Campaigns tempted to drive this year’s elections with scare tactics instead of facts should be put on notice: voters expect a real debate about solutions.
Just recently, State Sen. Rachel Hunt, candidate for lieutenant governor in my home state of North Carolina, claimed that without laws ensuring abortion-on-demand, doctors “leave [women] to bleed out in the parking lot.”
This blatant falsehood infuriates me as an OBGYN who has practiced for over 25 years. These attacks on us and on prolife laws, which have not restricted our ability to treat women in emergencies, must stop. Unfortunately, as the anniversary of the Dobbs Supreme Court decision approaches in this election year, we can expect a plethora of fear-inducing comments from political candidates to surface.
If you are a woman who is pregnant, I want to assure you that prolife protections provide you access to exceptional health care and the support you need to thrive before, during and after pregnancy. Candidates should focus on sharing the steps they will take to address how to best ensure women and their pre-born children have access to this care, not peddle unrestricted abortion on demand as a false solution.
In truth, not a single state with pro-life laws on its books forces doctors to practice the kind of blatant negligence described by politicians seeking support from abortion activists. Pro-life laws are not the cause of pregnancy-related tragedies. Negligence, misinterpretation and misapplication of the laws are largely to blame.
Many politicians, as evidenced by a U.S. Senate hearing this month on abortion, could benefit from a basic review of medical ethics, including the way intent guides medical care. Every day, doctors make decisions that while intended to help our patients, could also cause them harm. Chemotherapy can have horrific side effects. When prescribed, our goal is not to give our patient hair loss or nausea, rather those are unintended consequences of treating their cancer.
The same principle applies when women experience medical emergencies during pregnancies. We may have to prematurely separate our maternal and fetal patients to save our maternal patient’s life with the unintended consequence being the death of our fetal patient.
This is completely different from an induced abortion that is defined by the CDC as an intervention “intended” to terminate a pregnancy. It is not an induced abortion when we intervene with the intention of saving the life of the mother, but the unintended consequence is the death of our fetal patient. I have had to intervene in this way hundreds of times as an obstetrician and gynecologist, and no law in this country prevents me from doing so now.
It is also critical that pro-life laws be properly implemented and explained by the executive branches in state governments. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed a medical education bill into law that requires her state’s Department of Health to explain its new prolife protections to medical professionals, attorneys and the public by video. This kind of educational resource empowers doctors with further understanding of their state laws and allows them to save lives and administer care with confidence and competence.
Medical associations must likewise recommit themselves to issuing guidance on state laws post-Roe. Unfortunately, organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have done little to help doctors understand how they should be caring for patients under new life-affirming laws, despite the fact that ACOG’s very mission is to produce “practice guidelines for health care professionals and educational materials for patients.” The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), a group of doctors specializing in high-risk care, has likewise held back from offering any clarification or guidance to its members. In fact, SMFM members have contributed to the rampant misinformation asserting that OBGYNs can no longer treat pregnant women whose lives are at risk.
Fortunately, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (APPLOG) is already actively offering fact-based resources to its members and the public instead of promoting abortion on demand at all costs. My colleagues have participated in educational webinars and podcasts and created a glossary of medical terms designed to equip doctors with information about their states’ position on abortion. I encourage anyone with questions about new abortion laws to seek clarity from AAPLOG resources.
Candidates who resort to scare tactics should be ashamed of the chaos and uncertainty they are inciting among women and their families, who are being led to believe that their health is at risk when the very opposite is true. It’s long past time for candidates to focus their discussions on how to truly care for the women in their communities instead of relying on fearmongering to win votes. Induced abortion does not save women’s lives. And no law can make it so.
Susan Bane, M.D., Ph.D., is a board-certified OB/GYN and holds a certificate in Theology and Health Care from the Duke Divinity School. She is the medical director of four pregnancy centers in North Carolina and is on the board of directors of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and is the chair of the board for AAPLOG Action.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.