Please see the email from the CMA below. Please contact us if you’d like more info and we would be happy to connect you.
—
My name is Lisa Gilbert and I want to update you about a new Family Medicine Section within AAPLOG (American Academy of Prolife OBGYNs). If you are in family medicine and want to join this growing group of physicians, please email me…
In conjunction with the newly formed Family Medicine Section of the Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA), we are also reaching out to family physicians with an important message. On September 23-25, the American Academy of Family Physicians Congress of Delegates (COD) will meet in Philadelphia to consider resolutions on abortion that will steer policy and advocacy of the AAFP for years to come.
The AAFP has traditionally remained neutral on abortion.
Over the last several years, the AAFP has passed resolutions on
abortion-related topics, addressing safety, accessibility, and government
intrusion on the physician-patient relationship. This year, however, it has
become obvious that the intention is to move the AAFP to outright endorsement
of abortion. Multiple states are submitting multiple resolutions with several
major focuses: (see 2019
COD Resolutions) (AAFP member login required).
- That the AAFP affirmthe legality of Roe vs Wade;
- That the AAFP oppose the criminalization of abortion
providers;
- That the AAFP partner with medical groups (ACOG) in
position papers to defend access to abortion services;
- That the AAFP support the right of family physicians to
provide abortion care and support all clinicians who are trained in
providing medication and first trimester aspiration abortions.
In the next four weeks, we vitally need your help in
pushing back against these pro-abortion movements. If you are an AAFP
member, we are specifically asking for your participation in one of two
ways:
- If you are attending the AAFP FMX in Philadelphia,
would you consider arriving several days early for the Congress of
Delegates to speak for the unborn?Any member of the AAFP can speak
for/against resolutions during reference committee hearings on Monday
afternoon, September 23rd. We have prepared talking points to help with this
effort and would like to place you in contact with others at the COD so
that our efforts are coordinated.
- If you are unable to attend the Congress of Delegates,
please contact your two state Delegatesand two Alternate-Delegates
with your concerns. Again, we have prepared talking points below and
drafted a separate example letter that can be personalized and submitted
to your state delegation. To reach your state Delegates and Alternate
Delegates, please contact your state association as outlined on this
page.
We know you receive multiple calls to speak up and advocate on
many different issues…but in this fight, we can advocate for OUR
patients who truly do not have a voice. If you are not a member
of the AAFP, we would deeply appreciate your prayers as we try to push back
against these movements.
Thank you for defending life!
Sincerely,
Lisa Gilbert, MD
AAPLOG Family Medicine Section Chair
____________________________________
_________________________
Talking Points
1) Abortion Neutrality – Ideally, we would prefer that the AAFP
take a stance AGAINST abortion but clearly the battle lines have
shifted. We feel it is important that the AAFP retain its neutral stance on
abortion.
The AAFP has had a
longstanding stance of neutrality on abortion. Why does the AAFP now
need to take a pro-abortion stance at this time? We have concerns that
a very significant portion of AAFP members would be opposed to a
pro-abortion stance and leave the AAFP, thus splitting the membership
and reducing the importance of advocacy for issues that unite all
family physicians.
If the Congress of
Delegates or the Board of Directors really believe there is a concerted
effort by its members to take a pro-abortion stance, then we ask that
they perform a poll of the membership to ascertain the exact stance of
the membership and not just the vocal interests groups.
2) Affirming the Legality of Roe vs Wade and the criminalization
of abortion providers – As we have seen in a handful of states, the citizens
of these states have spoken through their democratically elected officials
that abortion should be restricted through law. Although abortion is
currently “legal” via the Supreme Court decision, this was largely girded on
the argument that the government should not be involved in the privacy of a
woman and her decision to seek an abortion…it was not via legislation that
abortion became “legal” in the US. See the extensive explanation included at
the end of this letter
We
will also hear the argument that the lawmakers need to stay out of the
“physician-patient relationship.” This argument is political doublespeak for
the AAFP as we ask the government to intervene in tobacco use, in advocating
for government mandated vaccinations, etc. If not through lawful and
legislative means, how else should the citizens of our country enact such a
change to abortion law?
