This week, Mosab Abu Toha, a Hamas apologist and serial fabricator who vilified female Israeli hostages and justified their kidnapping on October 7, won the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for commentary for a series of essays about Gaza in The New Yorker. It is unsurprising, as the Pulitzer Prize has become an irremediable joke. You’d think that the Pulitzer, administered and awarded by Columbia University, would want to repair its tattered reputation after awarding a slew of debunked pieces that spread the Russia-collusion hoax. They went in another direction.
The Pulitzer for “public service,” for instance, went to the leftist propaganda site ProPublica for “exposing the fatal consequences of abortion bans.” ProPublica is perhaps the nation’s leading purveyor of Potemkin journalism, which entails dressing up political propaganda with neutral-sounding journalistic verbiage to create the impression that you’ve done genuine reporting. Its abortion stories are perhaps the sloppiest and sleaziest of its catalog, even worse than its string of pitiful smears against Supreme Court justices.
Take its award-winning story on Amber Thurman. In August 2022, the 28-year-old North Carolina woman checked herself into a suburban Atlanta hospital emergency room, complaining of severe pain. She was suffering from an infection caused by the remains of twin fetuses she had aborted by pill five days earlier. The first thing you’ll notice when reading ProPublica’s Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters is that they fail to offer a single on-the-record source who maintains that abortion laws slowed or stopped doctors from providing medical help for Thurman. Not one.
Indeed, a reader must plow through to the 57th paragraph of the article to find this throwaway line: “It is not clear from the records available why doctors waited to provide [emergency help].” Not clear? That’s a remarkable concession to make deep into a story. The headline, after all, promises to prove that “Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care.” Have, not may have. Anyway, by “not clear,” the reporters mean no testimony exists to support the implication that a dilation and curettage procedure, in which the lining of the uterus is scraped to remove tissue, was delayed because doctors were nervous about Georgia’s abortion law.
Whenever the story hits a juncture at which any real reporter would feel compelled to offer corroboration, ProPublica switches to interviewing nameless “OB-GYNs in states that outlawed abortion” or pro-abortion activists who offer politically motivated guesswork. We call that a “column” in the business. To confuse readers, ProPublica regularly conflates miscarriages with elective abortions. And here’s the thing: The fetuses had already been destroyed. There was absolutely no legal basis for any doctor, not even one confused about the supposed ambiguities of abortion laws, to fail to give Thurman all the care she needed. That seems like a vital fact that should have been mentioned somewhere in a 3,400-word investigative piece.
I don’t care where you stand on abortion, that’s not journalism. Yet this is the type of hackery that wins you a Pulitzer these days. The only inarguable truth in the Thurman case is that she died from complications caused by abortion pills. That’s the headline. That’s the buried lede. Knowing this, ProPublica feels compelled to assure readers that there are only “rare complications” from abortion pills — “extremely rare” even.
ProPublica, funded by a deep-pocketed progressive group, exists to create fake stories for politicians to use as oppo material. You may remember when many political experts assured us that the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision and resulting state-level abortion limitations would forever sink the entire GOP? Well, less than a week after the Thurman story hit, Axios reported that Senate Democrats would launch a “blitz on emergency abortion care… after ProPublica reporting on death of Georgia woman.” Former Vice President Kamala Harris mentioned Thurman on many occasions.
It should be said that ideological bias doesn’t prevent a journalist from making arguments that rely on facts. It is implausible, however, that any genuine journalist could possibly believe ProPublica’s Thurman story was well-reported, or that Abu Toha’s essays enlightened anyone. And the fact that the Pulitzer Prize rewards this kind of transparent hackery only further destroys its already battered credibility.
ProPublica just won a Pulitzer Prize—the highest award in journalism—for a series that pushed dangerous abortion pill propaganda and twisted real women’s tragedies into political weapons. Their “Life of the Mother” series, which ran during the 2024 election season, claimed that pregnant mothers died because Pro-Life laws supposedly delayed their medical care. One of the most high-profile stories in that series centered around Amber Thurman, who tragically passed away with her unborn twins.
ProPublica claimed her death was caused by Pro-Life laws. But that’s not the whole truth—and they knew it. In reality, Amber had taken abortion pills and suffered serious complications. The outlet called it a “rare case.” But here’s what they left out: Abortion is dangerous for women. A recent study found that one in nine women who take the abortion pill experience dangerous or even life-threatening complications—like extreme bleeding, infection, or sepsis. That’s not rare. That’s a public health crisis.
So why did ProPublica win an award for this? The Pulitzer board praised them for “urgent reporting” and claimed that “vague” Pro-Life laws stopped doctors from helping women. But that’s simply not how Pro-Life policies work. Every measure passed since Roe v. Wade was overturned includes clear protections for life-saving care. No woman is ever meant to be denied help in a medical emergency. If that’s happening, it’s a failure of hospital policy or misinformation—not the Pro-Life law.
Let’s also not forget: The FDA originally approved mifepristone (the abortion pill) for use only up to 7 weeks of pregnancy. In 2016, under the Obama administration, that limit was pushed to 10 weeks—despite growing evidence of increased risks the further along a woman is. Amber Thurman was nine weeks pregnant with twins when she took the pill.
What are we really awarding here? Journalism that misleads women, misrepresents laws, and fuels fear—all while hiding the real risks of chemical abortion? While mainstream media applauds this narrative, Pro-Life advocates are fighting to share the truth: Abortion pills are not “safe and simple.” They’re a growing threat to women and preborn children. And we owe women better than fear-driven stories that manipulate tragedy for clicks and awards.
Pro-Life laws are meant to protect both women and babies, not harm them. In fact, the Texas Heartbeat Act alone saved nearly 10,000 children in just eight months of 2022. That’s why Texas Right to Life is working to take the next step to save mothers and babies from abortion pills: the Woman and Child Protection Act (HB 5510 & SB 2880). The policy will stop activists from trafficking these deadly drugs into our state by allowing ordinary citizens to sue companies and organizations that work to kill preborn babies. This and other Pro-Life bills are waiting on a committee vote in the Texas House. Now is our moment to act. Let’s pray these life-saving policies move forward—and let’s keep standing for truth in a culture clouded by misinformation. Because women deserve protection, not propaganda. And every baby deserves a chance at life.
