As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I am troubled by the seemingly binary political stances of being either for “abortion rights” or “anti-abortion” as these labels are often weaponized for political purposes, and do not accurately reflect how I identify on the topic of abortion.
Let me first acknowledge that as a physician, I do not know exactly when life begins. I believe only God knows the answer to that question. I am grateful that I have been given guidance on abortion by my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience (noted exceptions include cases of rape, incest or when a mother’s health is in serious jeopardy, among others). Using contemporary political parlance, most commentators would call that position anti-abortion.
I sincerely appreciate those in the medical and lay communities who respect my personal choice to adhere to this anti-abortion position. For me, like many people of faith, I have deeply held and rationally founded beliefs that contribute to my feelings about this politically charged issue. I can assure all that my position is carefully considered.
So, how does an obstetrician-gynecologist who belongs to a church that opposes elective abortion counsel a patient who seeks medical care, often in great distress, who feels she is not able to continue her pregnancy?
In truth, this has always been quite simple for me, based on advice my father gave me over 35 years ago.
He was also an obstetrician-gynecologist, and as I was preparing to interview for medical school many years ago, he suggested that some of the interviewers might ask me that very question. His advice to me was that I should never impose my religious beliefs on a patient. Rather, I should be sure that she understood her medical condition and the medical options available to her. Ultimately, the patient must choose her own medical path that is most consistent with her personal beliefs and needs. Those options might include continuing the pregnancy, utilizing adoption, or proceeding with abortion.
Revisiting my original dilemma, doesn’t letting my patients choose their medical paths indicate that I am politically speaking, for abortion rights? I have always been grateful for my father’s advice, because I have found myself in this position many times, advising patients about this heart-wrenching decision. I have never imposed my religious beliefs on a patient. I have also never felt that I was compromising my personal values or religious convictions in making sure that patients understand their medical options.
Further, I am grateful that I have been given the choice not to perform abortions. If my employer had mandated that I perform abortions, I would have resigned and sought employment elsewhere. But what if my employer required me to perform abortions? What if my state and government required me to perform abortions? I suspect this last scenario is how many women feel about the issue of abortion in Utah currently, as they are essentially left with no legal choice.
Let me speak to some pragmatic concerns about why I think Utah’s trigger law is harmful.
Many women who conclude it is best for them to seek an abortion will still likely get an abortion, but now they must go to another state. They will thus incur a greater expense, and more important, will likely delay receiving good medical care, resulting in advancing their gestational age and exposing them to greater health risks.
For women with fewer resources, these challenges become a practical bar to the procedure. It is likely that there will be women who, out of desperation, will have an abortion performed by someone who lacks proper training in performing abortion. We saw the many devastating consequences of this practice prior to the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, when sometimes even nonmedical people, who lacked necessary skills, equipment or facilities, would attempt abortions.
Finally, the Utah abortion trigger law is flawed in terms of its legal implications for medical providers. It could make some common, but critical obstetrical procedures such as termination of a previable, premature rupture of membranes pregnancy a felony, if a prosecutor were to decide that this commonly recommended medical procedure does not constitute a medical emergency. There are many nuanced obstetrical scenarios like this single example. Utah’s trigger law puts physicians who are trying to protect the lives of women, in conflict with standard medical practice and the law.
I believe Utah’s trigger law is not the right way forward and may actually harm women.
The success of our secular society depends on pluralistic cooperation between parties with opposing views, particularly on controversial issues like abortion. I am hopeful that the people of Utah, through their elected representatives, can accommodate the beliefs and preferences of all Utahns in a way that respects diversity of thought and safeguards the freedoms of obstetrician-gynecologists to render appropriate medical care to women.
Dr. Howard T. Sharp, is a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist who practices in Utah. The views and opinions expressed here are solely his own, and may not reflect those of his employer or his church.