Skip to main content

Supreme Court and the Texas Abortion Law - A Victory for Truth

Readers are not aware of my personal view on abortion, and they won’t be after this post.  While abortion seems on its face to be a complex biomedical issue, interestingly, those with firm views on either side do not describe it as a great moral quandary.  Those who ardently favor abortion rights, and those who oppose them in equal measure, often express that this is not a controversial issue.  For them, it is a clear issue of right and wrong, with each believing that the other side is entirely wrong and misguided.  This observation applies best to those who are toward the poles of the abortion question.  If you believe that an embryo and a fetus are human beings, than abortion is murder.  Not much room for debate here.  If you do not confer personhood on an embryo and a fetus, then a right to abortion is a woman’s right to freedom and autonomy.  Clear cut argument here also
Of course, many thoughtful individual wrestle with this issue and do not grasp it in the black and white terms described above.

I have given this issue much thought over my adult life.  I do not feel that I can contribute to this wrenching public debate.  I have no new point or angle that hasn’t been offered or would change any minds.

I was pleased with the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas law which had resulted in the closing nearly half of the state’s abortion clinics.  My view here is not related to my personal view on the issue.  I applaud the decision because I feel it is a victory for truth.

Our Best Functioning Branch of Government

Texas had required that abortion clinics be certified as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and that providers must have hospital admitting privileges at an area hospital.  If these two conditions were not met, then the center would have to close.  I completely reject the law’s supporters who have claimed that the 2013 state law was to preserve women’s health.  This was unadulterated mendacity.  The law was not to protect women, but to limit abortions in Texas.  We don't expect veracity from our elected officials.  Indeed, politicians and partisans develop wheezing and hives whenever they unexpectedly make contact with the truth.  They should have announced at the bill’s signing the law's true intent – to limit abortions.  If you believe that decreasing abortions is a noble and moral objective, then say so.  If you believe that the unborn child merits all protections that can be legally conferred, then argue your case and try to pass laws that would accomplish it.

From a medical point of view, requiring the abortion provider to have admitting privileges or having the center regulated as an ASC is ridiculous.  Many other medical procedures performed outside of hospitals in Texas were not subjected to these restrictions.  Why not?  Don’t these patients deserve protection also?  The fact that the law has not been shown to have protected a single woman is powerful evidence of its true motive.

Tell the truth.  If you are a teacher who is protesting for a higher salary, don’t tell us that you’re doing it for the kids.  If you’re an older cop who wants to retain the current system that rewards seniority, don’t tell us that this is an issue of public safety.  And, if you’re a gastroenterologist who does colonoscopy for a living, don’t rail against a superior replacement arguing that you’re only protecting your patients. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Becoming a Part-Time Physician

Next month my schedule will change.  I will henceforth be off on Fridays with my work week truncated to Monday through Thursday.   I am excited to be enjoying a long weekend every weekend.  And while the schedule change is relatively minor, this event does feel like an important career moment for me.  It is the first step on a journey that will ultimately lead beyond my professional career.  It is this recognition that makes this modest schedule modification more significant than one would think it deserves.  As some readers know,   my current employed position has been a dream job for me.   Prior to this, I was in a small private practice, which I loved, but was much more challenging professionally and personally.   My partner and I ran the business.   Working nights, weekends and holidays were routine for decades.   On an on-call night, if I slept  through until morning, I felt as if I had won the lottery.   And w...

When Should Doctors Retire?

I am asked with some regularity whether I am aiming to retire in the near term.  Years ago, I never received such inquiries.  Why now?   Might it be because my coiffure and goatee – although finely-manicured – has long entered the gray area?  Could it be because many other even younger physicians have given up their stethoscopes for lives of leisure? (Hopefully, my inquiring patients are not suspecting me of professional performance lapses!) Interestingly, a nurse in my office recently approached me and asked me sotto voce that she heard I was retiring.    “Interesting,” I remarked.   Since I was unaware of this retirement news, I asked her when would be my last day at work.   I have no idea where this erroneous rumor originated from.   I requested that my nurse-friend contact her flawed intel source and set him or her straight.   Retirement might seem tempting to me as I have so many other interests.   Indeed, reading and ...

Will Smarter Lawyers End Frivolous Lawsuits?

How do you know if a lawyer is any good?  Of course, they've all passed the bar, but now their profession is lowering it.  While most of us strive for excellence, and raise our children to value this virtue, prominent legal educators are establishing a new quality intitiative for their profession.  Who says that lawyers can't reform themselves?  Perhaps, we physicians can follow their bold example and raise the credentials of our pre-medical students.  I’ll present the facts. You be the judge. I have written a dozen posts on tort reform on this blog, which always generate spirited and adversarial retorts from attorneys and their supporters. They accuse me and other tort reform advocates of carrying water for insurance companies. They repeatedly point out that I know nothing about the legal system and are unqualified to opine on its flaws. They deride me when I argue that effective tort reform would reduce the practice of defensive medicine, despite the re...