3) Signing with the ACOG – “The American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists supports the availability of high-quality reproductive
health services for all women and is committed to improving access to
abortion.” By signing with ACOG, the AAFP would thus move from a neutral
stance on abortion to one of explicit support. See the more extensive
explanation included at the end of this letter.
4) Supporting family physicians in the training and performance of
abortion – Those advocating for abortion clearly want the AAFP to support,
advocate, and train family physicians in the delivery of abortion care. This
is contrary to many of us who entered family medicine with the intention to
support life from the time of conception.
The reference committees at the Congress of Delegates require us
to be present in person to speak. Otherwise we can, at minimum, speak to and
through our state delegates in opposition to this movement. Do not feel
disheartened if you feel that you are standing alone, for earlier this summer
a petition was
signed by nearly 1700 family physicians and submitted to the AAFP Board of
Directors. Although you may speak or write as a single individual, you share
the concerns of many others.
For in-depth points of
rebuttal to the recent pro-abortion stances of the AAFP and Group of
Six, please read this rebuttal statement.
If you would like to
learn more about the Congress of Delegates, how resolutions are brought
about, and the process by which you may influence the future of the
AAFP, please read the following document.
(AAFP Member log in required)
Please contact Margie
Shealy at main@ethicalhealthcare.organd
let her know if you will be able to attend the Congress of Delegates so
that we can coordinate our efforts.
____________________________________
_________________________
Further
Background around AAFP Resolutions
Regarding the AAFP endorsing the legality of Roe v. Wade, the
right to privacy and the patient-physician relationship:
The Roe v. Wade right to abortion is grounded in the right to
privacy argument, and in the definition of personhood.1 The
right to privacy argument finds precedent in Griswold v.
Connecticut. Griswold holds that a right to privacy prevents the
government from intruding into a married couple’s bedroom to restrict their
use of contraception.2 Roe further denies the
fetus legal status as a person under the law.3 It is
important to note that Griswold presumes to deal with two
consenting adults making bilateral decisions regarding reproduction. But
there is a huge gulf in terms of the right to privacy in the decision to use
contraception and the right to privacy in the decision to abort a child.4 The
decision is antiquated. 3-D ultrasound, the tremendous advances in fetal
surgery, and the completion of the human genome project have taken us into
the womb to see this fetus: the unborn child who has a complete and unique
human genetic code, who looks like her parent, who sucks his thumb, who moves
away from the ultrasound probe pressing against her mother’s abdomen, who
practices breathing and has a developed neurologic system that enables him to
feel pain.
This is the unborn child who now undergoes life saving
intrauterine surgery and can survive outside of the womb as early as 23 weeks
gestation. Physicians are pushing back the age of viability every year. We
now understand that this unborn human is a person under any definition of
personhood. The right to privacy cannot encompass all privately
made decisions-by the individual or by the patient and physician within their
relationship-because the right to privacy does not allow one individual to
harm or kill another innocent human being.
The argument can thus be made that although Roe is technically
the law of the land, its reasoning is based upon a faulty understanding
of human life and personhood in the womb.5 It follows that
its argument of a right to privacy in abortion thereby is no longer a valid
one. The AAFP should at a minimum elect to stay neutral regarding Roe,
as it is now a controversial decision based on antiquated science.6
Regarding joining with ACOG:
The American College/Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
has long been aligned with pro-abortion groups. Its political nature (and
advocacy for pro-abortion policies) through the Congress and its political
action committee (OB-GynPAC) is overt. But the purpose of AAFP has never been
one of playing politics; rather, its purpose is to represent ALL of its
members as its members care for patients throughout the United States and the
world. The AAFP should stand for life for all patients. Physician
killing – whether in the womb or at the bedside of a terminally ill
person-should never be endorsed; however, if the AAFP is uncomfortable taking
such a “pro-life” position, it should at least default to a “do no harm”
stance and proclaim neutrality on these issues.
|
