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

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary