Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions?

Excerpt from "California bill allowing non-physicians to perform abortions falters, Christian Examiner. April 30, 2012--A California Senate committee stalled a bill on Apr. 26 that would allow non-physicians to perform first-trimester suction abortions, shooting it down on a 4-4 vote. SB 1338, sponsored by Sen. Christine Kehoe of San Diego, sought to allow midwives, nurse practitioners and physicians assistants to perform abortions without medical supervision. The Senate Public Safety Committee approved the measure, but amended it so that only 41 non-physicians taking part in an as-yet incomplete five-year pilot training program could perform them. But the 4-4 vote in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee didn’t decisively end the matter: The committee granted a reconsideration, which will bring it back for another vote on May 4.

Suction abortions involve inserting a cutting tool into the womb, which dismembers the preborn baby’s body. The remains are then evacuated through a suction tube into a bottle. The pilot program training midwives, nurse practitioners and physicians assistants to perform abortions is led by Tracy Weitz, a professor at the University of California-San Francisco, but underwritten by the John Merck Fund, which has made large donations in the past to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Choice USA. Weitz testified that “nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants can safely perform aspiration abortions in California.” But because of the risk of perforating the uterus or incompletely evacuating the fetal remains, pro-life advocates say the risks remain high — much higher than the study would lead people to believe.

The California Nurses Association, which usually leans left on abortion issues, called SB 1338 “ill-conceived and unnecessary.” In a letter, the bishops of the California Catholic Conference said that “in the name of enhancing access, convenience and cost-savings, this bill will do nothing to make abortion ‘safe and rare.’ ” “You don’t have to be anti-abortion to oppose this attempt to lower the standard of health care for women and girls based not on completed scientific evidence but on ideology and financial gain,” wrote political watchdog Margaret A. Bengs in an April 21 Sacramento Bee op-ed. Full story can be found here.

CMDA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd, MD: "Having experience in teaching and practicing with certified nurse midwives, I have long advocated for non-physician healthcare professionals. So, while a reasonable concern can be raised about safety issues if non-physicians are licensed to do abortions, that is not my primary concern. My concern is placing non-physician health professionals in the shadowy world of abortion; a world that does not attract the most competent skills or character; a world where institutional quality standards are poorly monitored; a world of inadequate professional accountability; a world willing to place agenda over beneficence.

"Even if pilot studies show nurse practitioners and physician assistants perform abortions with reasonable safety outcomes, we cannot assume that will reflect future reality. The controls of a research environment and the researcher bias common in abortion studies will likely result in more favorable outcomes than will occur if non-physician practitioners are allowed behind the veil of the abortion industry.

"Caveat lawmaker: let the California legislators beware. For if they fail to protect unsuspecting women, I fear the consequences."

CMDA Ethics Statement: Abortion
What is a Christian view of abortion and from a Biblical perspective how should we react to pending federal and state bills?
DVD: Biology of Prenatal Development DVD from The Endowment for Human Development, distributed by National Geographic