Category: Abortion

Planned Parenthood and “Anti-Choice” Rhetoric

Sean Murphy*

A response to Mario Toneguzzi, “Planned Parenthood Targets ‘Anti-choice’ Docs”, Calgary Herald (19 August, 2004)

Planned Parenthood and "Anti-Choice" Rhetoric

In 1999, citing allegations by un-named “individuals,” a Councillor of the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons claimed that some physicians who were not “supportive” of women seeking abortions were “rude and bullying to patients.”(1) Canadian Physicians for Life rebuked the Councillor for relying upon “polemical hearsay” and demanded that the College substantiate the allegation.(2) No evidence was forthcoming.

Three years later the Assistant Registrar of the College indicated that complaints about physician ‘moralizing’ were largely hearsay “from groups who provide birth control and family planning counselling to women” – not a bad definition of Planned Parenthood.(3)First-hand accounts from individual patients were a “distinct minority” of the total.(4)

Planned Parenthood Alberta is now recycling the accusation that physicians who object to abortion may “scare” patients with “misinformation” or “impose their moral beliefs.”(5) One of the problems with this kind of generalized smear is that it may be unfairly applied to conscientious objectors to abortion who follow the guidelines of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA).

The CMA advises physicians to “inform a patient when their personal morality would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants,” and to advise patients of their objections to abortion so that they can consult another physician.(6) The CPSA does not require physicians to advise every pregnant woman that she can have an abortion or put her child up for adoption,(7) but does expect them to provide information to patients seeking abortion so that they can “make informed decisions on all available options for their pregnancies, including termination.”(8)

In following these guidelines an objecting physician must, at all times, be respectful of the patient’s dignity, and must not be threatening, overbearing or abuse his authority by preaching or moralizing in order to influence his patient’s decision. On the other hand, objecting physicians can hardly be expected to present morally controversial procedures as morally uncontroversial, or in such a way as to indicate that they approve of them or are indifferent to them (i.e., to adopt a ‘neutral’ position). Moreover, the information they reasonably believe necessary to permit the patient to make a truly “informed decision” may be more comprehensive or in other respects different from what Planned Parenthood is accustomed to provide its clients.

A third party who was not present during this kind of exchange, especially an interest group like Planned Parenthood, might well stigmatize the discussion as ‘moralizing’ and providing ‘misinformation’. Partisan polemics of this sort do not provide a basis for sound policy making.

Planned Parenthood Alberta suggests that patients who are unsure of their doctor’s position on abortion should contact the organization because it is compiling a list of what it calls “anti-choice doctors”. Asking the doctor directly seems a simpler and more reliable way for patients to resolve such doubts. If it is desirable to help patients find physicians who share their outlook on moral issues, it would be preferable for doctors to identify themselves, perhaps through the College of Physicians and Surgeons or professional associations.

In the meantime, if Planned Parenthood persists in its plan to identify “anti-choice doctors”, it should include in its list the names of physicians who believe that their colleagues should not be forced to provide or facilitate morally controversial procedures.

Notes

1. Kretzul E. Ethical Responsibilities in Dealing with Women Requesting Abortion Services. The Messenger. 1999 Sep; 73: 6.

2. Canadian Physicians for Life. News Release: Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons challenged to think about conscience rights [Internet]. Powell River: Protection of Conscience Project; 1999 Oct 11.

3. Theman TW. Freedom of Conscience and the Needs of the Patient. Presentation to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Conference “New Developments-New Boundaries”; 2001 Nov 9-12; Banff, Alberta.

4. Theman, Trevor W. (Assistant Registrar, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta). Letter to: Sean Murphy (Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project). 2002 Jan 2. 1 leaf. Located at: Protection of Conscience Project.

5. Be Aware of Anti-Choice Doctors and Radiologists [Internet]. Edmonton: Planned Parenthood Alberta; 2004 [cited 2004 Aug 28].

6. Canadian Medical Association. Induced Abortion [Internet]. CMAJ. 1988 Dec 15 [cited 2020 Sep 16]; 139:12 1176a–1176b. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1268491/pdf/cmaj00181-0059.pdf.

7. Theman, Trevor W. (Assistant Registrar, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta). Letter to: Sean Murphy (Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project). 2002 Mar 27. 1 Leaf. Located at: Protection of Conscience Project.

8. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. Termination of Pregnancy. 2000 Jun.

Some corrections and clarifications

Project letter to the Calgary Herald

Sean Murphy*

While I am pleased to see that Laura Wershler is willing to accommodate freedom of conscience among health care workers, I must correct some misleading statements included in her article (“The morning after: Pro-life agenda misrepresents the emergency contraceptive pill, or ECP”,Calgary Herald, 13 February, 2004).

In the first place, http://www.consciencelaws.org is the URL of the Protection of Conscience Project, not “Repression of Conscience”. Contrary to Ms. Wershler’s assertion, this is a non-denominational human rights project, not a not a pro-life initiative. Pro-lifers are interested in the Project and sometimes link to our website, but the Project does not take a position on the morality of controversial procedures. It is enough to recognize the controversy, and advocate the accommodation of conscientious objectors. At least one pro-life pharmacist does not use the Project pamphlet about the morning-after pill precisely because the pamphlet does not argue against its use.

