海角大神

Veto of Oklahoma abortion bill steps back war on doctors

Gov. Mary Fallin vetoed the most aggressive antiabortion bill in the country. While the legislature had targeted abortion on medical grounds, she objected partly on medical grounds. 

[Updated 5:53 p.m. EDT] Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) on Friday vetoed the most aggressive attempt yet to legislatively rein in abortion on medical grounds, suggesting lawmakers had gone too far in their attempts to punish doctors who performed abortions.

The bill, passed Thursday, would have made performing an abortion a felony and revoked the medical license of any doctor who participated in an abortion, except in cases where the mother鈥檚 life is at risk.

It followed a series of antiabortion laws聽that have taken shape聽in red states across the nation, from Florida to Utah to Texas. Such laws adopt medical language to describe their objectives, even as major mainstream medical organizations 鈥� including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association 鈥� say restricting women鈥檚 access to safe and legal abortion often forces them to turn to riskier methods to terminate their pregnancies.

By casting its bill in medical terms 鈥� punishing doctors for performing a procedure deemed legal by the United States Supreme Court 鈥� Oklahoma legislators were attempting to ramp up a perceived war on abortion doctors, medical experts say.

鈥淭he messaging around a bill like this just deepens the stigma against abortion providers,鈥� says Daniel Grossman, an assistant clinical professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.

鈥淚t has a broader impact on entrenching stigma around abortion and sends a statement that abortion is not health care and that doctors who perform abortions aren鈥檛 the same kind of doctors that you know and love and go see for your primary care,鈥� he says.聽

On Friday, Governor Fallin said she vetoed the bill partly because it 鈥渨ould not withstand a criminal constitutional legal challenge.鈥�

鈥淲hile I consistently have and continue to support a re-examination of the United States Supreme Court鈥檚 decision [to legalize abortion] in Roe v. Wade, this legislation cannot accomplish that re-examination,鈥� she wrote in a statement.聽

But she also addressed the concern of some medical experts, saying that the bill was聽鈥渟o ambiguous and so vague that doctors cannot be certain what medical circumstances would be considered necessary to preserve the life of the mother.鈥�

Professor Grossman says that if the bill had become law,聽it could have negatively affected how doctors decided when to perform abortions, causing them to hesitate even when terminating a pregnancy is the best way to protect the mother鈥檚 life.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not like there鈥檚 a list of situations that everybody agrees, 鈥楾his is a situation where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother,鈥� 鈥� Grossman says. 鈥淟ike most things in medicine, there鈥檚 a lot of gray area.鈥�

Fallin agreed.聽鈥淭he absence of any definition, analysis or medical standard renders this exception vague, indefinite and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and application,鈥� she wrote.

Other antiabortion laws across the country have forced abortion clinics to take steps that many medical experts say are not relevant to what the clinics do. These include ensuring that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital or that the clinic maintains the standards of an ambulatory surgical center. Many abortion clinics in states with such laws have shut down, unable to meet those standards.聽

Supporters of such laws argue that the burden is on providers to ensure the highest standards in care.

鈥淗ealth and safety standards close no clinics,鈥� Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for antiabortion legal group Americans United For Life, wrote in an e-mail to the Monitor in April. 鈥淎bortionists close clinics when they don't want to invest their profits in protecting women鈥檚 health and safety.鈥�

The wrangling over such laws underscores how different interpretations of medical science have become central to the abortion debate. The Oklahoma bill, however, was an attempt to take things to a new level, Grossman says.

鈥淚t鈥檚 in the same kind of category in that it鈥檚 targeting the providers rather than women,鈥� he says. But this bill was 鈥渆xtreme.鈥�

Oklahoma lawmakers were explicit about the bill鈥檚 purpose to aid efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade.

鈥淪ince I believe life begins at conception, it should be protected, and I believe it鈥檚 a core function of state government to defend that life from the beginning of conception,鈥� state Sen. Nathan Dahm (R) of Tulsa County, who sponsored聽, told the .

State Sen. Ervin Yen (R) of Oklahoma City, a physician who voted against SB 1552, described the bill as 鈥渋nsane,鈥� the AP reports; and in the last five years, eight of Oklahoma鈥檚 antiabortion measures have been challenged in court as unconstitutional.

Which isn鈥檛 to say lawmakers do not have a role in regulating medical care, says Steven Ralston, an obstetrician and associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School鈥檚 Center for Bioethics. He notes that the Federal Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exist to ensure the quality of the care, products, and procedures that medical practitioners in the US provide Americans.

But 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 very important to distinguish between the government regulating medical practice and the government outlawing medical practice,鈥� Professor Ralston says.

鈥淚t鈥檚 about sticking up not just for women鈥檚 reproductive rights but for physicians鈥� professional autonomy,鈥� he adds. 鈥淸The bill is] designed to send 鈥� a message of intimidation to physicians: 鈥業f you are willing to provide a service that is legal in every other place [in the United States], you鈥檒l get in trouble in Oklahoma.鈥� 鈥