TEXAS ACCESS / PRO-CHOICE / ABORTION
Should physicians ignore the Texas Abortion Law? The only answer is yes.
Upholding the constitution and moral obligation
With the stroke of a pen, Governor Gregg Abbott signed away the reproductive rights of women in Texas. The Texas Heartbeat Act, effective as of September 1st, threatens access to safe, legal abortions and further dismantles reproductive healthcare infrastructure in the state of Texas. The highly restrictive abortion law prevents medical professionals from inducing an abortion in pregnant persons once there is an embryonic “heartbeat” detected, effectively banning abortions at about six weeks gestation. The signage of the bill was commemorated by a photo of 72 Texas legislators holding up their hands to make a heart shape as they stand behind Governor Abbot and the recently signed bill. Only eight of the legislators present were women. All were white. (Photo below for reference)
Despite the deceptive name of the bill, do not confuse the presence of embryonic cardiac activity — an inaudible firing of electronic signals — with cardiac viability outside of the womb. The heart is still weeks away from being fully developed. And even then, fetal viability occurs much further along in a pregnancy.
As a tool for enforcement, this law deputizes average civilians as pro-life bounty hunters to report anyone aiding or abetting abortions to the State, incentivizing such action with the promise of a $10,000 reward in civil penalties, at minimum. Those seeking abortions in Texas felt the effects immediately. Fearing the potential punitive civil lawsuit penalties, most abortion providers were intimidated into submission and refused care to pregnant persons across the state. While these laws are often perpetuated as paternalistic protection of both woman and child’s wellbeing, they often ensure the exact opposite. This law is forcing women to travel further, endure more expenses, and place an undue burden on their access to reproductive healthcare. This law robs women not only of their bodily autonomy, but also of their time, money, and other resources that should never be prerequisites to access abortion.
Physicians’ refusal to continue abortion care to patients out of fear for retribution is the exact intent of the law — creating an environment so toxic that abortion procedures are halted out of fear for the potential consequences, instead of caring for patients with an immediate need. It is not an abortion provider’s responsibility to navigate political crossfire or to refuse care to patients out of personal reservations of the risks associated with such care. It is our job, however, to care for our patients. The Texas Heartbeat Act is asking providers to forgo our responsibility to our patients in deference to a law blatantly unconstitutional.
If it is against the law to provide the care our patients need, then maybe it is time to break that law. Abortion care will always be essential medical care and providers should continue performing abortions and do so transparently. If all providers continued with their abortion practice and did so honestly and openly, how would the legal system keep up? We have a duty of care to exercise, which includes caring for our patients even as the precarity persists. This law is intending to scare abortion providers from providing care, but if and when this law is challenged in the courts, it will not be upheld due to its overt disregard for the protections granted to us in Roe v. Wade. We must not wait idly for permission to perform our most basic responsibility to our patients.
As long as Roe v. Wade is maintained, any laws mandating undue burdens on women seeking abortions are unconstitutional. We must continue acting as such. We must not wait for others to intercept responsibility and further defer reproductive care to those in need. The duty to care is, and has always been, ours.
While the sentiment of the law faces public outcry and private detestation among fellow abortion providers, some have become frozen with the fear of losing licenses, facing massive legal fees, or feeling like being law-abiding citizens is our moral obligation. There comes a time when we must interrogate our motivations in our practice and realize our allegiance must always be to our patients and not to the political games the far-right plays, utilizing the lives and bodies of women as their pawns. We must ask ourselves, “If not us, then who?” and “If not now, then when?” We must ask ourselves this and resolutely realize that it must be us, and it must be now.
