Take Pro-Abortion Pressure off Medical Students by Ending Opt-Out Abortion Training Requirements
Want to limit the OBGYN shortage we’re facing? Let’s start with easing the pressure on future medical professionals who want to do no harm — one way to do that is by ending opt-out elective abortion training requirements.
Opt-out requirements apply when training is automatically required unless you choose to go through an administrative process that allows you not to participate. Such requirements place unethical pressures on medical students/residents to violate their conscience in order to not be targeted for their life-affirming beliefs. This isn’t conducive to staying in the field — but sadly, medical societies themselves often push for abortion “without restrictions, without limitations and without barriers” so far as to forsake conscience.
As an example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) suggests that the provision of opt-in training on elective abortions (where training is not automatically required but accessible) places a social burden on students to seek supplemental clinical experiences.
Or perhaps opt-in training programs place a necessary negative connotation on providing elective abortions?
At the very least, opt-in requirements provide a more accurate reflection of the fact that at most only 14% of OB-GYNs provide abortions. The American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs (AAPLOG) notes that elective abortion does not align with the views of many in the medical field as it is not healthcare, much less essential healthcare.
Abortion is antithetical to the Hippocratic Oath, as well as the Universal Declaration for Human Rights.
Yet, influential medical societies and institutions such as ACOG and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) continue to press medical education programs to require routine training in elective abortions, where students have to op-out if they wish to preserve their conscience. These requirements include training in both surgical and chemical abortions.
Dr. John Combes of ACGME stated, “We feel that abortion, or evacuating the uterus, is a core procedure for OB-GYN. It’s also used for management of miscarriages and complications of pregnancy like infection and bleeding…So it’s a technique that has to be learned.”
Combes uses a loose and manipulative definition for the umbrella term “abortion,” one he knows does not distinguish intent of procedures. It is important to understand that no abortion restrictions limit the practice or training of treatment for life-limiting pregnancy conditions such as ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage.
ACOG also cites research showing that students show “higher self-assessed competence in procedural and counseling skills” from participation in unrestricted, routine elective abortion training. Yes, students will undoubtably report a higher proficiency in manipulating women to kill their preborn babies if they are systematically pressured to do so by their medical institutions.
But when considering the decline in the number of people taking on OB-GYN training, it’s more worthwhile to study the way medical school curriculum is exacerbating the problem as it has been structured to encourage students to forsake their conscience for politics.
As an example, for medical professionals to receive subspecialty board certification – a major professional advantage and almost required for practicing physicians – applicants are required to receive residency training at an ACGME accredited program. This pressures students to apply and attend residencies that include routine elective abortion training which, in turn, places social and academic pressures on them to not opt-out of the conscience-violating practice.
No one should be put in a situation where they are fearful of retaliation for protecting their Hippocratic values.
Additionally, the ACGME requires that residency programs in states that prohibit elective abortion must provide clinical experience in other states where the requirement can be satisfied to stay compliant. As the OB-GYN shortage and maternal healthcare deserts grow, driving students away from residencies in these states where we need them most is only aggravating the situation. Staking the care of thousands of women on a standoff between Hippocratic values and political pressure is not helping anyone.
The programmatic requirements to attain ACGME accreditation also violate the institutional conscience of religious medical programs. If religious medical institutions don’t maintain ACGME accreditation, far less students will seek to attend these equally qualified programs that provide training on truly essential health care.
While some programs are afraid lack of abortion training will drive away top-tier candidates, truly great candidates will be the ones who want to save the lives of all their patients, not kill their most innocent ones. Empowering our next generation of medical professionals is protecting their diverse sets of values which allow for the compassionate and total care of women and preborn children.
We must hold medical activist institutions accountable for their role in deteriorating our pool of future medical professionals. No medical student understandably wants to constantly dodge coercive program requirements on the long road to become a full-fledged physician — and neither should they have to.
Accrediting institutions are not governing bodies of morality; let’s remind them of that.
Gavin Oxley is Students for Life of America’s lead operations supervisor and medical/law coordinator, as well as the founder/CEO of Future Medical Professionals for Life.
