ACOG opposes "PBA" Law

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
ACOG opposes "PBA" Law
12
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 12:51pm

Seems some PLers would like everyone to be believe that there IS medical concensus on the PBA ban. Not so. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists OPPOSES the bill.


Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Law
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists


ACOG NEWS RELEASE






For Release:
October 3, 2003

Contact:
ACOG Office of Communications


communications@acog.org



Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Law
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists



Washington, DC -- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose so-called "partial birth abortion" laws, including the conference committee bill approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday and sent to the US Senate. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure known as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself." The bill now before the Senate, which its supporters claim can meet any constitutional test, blatantly disregards the two-pronged test the Supreme Court carefully established in Stenberg.

As noted in a 1997 ACOG Statement of Policy, reaffirmed in 2000, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to object to legislators taking any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's Statement of Policy explains why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. The Court will invariably strike down laws that are overly broad or imprecisely drawn. Bills that frequently use terms -- such as "partial birth abortion" -- that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize, and that purport to address a single procedure yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology would not meet the Court's test.

In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing their own opinion to the nation's physicians and patients that such a procedure is never needed to protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding opposing opinions from the medical community.

The medical misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician -- not legislators -- are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

# # #


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the national medical organization representing 45,000 members who provide health care for women.


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-05-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 5:30pm
That is one group of Dr.'s. Not all doctors. I posted before, and will try to post again a article in which the AMA agrees that PBA is not needed to save life. Give me a few to find the 411!

A.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 5:34pm
< That is one group of Dr.'s. Not all doctors. I posted before, and will try to post again a article in which the AMA agrees that PBA is not needed to save life. >

It's true, the ACOG and the AMA both oppose the ban on principle, as they oppose ANY restriction on abortions, however both organizations have stated that D & X is never medically necessary to preserve a woman's life or health.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 5:43pm

No.


The above post #1: <<" The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)." >>


Though it might not be the ONLY procedure, it may be the BEST or MOST APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 6:24pm


If it's not the only option, than it's not medically necessary. It may be the doctor's or the patient's preference, but not necessary. It's rarely the best option, which is why most doctors won't perform it. It's certainly not the best option for the fetus.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 6:38pm

<>


So..... a woman should just have a cesarean to soothe someone else's sensibilities?


Nope- don't think so. It is between a PHYSICIAN and a WOMAN to determine the best possible health care choices- not a senator, not a PL activist, not the pastor of the church.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-05-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 8:27pm
<>

Let us disect this sentence: If both orgs state plainly that a D&X is NEVER medically necessary to preserve a woman's life or health - the WHY would they oppose a ban on PBA? Aren't these the men/women who take the Hippocratic oath to preserve life???

What is the REASON that they will not support a ban on PBA, but will admit that it is never necessary? Could it be that some of them are banking on it???

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 9:02pm


No, not to soothe someone's sensibilities, but to spare the "fetus", which by the time a PBA is done is usually a viable baby, from a painful, inhumane death.



That's right, and most responsible physicians would never perform a D & X procedure. The few that would are out of luck now.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 9:16pm


For the same reason a lot of PC'ers do-once you start agreeing that a fetus deserves the same kind of humane treatment we would give a dog, that calls a lot of other abortion procedures into question. They have to stay in line with the "fetus is not a person and has no rights" argument in order to justify other, purely elective abortions.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Fri, 11-14-2003 - 8:24am

Yes, let's dissect it, since it seems to me that you & megsgirl are actually mssing the meaning: (I'll even highlight the words to make it even more clear for you)


AOCG states:


<only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)." >>


Which means: D&X may not be the ONLY (that means there may be more than one method, D&X included) means of abortion, but it may the be the BEST or MOST APPPOPRIATE PROCEDURE

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Fri, 11-14-2003 - 8:41am

<>


No. Neither you, nor anyone else, has the right to force a woman to have a surgical procedure which carries many more risks than a less serious procedure. If the case is one where a D&X is called for (like severe hydrocephalus- and I have already admitted that I do not yet know of any other), the fetus has a condition incompatible with life and is being aborted- not delivered, not saved. The procedure to accomplish this must be one decided by the physician & the woman as to which is the safest for her.
However, my sticking point with this ban is NOT to make it available for elective abortions, but rather to leave the decision where it should be- competant, trained medical professionals. I would like to see it restricted to OB/GYNs.


Pages