You would think that the American Medical Association (AMA) would want people to be fully informed of the facts when consenting to a medical procedure. After all, the AMA calls itself the “organized voice of medicine.”
So, why is the AMA fighting an informed-consent law in North Dakota?
Apparently, the AMA thinks that women shouldn’t be given all the facts when it comes to abortion. The medical organization is challenging a North Dakota law that requires telling pregnant women who are considering an abortion that:
- Abortion terminates the life of a “separate, unique, living human being”; and
- The chemical abortion process may be reversible if treated quickly.
In November 2019, the court allowed Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) client, Heartbeat International, to intervene in this case to support the North Dakota law.
This state law simply strives to give women information they need to make informed choices about life-altering medical interventions.
And all it requires is the truth.
It is scientifically indisputable that the life of every human being – with his or her own unique DNA – starts at the moment of conception. Abortion takes that life.
Shouldn’t women be aware of the reality of what abortion will do to her and her child before she undergoes the life-ending procedure? And if she does choose to go through with a chemical abortion, shouldn’t she know that there may be options available to her if she changes her mind during the process?
That’s what Abortion Pill Reversal offers. It is a cutting-edge application of a time-tested, FDA-approved treatment used for decades to prevent miscarriage. Over 900 women have successfully stopped their abortions and saved their children through Abortion Pill Reversal.
These are facts – facts that women deserve to know. They don’t give up the right to know the truth when they seek an abortion.
But if the AMA gets its way, women won’t know the truth. And by denying these women the truth, they are being denied real choice in the process.
Oddly enough, the AMA is twisting a recent Supreme Court ruling to try and justify its opposition to this North Dakota law – a case that ADF won at the Supreme Court in 2018. In that case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the Court ruled that the government can’t force faith-based charities to speak a message against their beliefs.
But that is not what this North Dakota law does.
North Dakota’s law deals with informed consent prior to a medical procedure with serious consequences. It simply requires – as all informed consent does – that all the relevant, accurate facts about the procedure’s risks, alternatives, and consequences be made known to a woman considering an abortion.
That is completely different from the government forcing private nonprofits to speak a message about a service they don’t provide and that violates their convictions and core mission.
The bottom line is that every woman visiting an abortion provider deserves to know the whole truth – including the facts about her unborn child and the choices she can make every step of the way.
If the AMA truly supported choice, it would not be challenging this law.
Religious FreedomWill SCOTUS Protect NAACP v. Alabama's Legacy? 5 Clues From Monday's Arguments
Much like Alabama’s demand back in 1956, California’s demand will also have disastrous consequences for donor privacy, free speech, and free association.
Religious FreedomWatch: Why Georgia Tech Students Discriminated Against MLK Jr.'s Niece
You'd think that Martin Luther King Jr.'s Niece, Alveda King, would be warmly welcomed in MLK's home state of Georgia when she spoke at Georgia Tech last year. But you'd be wrong.