By Carmel Shachar
This year, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) — the organization that runs the exam doctors must take to become certified in obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) — is requiring all candidates to attend in-person examinations in Dallas, Texas. By doing so, ABOG is failing its duties to its membership by asking the practitioners who are most likely to provide abortion services to travel to a state with a legal regimen that is particularly hostile to them.
By James G. Hodge, Jr., Jennifer Piatt, Erica N. White, Summer Ghaith, Madisyn Puchebner, and C. McKenna Sauer
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the constitutional right to abortion, laws went into effect in multiple states that restrict when abortions may be provided, including during potentially life-threatening emergencies.
To the extent highly restrictive, amorphous, and indeterminate abortion bans contravene physician implementation of life-saving interventions for pregnant patients — and thus infringe upon the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of the right to life — they are unconstitutional.
By Samantha DeAndrade
Last week, in response to a petition written by myself and colleagues, the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ABOG), which is headquartered in Texas, reversed its decision to pursue in-person board certification exams.
In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health, my colleagues and I held grave concerns about traveling to Dallas, Texas for this credentialing exam. We worried for our patients, our colleagues, and — though hard to admit it — ourselves.
In our petition, we cited concerns about the well-being of our pregnant colleagues who might encounter a pregnancy complication while in Texas and not have the full range of life-saving, evidence-based options available. We also expressed fear for our personal safety as abortion providers in a state where anti-abortion vigilantes are allowed to sue anyone who performs or assists in a pregnancy termination. It also felt wrong to contribute to the economy of a state that has passed the most restrictive abortion laws in recent history; a decision we know is about power and politics, not patient safety.
By Carmel Shachar
Since June 24, 2022, I have spent a lot of time thinking through the post-Roe legal and ethical landscape, both publicly and privately. Very often, the discussion is centered about the impact that Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will have on patients whose health or lives are threatened by their pregnancies — such as people with ectopic pregnancies, missed miscarriages with a high risk of sepsis, and preeclampsia — and the physicians who care for them.
These cases are, no doubt, important. But I am writing this piece to provide a counterpoint to this public discussion: abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible not only when the patient’s life or health is in danger. When we focus on the “blameless” abortions, such as the underage victims of incest, or the woman who wanted to be a mother but found out she has cancer that needs to be treated, we cede ground on this issue, by playing into the notion (whether knowingly or not) that some abortions are more justified or acceptable than others.