Your Thoughts On The Supreme Court Ban On Abortion Procedure

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

kelaskov

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
171
Reaction score
9
Comments?

ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

Washington, DC -- Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.

"Today's decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women," said Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, ACOG president. "It leaves no doubt that women's health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.

"We have seen a steady erosion of women's reproductive rights in this country. The Supreme Court's action today, though stunning, in many ways isn't surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion," he added.

This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.

"On behalf of the 51,000 ACOG members who strive to provide the very best possible medical care to the women we serve, I can only hope that in the future, science will again be at the core of decision-making that affects the life and well-being of all of us," said Dr. Laube.

THE DISSENT:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZD.html

Members don't see this ad.
 
I thought this belonged in the medical forums as it's a medical issue and it directly affects doctors and their patients.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Why did you cross-post in the Osteo forum as well?
 
Why did you cross-post in the Osteo forum as well?

To see if there are any differences between DO and MD student's responses. Some people just go directly to their respective Forums.
 
To see if there are any differences between DO and MD student's responses. Some people just go directly to their respective Forums.

You've started 7 threads on SDN, and 5 of them have revolved around this issue. You cross-post threads to start the maximum number of arguments. You use ostensibly reasonable language to throw insults towards those who politically disagree with you. You are the definition of single-issue troll.

This is not an issue that directly impacts medical students; it is a sociopolitical issue related to medicine. Go have your argument there.
 
You posted one association's opinion about the ban. That sort of thing belongs in the Everyone forum.

If the forum existed and it was directly related to medical training, I'd post there but as it is, many DO students post in Osteopathic forums and many MD students post in Allopathic forums.
 
If the forum existed and it was directly related to medical training, I'd post there but as it is, many DO students post in Ostoepathic forums and many MD students post in Allopathic forums.

If that was true than the only one that would make sense would be the OB/GYN forum given the organization that issued it.
 
Cross-posting threads under the thin veil of trying to gather different opinions while pushing your own agenda kinda sucks.

Love it or leave it, I'm just disseminating info. and getting feedback regarding a statement made by an Org. that represents more than 90% of Obgyn's in the country. BTW- thanks for your opinion...so I gather you support the Supreme Court ruling? If so, why?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Why would we have an informed opinion on this anyway? We're med students. I agree, if this belongs anywhere its in the Ob/Gyn forum (or the sociopolitical issues forum).
 
Why would we have an informed opinion on this anyway? We're med students. I agree, if this belongs anywhere its in the Ob/Gyn forum (or the sociopolitical issues forum).


Are you saying that, as a med student, you don't know enough about abortion to make an informed decision? That's definitely not the case for all med students. In fact, quite a few of us actually learn about the importance of elective abortion in school. My school dedicates over an hour of lecture time to the subject which includes a brief review of the history of illegal abortion and the impact of Roe vs. Wade on maternal mortality. We're also able to shaddow docs who perform abortion procedures. My training has definitely helped me make an informed decision on the topic.
 
This is not an issue that directly impacts medical students; it is a sociopolitical issue related to medicine. Go have your argument there.

Hi tired military med student,

Considering nearly half of the pregnancies in this country are unintended and half of those end in induced abortion, the issue is highly relevant, especially to those focusing on women's reproductive health.

The recent supreme court ruling directly affects medical students. As an outlawed procedure, intact D&E (despite being safer than regular D&E for some patients) may not be taught/covered in medical schools.


Posts and information on abortion training in med school are particularly important for those students attending schools without formal AB lectures. In order for them to see what they're missing of course ;)
 
You've started 7 threads on SDN, and 5 of them have revolved around this issue. You cross-post threads to start the maximum number of arguments. You use ostensibly reasonable language to throw insults towards those who politically disagree with you. You are the definition of single-issue troll.

This is not an issue that directly impacts medical students; it is a sociopolitical issue related to medicine. Go have your argument there.

That's exactly the problem with the Everyone forum and why I no longer post there (not to mention most of my writing time is now sucked up by my humble and 25,000-unique-visits-a-month blog).

