Letters to the Editor
ondelette
Published Letters: 1957 Editor's Choice: 19
-
'nother one
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds ban on "partial-birth" abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not talking about those rare exceptions when an abortion is the only possible course; even the Roman Catholic church allows exceptions when continuing the pregnancy will clearly kill the mother, e.g., an ectopic pregnancy or uterine cancer.
Gee, I'm glad the church allows exceptions. But ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency that becomes life threatening within hours, and would never, ever, lead to even a fetus. The pre-hospital care is to get such a person to the hospital priority 1, and monitor vital signs for deterioration. The emergency procedure at the hospital is immediate surgery.
How, in the name of anything, is that relevant to abortion debates? Anonymous, you're scarier than I thought. I'm eternally grateful none of you has decided that the soul originates in the appendix.
-
For obvious reasons...
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds ban on "partial-birth" abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...most of the comments deal with the effect of the ruling on women. There is another effect, and a pretty chilling one: The court has established a precedent that Congress may order a doctor not to perform the procedure that doctor judges to be the safest and best for their patient.
Has the court ever done that before? Any lawyers out there?
-
What ACOG really says
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds ban on "partial-birth" abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists policy on intact D&E, alternatively called intact D&X is below:
A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [intact D&X] . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, 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 on the woman’s particular circumstances can make this decision. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D&X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women.
The ACOG statement to the Court is as follows:
In defending the Act, the Government repeats Congress’s finding that an intact D&E is “never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother.” See Carhart Pet’r Br. 2; PPFA Pet’r Br. 2. This core premise is, however, medically incorrect. The safety advantages of intact D&E include fewer insertions of instruments into the uterus, reduced risk of perforation, reduced likelihood of retained fetal tissue, reduced blood loss, and shorter time of anesthesia exposure. These safety advantages are particularly significant for women who suffer from serious medical conditions.
The averted harms are not “marginal,” as the Government asserts, and include massive hemorrhaging, serious infection, and subsequent infertility. Indeed, after considering the issue in depth, ACOG concluded that intact D&E procedures “may be the best or most appropriate . . . in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” Carhart J.A. 976 (1997 ACOG Statement of Policy).2
The medical advantages of D&Es involving intact removal are now widely acknowledged. As reflected by hearings before Congress and in the courts, the safety advantages of the intact variant are recognized by an array of skilled physicians with impeccable credentials and vast clinical experience. These safety advantages are confirmed by leading medical texts and peer-reviewed studies; the curricula of leading medical schools; and even some of the Act’s supporters—including the Government’s own witnesses. Indeed, as medical practice has evolved in the nine years since ACOG first formulated its policy on intact D&E, and in the six years since this Court decided Stenberg, the medical consensus about these safety advantages has grown.
Against this backdrop, the consequences of the Act’s failure to include an exception for procedures necessary to protect a woman’s health are clear. The Act prevents physicians from providing the care that is most likely to avoid potentially catastrophic health outcomes. It thus imposes a risk of increased harms on those women for whom intact D&E would be the safest option.
Moreover, the Act prohibits more than just intact D&Es. The Act’s broad scope and vague terms would chill physicians from performing any second-trimester abortion. And the Act would hinder medical advancement by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience to develop safer procedures.
Like all physicians, ACOG’s members must both “recognize responsibility to patients first and foremost” and “respect the law.” Amer. Med. Ass’n, Principles of Medical Ethics: Preamble (June 2001).3 Because the Act impermissibly forces physicians to choose between those two duties, the decisions of the Courts of Appeals should be affirmed.
I have already previously posted the AMA's policy. Consider yourselves informed.
-
Sajwan, don't get too depressed...
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds ban on "partial-birth" abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Kennedy decision does not put words in the mouths of either ACOG, National Abortion Federation, or the AMA. It rules that the State may regulate a procedure even if some doctors think that it is necessary, or that alternatives create risk to health, as long as the necessity is in dispute in the medical community. But then it cites the District Court of Southern New York, and the Congress as believing that the controversy exists, and makes no further attempt to identify who the doctors are (or whether they exist) that say it is never medically necessary.
I'd say that rather than making stuff up, which would be very depressing, they pulled a "global warming" and asserted a controversy without showing that experts existed on both sides, which is...okay, you win, very depressing.
-
Oh, and by the way...
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds ban on "partial-birth" abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In addition to ruling that Congress can ban medical procedures as long as Congress can prove that Congress thinks there is a controversy over their health necessity, Kennedy mentioned over and over that many might find the regular D&E procedure to be more gruesome than intact D&E, while he was ruling that Congress had the right to ban something because "many" found it gruesome.
Five'll get you ten as to what the next move is.