'AGs are pressuring medical groups to defend reproductive rights'
Democratic state attorneys general led by those from California, New York, and Massachusetts are pressuring medical professional groups to defend reproductive rights, including medication abortion, emergency abortions, and travel between states for healthcare in response to recent increases in the number of abortion bans.
The American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a formal position June 9 recommending that medical certification exams be moved out of states with restrictive abortion policies or made virtual, after 20 attorneys general petitioned to protect physicians who fear legal repercussions because of their work. The petition focused on the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology's certification exams in Dallas, and the subsequent AMA recommendation was hailed as a win for Democrats trying to regain ground after the fall of Roe v. Wade.
"It seems incremental, but there are so many things that go into expanding and maintaining access to care," said Arneta Rogers, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at the University of California Berkeley's law school. "We see AGs banding together, governors banding together, as advocates work on the ground. That feels somewhat more hopeful -- that people are thinking about a coordinated strategy."
Since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, 16 states, including Texas, have implemented laws banning abortion almost entirely, and many of them impose criminal penalties on providers as well as options to sue doctors. More than 25 states restrict access to gender-affirming care for trans people, and six of them make it a felony to provide such care to youth.
That's raised concern among some physicians who fear being charged if they go to those states, even if their home state offers protection to provide reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare.
Pointing to the recent fining and indictment of a physician in New York who allegedly provided abortion pills to a woman in Texas and a teen in Louisiana, a coalition of physicians wrote in a letter to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology that "the limits of shield laws are tenuous" and that "Texas laws can affect physicians practicing outside of the state as well."
The campaign was launched by several Democratic attorneys general, including Rob Bonta of California, Andrea Joy Campbell of Massachusetts, and Letitia James of New York, who each have established a reproductive rights unit as a bulwark for their state following the Dobbs decision.
"Reproductive healthcare and gender-affirming care providers should not have to risk their safety or freedom just to advance in their medical careers," James said in a statement. "Forcing providers to travel to states that have declared war on reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ rights is as unnecessary as it is dangerous."
In their petition, the attorneys general included a letter from Joseph Ottolenghi, MD, medical director at Choices Women's Medical Center in New York City, who was denied his request to take the test remotely or outside of Texas. To be certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, physicians need to take the in-person exam at its testing facility in Dallas. The board completed construction of its new testing facility last year.
"As a New York practitioner, I have made every effort not to violate any other state's laws, but the outer contours of these draconian laws have not been tested or clarified by the courts," Ottolenghi wrote.
Rachel Rebouché, the dean of Temple University's law school and a reproductive law scholar, said "putting the heft" of the attorneys general behind this effort helps build awareness and a "public reckoning" on behalf of providers. Separately, some doctors have urged medical conferences to boycott states with abortion bans.
Anti-abortion groups, however, see the campaign as forcing providers to conform to abortion-rights views. Donna Harrison, MD, an ob/gyn and the director of research at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, described the petition as an "attack not only on pro-life states but also on life-affirming medical professionals."
Harrison said the "ob/gyn community consists of physicians with values that are as diverse as our nation's state abortion laws," and that this diversity "fosters a medical environment of debate and rigorous thought leading to advancements that ultimately serve our patients."
The AMA's new policy urges specialty medical boards to host exams in states without restrictive abortion laws, offer the tests remotely, or provide exemptions for physicians. However, the decision to implement any changes to the administration of these exams is up to those boards. There is no deadline for a decision to be made.
The ob/gyn board did not respond to requests for comment, but after the public petition from the attorneys general criticizing it for refusing exam accommodations, the board said that in-person exams conducted at its national center in Dallas "provide the most equitable, fair, secure, and standardized assessment."
The ob/gyn board emphasized that Texas' laws apply to doctors licensed in Texas and to medical care within Texas, specifically. And it noted that its exam dates are kept under wraps, and that there have been "no incidents of harm to candidates or examiners across thousands of in-person examinations."
Democratic state prosecutors, however, warned in their petition that the "web of confusing and punitive state-based restrictions creates a legal minefield for medical providers." Texas is among the states that have banned doctors from providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth, and it has reportedly made efforts to get records from medical facilities and professionals in other states who may have provided that type of care to Texans.
The Texas attorney general's office did not respond to requests for comment.
States such as California and New York have laws to block doctors from being extradited under other states' laws and to prevent sharing evidence against them. But instances that require leveraging these laws could still mean lengthy legal proceedings.
"We live in a moment where we've seen actions by executive bodies that don't necessarily square with what we thought the rules provided," Rebouché said.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/obgyn/abortion/116280
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.