the abortion pills without restriction and then suffered devastating, but not uncommon, complications. Yet, their deaths are somehow being presented to us as evidence that abortion restrictions endanger women?
Why? Because acknowledging that chemical abortion can cause serious, life-threatening complications threatens their carefully cultivated narrative that these drugs are “simple, safe, and empowering.”
They don’t want to talk about what the pills did to these women. They want to talk about who they can blame.
And that should tell us something.
Mackler uses the tragic deaths of Amber and Candi to make an urgent demand for expanding abortion access and electing candidates supported by her organization. But where is this same urgency when pregnant women need housing, food, affordable childcare, protection from abuse, education, or help finding a job?
Where is the sustained commitment to ensuring a woman can reject abortion and choose life without sacrificing her safety, stability, or future?
At Georgia Life Alliance, we know that supporting women means addressing the circumstances that can make an unexpected pregnancy feel like a crisis, instead of presenting the death of an unborn child as the only solution. It’s not just rhetoric to us; we’ve worked for meaningful changes like Betsy’s Law, expanding pregnancy Medicaid, reasonable workplace accommodations and paid parental leave, protections for pregnant women experiencing family violence, and family law protections for rape survivors — to name a few.
Yet, for abortion advocates like EMILY’s List and Planned Parenthood, abortion shines starkly across the decades as the only “choice” they’ll protect or defend.
That’s a remarkably narrow definition of “women’s rights” from those who claim to champion them.
Amber and Candi deserved better. They deserved a culture that valued both their lives and the lives of their unborn children. It’s our job to build a culture that protects both — not one that tells women they must sacrifice one to preserve the other.
[1] https://www.ajc.com/opinion/2026/10/georgia-anti-abortion-law-reproductive-rights/
[2] https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-abortion-ban-amber-thurman-death
[3] https://www.propublica.org/article/candi-miller-abortion-ban-death-georgia
[4] https://www.georgialifealliance.com/georgia-heartbeat-bill
[5] https://dch.georgia.gov/document/document/file-provider-announcement-sept-25-2024-final/download