AMA opposes criminalization of pregnancy loss
The American Medical Association (AMA) released a number of new policy adoptions, including several in reaction to the recently changed reproductive health laws in the United States.
The policy updates come after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which formerly guaranteed the right to abortion care. The case that ended that 50-year precedence, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, resulted in several states immediately implementing abortion restrictions or bans.
“Since the Dobbs decision, healthcare in the United States has been thrown into chaos, with life-or-death decisions deferred to hospital lawyers, patients needing care driven across state lines, and uncertainty over the future of access to reproductive healthcare,” AMA President Jack Resneck Jr., MD, said in a statement. “The AMA is steadfastly opposed to governmental interference in the practice of medicine, especially for well-established, medically necessary treatments.”
Specifically, AMA adopted policies opposing the criminalization of pregnancy loss resulting from medically necessary care, supporting expanded access to abortion care and more.
Namely, the association, which represents American physicians and medical students, opposed criminalization for pregnancy loss due to medically necessary care. AMA opposes charges against patients or physicians when pregnancy loss happens for treatment for cancer or other illnesses, and the association will advocate that neither should be held civilly or criminally viable for pregnancy loss in these instances. The move comes after doctors and pharmacists have been hesitant as new laws prohibit the use of medicines that could be used for abortion.
“Patients and physicians need assurances that they won’t be accused of crimes for medically necessary treatment,” Resneck said. “Unfortunately, this is the post-Dobbs world we now face. The fact that medically necessary treatment can be criminalized speaks volumes about these misguided abortion laws. Physicians and other healthcare professionals must attempt to comply with vague, restrictive, complex and conflicting state laws that interfere in the practice of medicine. These new policies will help the AMA to continue our advocacy and defend physicians in legislatures and the courts.”
In addition, AMA clarified the ethical guidelines regarding abortion bans, opposing government intrusion into patient-physician relationships that contradicts their professional opinion and obligation to protect the patient’s wellbeing. Further, medical students and physicians agreed the AMA should provide support, including legal support, and develop policies, strategies and resources to assist physicians in navigating between ethical duties and legal requirements.
“Caught between good medicine and bad law, physicians struggle to meet their ethical duties to patients’ health and well-being, while attempting to comply with reckless government interference in the practice of medicine that is dangerous to the health of our patients,” Resneck said. “Under extraordinary circumstances, the ethical guidelines of the profession support physician conduct that sides with their patient’s safety and health, acknowledging that this may conflict with legal constraints that limit access to abortion or reproductive care.”
Broadly, the AMA also adopted a policy to expand access to abortion care, advocating for public health programs and private insurers to cover these. The AMA will also advocate for legal protections for physicians who provide abortion services.
Finally, the AMA adopted a policy that directs the association to ensure medical students and residents retain access to abortion training. Currently, nearly 45% of accredited programs are in states that have or are likely to ban abortion, the AMA noted. Under this policy, the association will support pathways for medical students, residents and fellow physicians to receive medication and procedural abortion training at another location in the event that this training is limited or illegal in a home institution, as well as advocate for funding for institutions that provide clinical training on reproductive health service to expand their training capacity.