Jeez. Show of hands, who is tired of arguing about abortion? I mean, everything that can be said has been said and there hasn't been an original idea on that topic on SDN for at least five years. Might as well just make an index of every post on the subject and instead of furiously typing your angry opinions that you feel sure are going to devastate your opponent, making him admit defeat as he goes belly-up, you can write, "Oh yeah, well how about February 26th, 2004 Comment Number 25?"

It would save a lot of wear and tear on the keyboard, Kelaskov. How about trying some sweetness and light? Maybe start a thread about something new or make an original comment or two?
 
Hi tired military med student,

Considering nearly half of the pregnancies in this country are unintended and half of those end in induced abortion, the issue is highly relevant, especially to those focusing on women's reproductive health.

The recent supreme court ruling directly affects medical students. As an outlawed procedure, intact D&E (despite being safer than regular D&E for some patients) may not be taught/covered in medical schools.


Posts and information on abortion training in med school are particularly important for those students attending schools without formal AB lectures. In order for them to see what they're missing of course ;)

Aeeiiii! Head for the hills! Women's reproductive health! Not that!

Oh Good Lord. You won't learn how to do a partial birth abortion in medical school? How will you ever graduate? I got news for you sister, you won't learn how to do a lot of things and if that's your big sticking point, well, you're insane. Might as well agitate to be trained to do an appendectomy because your odds of having to do one of those, even as a primary care doctor, are a lot higher than having to do a partial birth abortion. (Desert Island, plane crash, survivors...you know.)

Man, you really think you are going to be running ther show as a third year medical student.
 
Hi tired military med student,

Considering nearly half of the pregnancies in this country are unintended and half of those end in induced abortion, the issue is highly relevant, especially to those focusing on women's reproductive health.

The recent supreme court ruling directly affects medical students. As an outlawed procedure, intact D&E (despite being safer than regular D&E for some patients) may not be taught/covered in medical schools.

Posts and information on abortion training in med school are particularly important for those students attending schools without formal AB lectures. In order for them to see what they're missing of course ;)


Let me suggest that you actually go through medical education before you begin commenting on its inadequacies.
 
Hi tired military med student,

Considering nearly half of the pregnancies in this country are unintended and half of those end in induced abortion, the issue is highly relevant, especially to those focusing on women's reproductive health.

The recent supreme court ruling directly affects medical students. As an outlawed procedure, intact D&E (despite being safer than regular D&E for some patients) may not be taught/covered in medical schools.


Posts and information on abortion training in med school are particularly important for those students attending schools without formal AB lectures. In order for them to see what they're missing of course ;)

At this point in my education, we have not talked about abortion. So any opinion I have will probably be based on how I was raised. I'm guessing even
once I've finished med school my level of education concerning women's health and its intricacies will pale in comparison to those in the field of Ob/Gyn.

I actually agree with Panda, when I was a new SDNer, I might be interested in an abortion debate. I've seen so many of them in the last few years and nothing new gets brought up. People get riled up for nothing.
 
Actually, I'm half way through medical education am happy to say that my school dedicated lecture time to elective AB, including a brief review on intact D&E. Did you get any training in elective AB during 1st/2nd yr? If so, how much? Did it incude info re. intact D&E? No one is fully trained in any abortion procedure by the end of med school- unless perhaps you've done a reproductive health elective 4th year, this doesn't mean the subject shouldn't be discussed. Although it's unlikey that you will perform such procedures, there's a very good chance a patient will ask you about them at some point. You may actually :eek: have to refer for one.

I find it very interesting that 1st/2nd year lectures regarding elective AB vary so much from school to school. After talking to some USFC students, I was impressed at how much regarding AB is covered in their curriculum. Other school don't include any information on elective AB- even 1st tri.

Anyway, thanks for killing this thread. Now you both can focus your efforts on slamming universal coverage/socialized med. in some other SDN corner.

Fabulous blog Panda, it's very entertaining. How about adding a few comments on the recent SC ruling to the pandabear blog? What are your thoughts on the SC court ruling against an org that represents over 90% of Obgyns in the country? I know you're an ER doc but surely you must have some thoughts on this?