Second, Ms. Wershler’s article incorrectly attributes to the Project the use of the terms “abortion drug” and “emergency contraceptive (ECP)”. The Project does not use either term, except when quoting other sources. They are confusing, and complicate articulation of freedom of conscience issues.

“Abortion drug” is an appropriate description of mifepristone (RU486), which is designed specifically to cause the abortion of an embryo that has implanted in the uterus. The morning-after pill has not been designed for that purpose, and does not act in that way.

“Emergency contraception” is a fabulously successful marketing term. However, 94% of the women who take the morning-after pill do not require it to prevent childbirth. This statistic, provided by the drug’s advocates,[1] belies the notion of ’emergency’ that is often used to browbeat conscientious objectors. As to “contraceptive”, Ms.Wershler herself acknowledges that these drugs have three mechanisms of action, one of which may prevent implantation of the early embryo, thus causing its death. This is considered by many conscientious objectors to be the moral equivalent of abortion, a term acknowledged as appropriate by some authorities,[2] though the usage is not uncontested. The Project refers to these drugs generically as the ‘morning-after pill’ because this term is widely understood. We describe the morning-after pill as “potentially abortifacient”, in the sense that it may cause the death of the early embryo, but does not necessarily do so.

A final note to prevent further confusion: the meaning of “abortifacient” in a medical or scientific context is not the same as its meaning in a moral context. In a medical context, a drug that prevents fertilization (acts contraceptively) 95 to 99 times out of a hundred would be called a contraceptive rather than a abortifacient. But in a moral context, when the outcome may be death, a drug may be treated as an abortifacient if there is even a 1% chance of it killing the embryo by preventing implantation. A number of disputes that arise about the morning-after pill are a regrettable consequence of failing to recognize these distinctions.

Notes

1. Apply a calculator to the following statement: “In 16 months of ECP services, pharmacists provided almost 12,000 ECP prescriptions, which is estimated to have prevented about 700 unintended pregnancies.” Cooper, Janet, Brenda Osmond and Melanie Rantucci, “Emergency Contraceptive Pills- Questions and Answers”. Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal, June 2000, Vol. 133, No. 5, at p. 28.

2. Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.) (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), p. 532. Quoted in Irving, Diane N., A “One-Act Drama:The Early Human Embryo:’Scientific’ Myths and Scientific Facts:Implications for Ethics and Public Policy, Medicine and Human Dignity.” International Bioethics Conference, ‘Conceiving the Embryo’, Centre Culturel, Woluwe-St. Pierre, Brussels, Belgium: October 20, 2002 (9:30 A.M.)(Revised 23 October, 2002) Note 23.

Testimony of nurse re: Wisconsin Assembly Bill 67

Before Wisconsin Senate Committee on Health, Children, Families, Aging and Long-Term Care

Wisconsin, USA

 Beth LaChance, R.N.

. . . I . . . experienced an onslaught of disciplinary reprimands, retaliation, criticism and
ostracism. . . I was no longer assigned to train or mentor new nurses despite my credentials and  qualifications.  . . .I was denied career advancement to clinical nurse three status, as the  research project which qualified me for advancement, was resigned to another nurse without my prior  knowledge or consent. I was grilled as a “second class nurse” or “nobody”. . .[Full text]

The campaign to force hospitals to provide abortion

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Forty-five states and the federal government protect the right of health care providers to
decline involvement in abortion. Pro-abortion  groups seek to abolish these legal protections.

Consider the following:

Abortion Access Project

Operating in twenty-four states, the project’s goal is “increasing access to abortion services by expanding . . . the number of hospitals offering abortion services.” The project admits that its tactics include “pressuring hospitals” and it does so through both political and legal pressure. The “Hospital Access Collaborative” division reports on the state projects’ legal and regulatory interventions challenging mergers. [Full text]

Project Letter to the Telegraph Journal

New Brunswick, Canada
12 November, 2002

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Doctors at the hospital in Moncton have decided to perform only abortions they believe necessary for maternal health, so that scarce health care resources can be dedicated to reducing waiting lists for surgery. Dr. Henry Morgentaler calls this “disgusting”. He also accuses his colleagues of unethical conduct because they appear to be imposing their religious or moral views on patients. (Morgentaler calls decision to halt abortions ‘disgusting’ 9 November, 2002)

It is remarkable that Dr. Morgentaler should be disgusted by physicians who perform abortions for ‘health’ reasons, but not abortions for which there is no medical justification. When he decided to break the law against abortion, it was because he decided to follow something he called his “medical conscience”.1 His Moncton colleagues, while they will break no law, are doing the same thing. Baseless diatribes about ‘imposing moral beliefs’ are unfair and do nothing to improve health care in New Brunswick.

Dr. Morgentaler has also misrepresented the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association by implying that it obliges doctors to provide abortions. It does not, nor does it require physicians to referfor abortions or other morally controversial procedures.

Finally, Dr. Morgentaler clearly applies his own moral views in his own medical practice. Upon what basis would he deny his colleagues the same freedom?

Notes: 1.  Pelrine, Eleanor Wright, Morgentaler: The Doctor Who Couldn’t Turn Away. Canada: Gage Publishing, 1975, p. 29