California Legislature Requires Abortion Training

A bill requiring that California residency programs in obstetrics and gynecology comply with the guidelines of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which requires training in abortions, passed the California legislature and is expected to be signed by pro-abortion Governor Gray Davis.

Proponents and the author of the bill, Assemblywoman Hannah Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), argued that it was necessary to assure access to abortions due to an aging and dwindling number of doctors willing to do abortions. They cited a 2000 Kaiser Family Foundation Survey, which found that a majority of doctors who perform abortions are over 50, and that doctors over 65 are twice as likely to perform abortions than those under 40.

Brian Johnston, executive director of California ProLife Council, insisted that "it stretches credulity to argue that there is a shortage of abortionists in California. The fact that we have seen more than 300,000 abortions in some recent years in California belies that possibility."

If most physicians do not do abortions, he added, "It is because they enter the field of medicine in order to preserve life, not to destroy it."

Pro-lifers also argued that the requirement was not only both compulsory and offensive but unnecessary. Several committee analyses have shown that obstetrics and gynecology students are already required to complete the ACGME-approved residency program, which includes access to experience with abortions, to obtain their specialty certificates.

The ACGME guidelines and state law allow students to opt out of abortion training if they have a religious or moral objection to doing abortions. ACGME guidelines are less clear as regards the responsibility of the institutions.

Some legislators have suggested that the more fundamental issue for any legislative body may be whether it makes sense to make law by turning important policies over to an outside organization such as the ACGME. In other words, if the ACGME changes its policies, state law changes.

Indeed, until recently it seems this organization may have been at odds with federal law (42 USC Sec. 238n). Some would argue that it still might not be in complete compliance.

For example, federal policy prohibits requiring an institution to refer students for abortion training. The ACGME says the institution must not impede abortion training and must publicize its own policy against abortion training. The federal law does not require a religious or moral objection to opt out. The ACGME appears to do so.

As Johnston asked, "The question is, should California law be at the mercy of the ACGME, considering that this outside agency could put California in a position of being at odds with federal law? That could ultimately result in a withdrawal of all federal funds for the state of California.