Doctors: South Dakota Abortion Law Parallels Scientific Understanding

State   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Oct 22, 2006   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Doctors: South Dakota Abortion Law Parallels Scientific Understanding Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Dr. David Stevens and Dr. Gene Rudd
October 22, 2006 Dr. Stevens and Rudd are the director and associate director of the Christian Medical Association, a group with thousands of member physicians across the country.

We affirm the medical and ethical principles contained in South Dakota’s Referred Law 6, which voters will decide in November.

From a medical and ethical perspective, this law gets it right on every point. Some may challenge the law on ideological or political grounds, but when it comes to the law’s scientific and ethical foundations, it is above reproach.

The law confirms, for example, the indisputable biological fact that ‘life begins at the time of conception.’ The law confirms the embryological reality that pregnancy means a woman having a ‘living unborn human being within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and child birth.’

These are basic scientific facts, and the only way around them is to attempt redefinition on ideological grounds. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues have resorted to redefining the facts in order to advance their political abortion agenda.

Thanks to advances in medical science, we know today so much more about developing babies than doctors knew when the Supreme Court relied on their testimony in Roe v Wade. The development of advanced ultrasound technology and increased understanding of genetics and fetal pain have heightened our appreciation for the breathtaking complexity and vulnerabilities of the developing human being.

We now know, for example, that a baby feels pain early in fetal development and at a much higher intensity than adults experience. We also know that infants can also survive at a much earlier age than was ever thought possible in 1973 when Roe v Wade was decided.

Over two millennia ago, Hippocrates established the foundational principle of medical ethics that a doctor must only heal–never kill. That’s why doctors who take the Hippocratic oath plainly pledge, ‘I will not perform abortions.’ The South Dakota law simply returns medicine to these proven ethical principles that protect patient.

More and more women are realizing that abortion is not the answer to an unplanned pregnancy, and that it can leave scars that last a lifetime. I know because I have treated many women suffering from the emotionally painful aftermath of abortions.

So many women have an abortion based on propaganda and false assumptions rather than medical facts and ethical considerations. Too often women are led to believe that abortion is simply getting rid of a ‘blob of tissue,’ and that it’s the only answer to their immediate crisis.

Years later, many of these women still regret that they were not fully informed about the medical realities of developing human life and about alternatives to abortion such as adoption.