« Virtual Providence in Second Life: demo Wednesday; Web guru at Brown today; Ginsburg's abortion dissent: Equality is crucial... | Main | 'Sex, Drugs and Soybeans': The Farm commune at 36 »

April 24, 2007

N.E. Journal of Medicine calls abortion ruling "practicing medicine without a license"

New England Journal of Medicine online:

PERSPECTIVE   Partial Death of Abortion Rights
PERSPECTIVE  The Intimidation of American Physicians — Banning Partial-Birth Abortion
EDITORIAL  Government in Medicine

From the last, Government in Medicine, by pulmonary specialist Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D.

...In 2005, we all saw the disastrous consequences of congressional interference in the case of Terri Schiavo. In that case, the courts wisely decided that Congress should not be practicing medicine. They correctly ruled that wrenching medical decisions should be made by those closest to the details and subtleties of the case at hand. Such decisions must be made on an individual basis, with the best interests of the patient foremost in the practitioner's mind.

It is not that physicians do not want oversight and open discussion of delicate matters but, rather, that we want these discussions to occur among informed and knowledgeable people who are acting in the best interests of a specific patient. Government regulation has no place in this process. . In 1997, another editor of the Journal, Jerome Kassirer, took Congress to task for practicing medicine without a license. He cited a number of instances, including the passage of a forerunner of the bill that the Supreme Court upheld last week. With Gonzales v. Carhart, the judicial branch has regrettably joined the legislative branch in practicing medicine without a license.

Related:

it is important to articulate the several reasons why a woman who wishes to terminate her pregnancy might wait so long.

In 1987 a study, the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 71% of women did not recognize that they were pregnant or had misjudged gestational age. 48% had difficulty arranging for an abortion, particularly raising the money for an abortion. 33% were afraid to tell their parents or partner, and 24% said they were having great difficulty deciding to have an abortion. These women were also more likely to be having personal health problems, fetal health problems, or to have suffered rape or incest.

(From Defending A Woman's Right to Have an Abortion Through the Second Trimester of Pregnancy at the abortion-rights group Life and Liberty for Women)

Do you think that has changed much over the last 20 years?

Unintended consequences:

"Where women's access to safe, legal abortion is denied, some women will seek to terminate their pregnancy by other means." - Irish Family Planning Association.

No court in Washington can change the circumstances that lead women to seek abortions, circumstances its male majority can never face or personally fear.

American women are again facing the possibility of a return to backstreet abortions. Don't let that happen.

Response: Abortion ruling spurs reply By Alicia Mundy Seattle Times Washington bureau

WASHINGTON — In response to the Supreme Court's narrow decision limiting abortion on Wednesday, Rep. Jim McDermott and Sen. Patty Murray are co-sponsoring bills to preserve abortion rights.

The Freedom of Choice Act was introduced in the House and Senate on Thursday. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., are promoting the legislation.

The legislation would codify the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and bar states from limiting abortion rights. It was introduced in 2006 and 2004 but never made it out of either the Senate or House judiciary committees.

That could change in the House this time with a clear Democratic majority, but it's uncertain if there are enough votes on the Senate side.

Posted by Sheila Lennon  at 10:17 AM | Permalink