Ok, I'm off for a run on the beach.
 
Although it's unlikey that you will perform such procedures, there's a very good chance a patient will ask you about them at some point. You may actually :eek: have to refer for one.

#1 - I've never heard of a patient asking an Orthopedist about an elective termination
#2 - As you point out, I'm military
#3 - I wouldn't refer anyone for it anyway, even if they asked

Have fun in 3rd year. Make sure you bring this topic up a lot on Peds, they'll just love you! :D
 
By and large, this is reflective of the problems associated with having a supreme court that randomly creates laws as opposed to enforcing laws that actually exist. Without offering an opinion one way or the other as the the merits of partial birth abortian as a medical procedure, I'll point out that abortian became "legal" on the national level when the supreme court invented a right to one in Roe v. Wade. Logic would tell us that the constitution doesn't mention abortian, so it would fall under state law as mandated by the 10th amendment. The US supreme court should have zero say on the matter without a constitutional amendment for or against it. There is no mandate that all states have to have the same laws on abortion.

Of course, this is such an emotional topic, that nobody really seems interested in following consitutional law.
 
Ah, your true colours shine!

I've never hid my opinion on this topic. Geez, read the last thread you started, I'm clearly pro-life.

Also, nice use of the letter "u" in the word "colors".
 
#1 - I've never heard of a patient asking an Orthopedist about an elective termination
#2 - As you point out, I'm military
#3 - I wouldn't refer anyone for it anyway, even if they asked

Have fun in 3rd year. Make sure you bring this topic up a lot on Peds, they'll just love you! :D

Do people really think that peds is entirely composed of pro-life people? I've seen this several times and find it rather puzzling. I'm a peds resident and most of my colleagues are pro-choice. While, I can't speak for them, I think this ruling is awful.
 
Do people really think that peds is entirely composed of pro-life people? I've seen this several times and find it rather puzzling. I'm a peds resident and most of my colleagues are pro-choice. While, I can't speak for them, I think this ruling is awful.

First of all, my comment was in reference to an earlier thread relating to getting training in elective termination while in a Peds residency.

Second, I have found that Pediatrics is among the most pro-life of all the specialties, in much the same way that Ob/Gyn is dominated by pro-choice physicians. My classmates and friends who have gone into Peds have been almost uniformly pro-life, as have most of the residents I have known who openly discussed their political views.

I guess your experience has been different, though I honestly have to wonder how often the topic even comes up in your field, that you would be able to say that most of your colleagues are pro-choice. It seems to me that med students discuss politics much more than residents, who tend to be consumed with patient problems and other things that actually matter.
 
. . . No one is fully trained in any abortion procedure by the end of med school- unless perhaps you've done a reproductive health elective 4th year . . .

Is the irony of abortion being taught to people learning repoductive health glaring out at anyone else . . .

Kill those suckers! (right?)
 
By and large, this is reflective of the problems associated with having a supreme court that randomly creates laws as opposed to enforcing laws that actually exist. Without offering an opinion one way or the other as the the merits of partial birth abortian as a medical procedure, I'll point out that abortian became "legal" on the national level when the supreme court invented a right to one in Roe v. Wade. Logic would tell us that the constitution doesn't mention abortian, so it would fall under state law as mandated by the 10th amendment. The US supreme court should have zero say on the matter without a constitutional amendment for or against it. There is no mandate that all states have to have the same laws on abortion.

Of course, this is such an emotional topic, that nobody really seems interested in following consitutional law.

One caveat, if I may (and I guess I will since I'm posting), actually this ruling was about the constitutionality of the law banning the procedure - not about the constitutionality of the procedure itself. Concieveably, congress can just as easily make a law doing the opposite.

You are correct though, the Burger court pulled the right to privacy out of thin air, with a certain decent amount of legal precedence from previous contraceptive cases. While I tend to agree man has a natural and God-given right to his privacy, it's not in the Constitution and therefore abortion cannot be a "Constitutional right" if based on "privacy". It's properly the playground of the states, but who really cares about the Constitution anymore . . . seriously . . . do all good things really need to come to an end?
 
Top