Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.
It is an extremely rare case when abortion is required to save the mother’s life. Of course, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. However, abortion for the mother’s life and abortion for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue.
Since every abortion kills an innocent human being, it is morally abhorrent to use the rare cases when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother as justification for the millions of on demand "convenience" abortions.
While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a freeborn child's life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.”
Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged: 
Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.
Just for the record, go ahead and re-read that quote again and pay close attention to the source.
To repeat, the person making the quote is Dr Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood.
So, yes, Faye Wattleton, the President of Planned Parenthood, says that abortion kills, and now, just for the record again, we have Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledging that it is an extremely rare case that abortion is necessary to save the mother's life (and he even goes so far as to say that abortion would be unlikely to prolong the mother's life even in these every extreme cases).
Dr. Landrum Shettles says that: 
Less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother's life.
When two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life.
If the mother has a fast-spreading uterine cancer, the surgery to remove the cancer may result in the loss of the child's life. In an ectopic pregnancy the child is developing outside the uterus. He has no hope of survival, and may have to be removed to save his mother's life.
These are tragic situations, but even if one life must be lost, the life that can be saved should be. More often than not, that life is the mother's, not the child's. There are rare cases in later stages of pregnancy when the mother can't be saved, but the baby can.
Again, one life saved is better than two lost.
Abortion for the mother's life and abortion for the mother's health are usually not the same issue.
The mother's life and the mother's health are usually two distinct considerations. A woman with toxemia will have adverse health reactions and considerable inconvenience, including probably needing to lie down for much of her pregnancy. This is a difficulty, but not normally a threat to her life. Hence, an abortion for the sake of “health” would not be lifesaving, but life-taking, since her life is not in jeopardy in the first place.
There are other situations where an expectant mother has a serious or even terminal medical condition. Her pregnancy may cause complications, but will not cause her death. If she is receiving radiation therapy, she may be told that the child could have handicaps as a result. It may be possible to postpone or reduce such treatment, but if it is essential to continue the treatment to save the mother's life, this is preferable to allowing her death or killing the child.
Efforts can and should be made that value the lives of both mother and child.
Abortion to save the mother's life was legal before convenience abortion was legalized and would continue to be if abortion were made illegal again.
Even under restrictive abortion laws, the mother's right to life is never disregarded. Contrary to what some pro-choice advocates have said, there is no danger whatsoever that women whose lives are in jeopardy will be unable to get treatment, even if such treatment tragically results in the death of an unborn child.
Even pro-choice USA Today acknowledges: 
The National Right to Life Committee consistently has maintained that while abortion should be banned, there should be exceptions if an abortion is needed to save a woman's life.
The vast majority of abortions are elective.
Are there rare cases when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother? Yes. As mentioned above, these rare cases occur less than 1% of the time. In fact, even if you lump in all NON life threatening health issues that are cited by mothers as a reason for abortion then the total number only increases to 2.8%. 
Are the overwhelming majority of abortions performed on an elective basis? Yes. The most common reasons for having an abortion provided directly by women are all financial and convenience related. 
When the mother's life is at stake then the Doctors should do all they can to save both the life of the baby and the life of the mother. If they can only save one life, then they should save that life.
Since every abortion kills an innocent human being then it is is grossly misleading and morally abhorrent to say that because there are some rare cases when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother that therefore abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever should be legal.
- Alan F. Guttmacher, “Abortion—Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” in The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley, Calif.: Diablo Press, 1967).
- Landrum Shetlles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 129.
- Mimi Hall, “Even When a Life Saved, Abortion a Divisive Issue,” USA Today, 26 July 1991, 2A
- Guttmacher Institute, "Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States", August 2011, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html Last accessed November 12, 2012