News

Harvard Medical School Cancels Student Groups’ Pro-Palestine Vigil

News

Former FTC Chair Lina Khan Urges Democrats to Rethink Federal Agency Function at IOP Forum

News

Cyanobacteria Advisory Expected To Lift Before Head of the Charles Regatta

News

After QuOffice’s Closure, Its Staff Are No Longer Confidential Resources for Students Reporting Sexual Misconduct

News

Harvard Still On Track To Reach Fossil Fuel-Neutral Status by 2026, Sustainability Report Finds

Medical Association and Public Both Favor Ban

Letter to the Editors

By Laura E. Openshaw, Crimson Staff Writer

To the editors:

I read with interest the March 31 staff editorial criticizing the partial-birth abortion ban bill opposed by, among others, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (“Undermining Roe v. Wade). The position of this group, whose members stand to benefit the most financially when restrictions on abortion are weakest, and of the editors conflicts with the official position of the American Medical Association (AMA).

In their position paper H-5.982, the AMA advises against the procedure, stating that “according to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion.” Seventy percent of Americans, myself among them, agree with the AMA’s assessment, and we support the ban on this gruesome and unnecessary procedure.

Laura E. Openshaw ’05

March 31, 2003

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags