You don't need to be signed in to read BMJ Group Blogs, but you can register here to receive updates about other BMJ Group products and services via our Group site.

Jen Gunter: Why the recent abortion law in Texas has nothing to do with patient safety

28 Nov, 13 | by BMJ

jengunterThe US Supreme Court recently ruled in a 5:4 decision against an emergency application to stop a Texas law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The basis for the Supreme Court ruling is that this restriction doesn’t place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion.

A first trimester abortion performed by a competent provider in a clean setting has a major complication rate of 0.05%. Mortality at or below 8 weeks is 0.1 per 100 000 legal induced abortions and rises slightly to 0.4 per 100 000 by 12 weeks. While major complications and mortality rates are still very low in the second trimester they do rise by gestational age. For example, at 13-15 weeks, mortality is 1.7/100 000 procedures and 8.9 per 100 000 procedures at and above 21 weeks.

Restrictive abortion laws, ironically touted as safety measures, result in delays getting care and increase the rate of second trimester procedures and therefore the risk. If all women choosing elective abortion accessed services before eight weeks’ gestation, more than 80% of abortion-related deaths could be prevented.

First trimester abortion in an outpatient setting is on par safety wise with colonoscopy, which has a serious complication rate of 0.8 per 1000 procedures (0.08%), however there is no law requiring gastroenterologists in Texas to have admitting privileges within 30 miles from their outpatient setting. Singling out abortion can therefore not be about patient safety.

Admitting privileges within 30 miles of an outpatient setting does nothing for patient safety. Dealing with a serious complication requires a stocked crash cart, oxygen, the expertise to administer emergent medical care, a telephone to call 911, and paramedics to take the patient to the closest hospital. Furthermore when an emergency room doctor or Ob/Gyn on call receives a patient in distress they don’t wait for the transferring physician.

The physician or healthcare provider performing a procedure may not be the best person to manage a surgical complication. Colonoscopy provides another good analogy as in the unlikely event of a perforation the required surgical care, if needed, would be performed by a surgeon. If Texas politicians are concerned about maintaining continuity of care for patients why allow gastroenterologists to perform colonoscopies at all?

The Supreme Court’s decision has a chilling ramification beyond the obvious immediate concern of reduced access to safe, legal abortion, which may lead to procedures at a later gestational age or even cause some women to attempt risky, unsupervised medical abortions with medications purchased across the Mexican border or online.

By allowing such a law to stand, five justices of the Supreme Court are saying that it is constitutional for the government to enact laws that flout science and interfere with the delivery of medical care for women based on political, personal, or religious agenda.

To place a woman at higher risk for a medical or surgical complication because of a law that ignores science and the standard of care is the very definition of an “undue burden.”

Jen Gunter is an obstetrician/gynaecologist in San Francisco. She blogs on her personal site at

By submitting your comment you agree to adhere to these terms and conditions
  • Daniel Kane

    “it is not our (the Supreme Court’s) job to save the people from the consequences of their political choices.” This quote, from the first few pages of the Obamacare mandate decision is the tone of the Roberts Court. The representatives of the people of TX have spoken and it is the will of the people, not any evidence or proof that matters. One may legislate anything they want about abortion services – they can say only board certified OB-Gyns may do it, or only inside a hospital, the list is endless. These decisions do not require any evidence or logic test. The gastroenterologist comparison albeit valid, does not matter at all legally.

    The same strategy used to blunt the 2nd amendment will be legislatively formulated against abortion. The comparison here is the “safe zone” rules for gun possession. One may not carry a weapon at a school. Proportionally, one may only perform an abortion within 30 miles of a hospital one has privileges in. The rationale for both is “if it saves just one (mythical) life…” because making something illegal never stopped a criminal – especially an insane one.

    It also stands to reason that the community might benefit from having an abortion provider, typically a circuit – riding out of town doctor have his/her skills vetted by a responsible, local third party and the nearby hospital is best for this. This will also ensure that an adequate level of insurance is maintained and ongoing education is obtained. “Women deserve this heightened level of care.” after all.

    In the words of Obama, “elections matter and we won”. The same could be said in Texas. Does it fly in the face of evidence and logic – obviously. The same can be said of many laws. The presence of evidence and logic are not constitutional requirements, nor is truth in advertising – “you can keep your plan…” What matters matters is the combined will of the legislature and executive. The Courts will not rescue you from stupid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
BMJ blogs homepage

Helping doctors make better decisions. Visit site

Creative Comms logo

Latest from

Latest from

Latest from podcasts

Latest from podcasts

Blogs linking here

Blogs linking here