Texas Abortion Rulings are 'Unsound Medicine,' New York Times Letter Says
November 6, 2013 — "Restrictions requiring doctors in clinics to seek hospital admitting privileges are medically unnecessary and do nothing to improve health and safety for women," Anne Davis, consulting medical director for Physicians for Reproductive Health, writes in a letter to the editor of the New York Times in response to a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling that allows the state to enforce such a requirement while the case is being appealed.
She notes that the admitting privileges requirement is "unsound medicine" and has "force[d] safe clinics" to end abortion services. Davis adds, "Women who had appointments are being turned away from clinics that could care for them, but now cannot because of a ruling that makes no medical sense."
Davis also criticizes the court for upholding another provision that "prohibit[s] doctors from providing medication abortions using the most up-to-date protocol based on a decade of sound research." She explains, "Instead of offering what we know to be the best care, doctors are forced by politics to use an outdated approach."
Davis concludes, "Both rulings deny women the care they need, ... undermin[e] doctors' training and pu[t] women's well-being second to political interference" (Davis, New York Times, 11/5).