A Statement on Abortion by 170 Obstetricians/ Gynecologists after the Reversal of Roe v Wade.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Subject Terms:
      ABORTION laws; ABORTION in the United States; CONSENSUS (Social sciences); PATIENT autonomy; MISCARRIAGE; OBSTETRICIANS; MATERNAL mortality; MISINFORMATION; COURTS; ATTITUDES toward abortion; GYNECOLOGISTS; EVIDENCE-based medicine; HEALTH promotion; MINORITIES; REPRODUCTIVE rights; WOMEN'S rights; POVERTY
    • Subject Terms:
      UNITED States
    • Abstract:
      In a recent American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 900 professors submitted a Special Report calling for reinstating federal protection for abortion. Here, we provide an alternative consensus statement. Induced abortion is not a constitutional right. We, too, value patient autonomy, but autonomy does not allow for causing harm to another human being, in this case, the human fetus. We share concern about maternal mortality in the United States, but evidence shows that induced abortion increases, not decreases, maternal mortality. We share the authors’ concern for the effect of induced abortion on minority populations and mourn the fact that the abortion rate in non-Hispanic black patients is three times that of non-Hispanic white patients and twice that of Hispanic patients. Many obstetricians/gynecologists, like ourselves, do not support abortion, and most obstetricians/gynecologists do not perform abortions. Induced abortion is not necessary to provide evidence-based care. We also have seen tragic situations and misinformation and want to work toward addressing these issues. We support the highest level of clinical practice, bodily autonomy, reproductive freedom, and evidence-based care for both our patients—the pregnant woman and the human being in utero—whom we have dedicated our lives to serving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
    • Abstract:
      Copyright of Issues in Law & Medicine is the property of Issues in Law & Medicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)