Medical Organization Threatens Physicians over Abortion ‘Misinformation’

I n the wake of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) threatened to revoke the board certification of any OB-GYN who spreads “misinformation and disinformation about contraception and abortion.”

“ABOG will review reports of dissemination of misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, reproductive health care, contraception, abortion, and other OB GYN practices that may harm the patients we serve or public health,” the statement reads. “Eligibility to gain or maintain ABOG certification may be lost if ABOG determines that diplomates do not meet the standards that they have agreed to meet and that the public deserves and expects.”

Of course, no one wants doctors to share false information with patients. But that’s not what’s at stake here. ABOG is a vocal advocate of unlimited elective abortion, and this statement is designed not as a means of ensuring that women receive good care but rather of suppressing the speech of doctors who oppose progressive abortion policy.

Critics of the move say it threatens the First Amendment rights of physicians, calling it a thinly veiled effort to target OB-GYNs who share accurate information about the risks of abortion procedures to women — information that conflicts with ABOG’s pro-abortion stance.

In its defense, ABOG argues that board certification is voluntary. But in practice, it’s nearly impossible for an OB-GYN to practice medicine without being board certified. Most OB-GYNs are hospital-based, and most hospitals require physicians either to be board certified or, in the case of physicians early in their careers, to be eligible for board certification. Without such certification, physicians would have almost no chance of receiving hospital admitting privileges, which would make it essentially impossible to practice.

Additionally, if a physician’s board certification were to come under review — much less be revoked — it likely would trigger a review process by state-licensing agencies, raising the possibility that a doctor could lose his or her license.

“The ramifications of ABOG threatening the board certification of all OB-GYNs in the country, without being clear what that threat is, is to produce a climate of fear, which inhibits OB-GYNs from speaking about abortion in a true and honest way,” says Donna Harrison in an interview with National Review. Harrison is a long-time OB-GYN and serves as CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs (AAPLOG).

“If ABOG, who is one of the major board-certifying bodies, says, ‘We’re going to pull your certification,’ you are basically destroying that doctor’s professional career,” Harrison adds. “They will not be able to practice in a hospital, and they’re done. This is not just an idle threat. This is the actual elimination of pro-life OB-GYNs from the profession of OB-GYN.”

Perhaps most concerning, the ABOG statement fails to define “misinformation and disinformation,” though the group’s explicitly pro-abortion stance suggests that these terms will be used to target pro-life speech. Likewise, the statement offers no information as to how the organization plans to enforce its threat of de-certification or adjudicate disputes.

In response to this lack of clarity, AAPLOG and several other pro-life physician-membership organizations engaged legal counsel and wrote to ABOG’s leadership, four days after the statement was released.

“ABOG does not define ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation,’ so it is unclear precisely what speech or ‘opinion’ will subject diplomates to loss of their board certification and does not give fair warning about what conduct will be penalized,” the letter states. “ABOG’s statement plainly seeks to intimidate diplomates who may offer opinions or testimony that state legislatures or courts may rely on in examining abortion regulations. It is a naked attempt to prevent these diplomates from exercising their constitutionally protected rights.”

As of this writing, ABOG had not responded to that letter. ABOG’s communications department likewise did not respond to National Review’s request for a comment clarifying the initial statement and the group’s lack of response to the AAPLOG letter.

If ABOG persists, the move will have two major consequences, in addition to the possibility that doctors may lose their livelihoods if they divulge information from a pro-life perspective. First, ABOG’s statement seems designed to intimidate doctors who might consider speaking publicly in support of pro-life policy:

Misinformation and disinformation about contraception and abortion can create false narratives about essential safe practices in the specialty. In addition, false or misleading information from board-certified medical professionals can also be used to advocate for legislation, regulations, criminal code, and health policy. ABOG considers the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation that may threaten the health of the patients who place their trust in its diplomates to be a violation of medical professionalism.

Already, this seems to have had a chilling effect on pro-life doctors. “We were contacted by two members after this statement came out, two members who had agreed to testify on behalf of pro-life laws in their space. They told us that because of this threat, they can’t take the risk of losing their job by going against ABOG on this issue,” Harrison tells National Review.

Second, if ABOG follows through on its threats to police the speech of pro-life doctors, it will make it harder than it already is for women to access maternal health care. “Many of our members work in underserved areas of the country, because they have an ethical dedication to taking care of patients regardless of their ability to pay,” Harrison says. “When you talk about removing people who have dedicated their life to serving underserved people, you’re going to exacerbate the already existing maternity health-care deserts.”

With all of this at stake, why won’t ABOG simply define its terms and outline a process for enforcing its new policy? Because offering clarity would undermine the purpose of the statement, which was to suppress pro-life speech without admitting to doing so. Either ABOG has to explicitly state that doctors who oppose elective abortion are guilty of spreading “misinformation,” or the group has to admit that there’s significant medical evidence substantiating the claim that abortion poses risks to women.

ABOG’s aim is neither truth nor clarity; it’s veiled intimidation. If it continues on this course, the organization may succeed in silencing pro-life doctors and driving them out of practice for good — ultimately hurting not only these doctors but also the pregnant women whom ABOG claims to support.