Fall 2024

Induced abortion is defined as a procedure done to end a pregnancy in such a manner as to avoid a live birth ie intentional feticide. Many physicians will encounter patients considering intentional feticide (induced abortion) for various reasons. Such interactions present an opportunity not only to create a lasting bond with the patient, but also to open doors for her to explore possibilities she may not have considered, and thereby enable her to make a life-affirming decision. Given the importance of offering accurate information about induced abortion and continuation of pregnancy, this Guideline provides guidance and resources for the prolife physician encountering an abortion-vulnerable patient.

David C. Reardon, examines the results from the Turnaway Study, by Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (AN- SRH), which have widely been represented as definitive proof that women denied access to abortion will suffer severe injury to their health and economic wellbeing. Yet a careful examination reveals that the study is based on a non-random, non-representative sample of women that grossly under-represents the experiences of the majority of women undergoing abortions.

While both induced abortion and natural pregnancy loss have been associated with subsequent mental health problems, population-based studies directly comparing these two pregnancy outcomes are rare. We sought to compare mental health morbidity after an induced abortion or natural loss.

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.

The compatibility of mandatory vaccinations with human rights has become a very current issue with the COVID-19 pandemic and the Vavřička ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. This ruling has faced criticism for not conducting examinations related to disease and vaccines based on direct scientific evidence. In this analysis, an assessment will be made based on direct scientific evidence about tetanus and its vaccine.