View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Statement on Abortion by 170 Obstetricians/ Gynecologists after the Reversal of Roe v Wade.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Statement on Abortion by 170 Obstetricians/ Gynecologists after the Reversal of Roe v Wade.
Authors: Christina, Cirucci (AUTHOR), Michael, Valley (AUTHOR)
Source: Issues in Law & Medicine. Fall2024, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p83-99. 17p.
Subjects: Abortion, Gynecologists, Obstetricians, Roe v. Wade, Abortion in the United States, Abortion laws, Consensus (Social sciences), Patient autonomy, Miscarriage, Maternal mortality, Misinformation, Courts, Attitudes toward abortion, Evidence-based medicine, Health promotion, Minorities, Reproductive rights, Women's rights, Poverty
Geographic Terms: United States
Abstract: In a recent American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 900 professors submitted a Special Report calling for reinstating federal protection for abortion. Here, we provide an alternative consensus statement. Induced abortion is not a constitutional right. We, too, value patient autonomy, but autonomy does not allow for causing harm to another human being, in this case, the human fetus. We share concern about maternal mortality in the United States, but evidence shows that induced abortion increases, not decreases, maternal mortality. We share the authors’ concern for the effect of induced abortion on minority populations and mourn the fact that the abortion rate in non-Hispanic black patients is three times that of non-Hispanic white patients and twice that of Hispanic patients. Many obstetricians/gynecologists, like ourselves, do not support abortion, and most obstetricians/gynecologists do not perform abortions. Induced abortion is not necessary to provide evidence-based care. We also have seen tragic situations and misinformation and want to work toward addressing these issues. We support the highest level of clinical practice, bodily autonomy, reproductive freedom, and evidence-based care for both our patients—the pregnant woman and the human being in utero—whom we have dedicated our lives to serving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Issues in Law & Medicine is the property of Issues in Law & Medicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 180778233
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Statement on Abortion by 170 Obstetricians/ Gynecologists after the Reversal of Roe v Wade.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christina%2C+Cirucci%22">Christina, Cirucci</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael%2C+Valley%22">Michael, Valley</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Issues+in+Law+%26+Medicine%22">Issues in Law & Medicine</searchLink>. Fall2024, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p83-99. 17p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Abortion%22">Abortion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gynecologists%22">Gynecologists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Obstetricians%22">Obstetricians</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Roe+v%2E+Wade%22">Roe v. Wade</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Abortion+in+the+United+States%22">Abortion in the United States</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Abortion+laws%22">Abortion laws</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Consensus+%28Social+sciences%29%22">Consensus (Social sciences)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Patient+autonomy%22">Patient autonomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Miscarriage%22">Miscarriage</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Maternal+mortality%22">Maternal mortality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Misinformation%22">Misinformation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Courts%22">Courts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes+toward+abortion%22">Attitudes toward abortion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence-based+medicine%22">Evidence-based medicine</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+promotion%22">Health promotion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minorities%22">Minorities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reproductive+rights%22">Reproductive rights</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Women's+rights%22">Women's rights</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Poverty%22">Poverty</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectGeographic
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%22">United States</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In a recent American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 900 professors submitted a Special Report calling for reinstating federal protection for abortion. Here, we provide an alternative consensus statement. Induced abortion is not a constitutional right. We, too, value patient autonomy, but autonomy does not allow for causing harm to another human being, in this case, the human fetus. We share concern about maternal mortality in the United States, but evidence shows that induced abortion increases, not decreases, maternal mortality. We share the authors’ concern for the effect of induced abortion on minority populations and mourn the fact that the abortion rate in non-Hispanic black patients is three times that of non-Hispanic white patients and twice that of Hispanic patients. Many obstetricians/gynecologists, like ourselves, do not support abortion, and most obstetricians/gynecologists do not perform abortions. Induced abortion is not necessary to provide evidence-based care. We also have seen tragic situations and misinformation and want to work toward addressing these issues. We support the highest level of clinical practice, bodily autonomy, reproductive freedom, and evidence-based care for both our patients—the pregnant woman and the human being in utero—whom we have dedicated our lives to serving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Issues in Law & Medicine is the property of Issues in Law & Medicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=180778233
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.70257/sfev5216
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 83
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Abortion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gynecologists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Obstetricians
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Roe v. Wade
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Abortion in the United States
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Abortion laws
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Consensus (Social sciences)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Patient autonomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Miscarriage
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Maternal mortality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Misinformation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Courts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes toward abortion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence-based medicine
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health promotion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minorities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reproductive rights
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Women's rights
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Poverty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Statement on Abortion by 170 Obstetricians/ Gynecologists after the Reversal of Roe v Wade.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Christina, Cirucci
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael, Valley
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Text: Fall2024
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 87568160
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Issues in Law & Medicine
              Type: main
ResultId 1