Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Why obstetricians find the term 'elective' highly misleading in bills limiting abortion access
Many bills limiting abortion access, including this one, seek to target what they call “elective” abortions, presumably meaning abortions sought for a reason that the sponsors of the bill don’t see as valid. From an obstetrician’s perspective, the term “elective” is highly misleading. As one of my colleagues eloquently put it at the hearing, “the line between ‘abortion’ and management of a spontaneous miscarriage, between ‘when a woman’s life is endangered’ or not, is truly momentary and ambiguous. Being pregnant is more dangerous than not being pregnant, or having an abortion.” It is absolutely impossible for a piece of legislation to account for the myriad situations in which an induced abortion is the safest medical option among a list of terrible options.
Limiting access to abortion in any way will always have unintentional and detrimental consequences. Physicians in states where abortion restrictions exist experience distress and betrayal at facing criminal investigation and professional ruin for providing the standard to care to women in serious danger but not quite yet on the brink of death. In the 15 months after abortion restrictions were passed in Idaho, 1 in 5 of the state’s OB-GYN physicians left the state. Rural labor and delivery units were forced to close. Patients uproot their families and move so they have full access to appropriate evidence-based care.
Limiting access to abortion in any way will always have unintentional and detrimental consequences. Physicians in states where abortion restrictions exist experience distress and betrayal at facing criminal investigation and professional ruin for providing the standard to care to women in serious danger but not quite yet on the brink of death. In the 15 months after abortion restrictions were passed in Idaho, 1 in 5 of the state’s OB-GYN physicians left the state. Rural labor and delivery units were forced to close. Patients uproot their families and move so they have full access to appropriate evidence-based care.
If the residents of New Hampshire trust their primary care physicians, obstetrician-gynecologists, and subspecialists to care for them through pregnancy, to care for them in an emergency, then why not trust us when we say over and over again that restrictions on access to health care is dangerous? You never know when one of these rare complex situations may apply to you, or a family member, but if it ever does, you will want to be in a place where the full range of medical options is available to you.
https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2025/01/30/why-obstetricians-find-the-term-elective-highly-misleading-in-bills-limiting-abortion-access/