When It Comes to AAPLOG v ACOG; It’s Academic Freedom v Oppression

March 27, 2023.

The question regarding the use of elective abortion as a contraceptive method in the United States is anything but settled.  One poll of American physicians found that 52% of doctors “reported objections to abortions for failed contraception.”  Another from Medscape found that while 24% of physician responders thought abortion should be accessible regardless of the reason or gestational age, 21% indicated that it should either never be permitted, or available only in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother’s life is at stake.[1] 

Seen from another light, a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 75% of obstetricians and gynecologists did not provide abortion services.  Meanwhile, despite the media’s and academia’s narrative to the contrary, according to one Harvard bioethicist only 14% of obstetricians and gynecologists offer abortion care, which she called “unfortunate.” 

In light of the ongoing and active national debate on the role and ethics of abortion in healthcare one would think that a national organization ostensibly devoted to the promotion of best practices in women’s healthcare would enthusiastically support robust discussions regarding abortion amongst physicians; yet nothing could be further from the truth. 

Leonardo DaVinci’s depiction of a human baby in utero.

After fifteen years of accommodating for the formal participation and representation of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists preceded by a forty-year recognition of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists as an official “special interest group,” ACOG banned AAPLOG’s formal participation in its Annual Meeting held in March 2023.  According to Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of AAPLOG, the news came three days prior to the start of the Annual Meeting and arrived absent any explanation or forewarning.  In fact, Dr. Francis tells USMA Action during her recent appearance at our podcast that her organization actually learned of the decision when it began receiving questions from reporters.  In fact, to this day ACOG has yet to respond to AAPLOG’s requests for an explanation. 

Nevertheless, Rachel Kingery, the ACOG senior manager of media relations and communications said, “At the CREOG-APGO Annual Meeting, we welcome exhibitors that align with ACOG’s and APGO’s shared commitment to the advancement of evidence-based, scientific information.” 

If sincere, Ms. Kingery’s comments, begs the question of whether AAPLOG harbors a ”commitment to the advancement of evidence-based, scientific information,” a question we posed to Dr. Francis.  “I would say,” Dr. Francis observed in our podcast after summarizing just some of the evidence based data in her possession denoting the deleterious effects of abortion on the mother, ” ACOG is not evidence-based on its position on abortion, but we most certainly are.”  We asked Dr. Francis to specifically speak of the deleterious effects of abortion to the mother because the intentional effect upon the baby—death—represents the ultimate negative outcome.

The disdainful conduct by ACOG and its leadership towards AAPLOG is emblematic of a problem that has increasingly gripped America over the past ten years and has recently sunk its horrid teeth into medicine; namely the intolerance of civil discussion and intellectual debate in the consideration of controversial issues.  That this disease is gripping the general public is bad enough, but its destructive implications rise to a higher level when it infiltrates the intellectual professions such as medicine and healthcare. 

Neither the United States Medical Association nor USMA Action believe they can settle the issue regarding the role of elective abortions in American healthcare in the near future, but they resoundingly denounce the suppression of contrasting points of view in public, scientific, moral and ethical deliberations, particularly when the issues under discussion deal with the delivery of care to America’s patients and the appropriateness of using physicians’ skills and knowledge to promote certain procedures or interventions. 

In this instance at least, the interactions between AAPLOG and ACOG have clearly demonstrate that the AAPLOG supports free speech and open discussion in science while the ACOG follows a road laced with oppression. 

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon practicing in Venice, Florida, and a former Florida State Representative.  He is President of the United States Medical Association. 

[1] The online survey of 2,341 US physicians was “weighted to American Medical Association membership by specialty, gender, and region” without explanation as to why the pollster found this to be necessary.