That won’t work for doctors

Re “Exceptions to abortion bans mired in confusion,” March 13

As a physician and medical administrator, I can guarantee that doctors want to provide medically necessary care to their patients. This includes those performing abortions.

But the threat of criminal prosecution for violating vaguely worded abortion bans passed into law in Republican-led states has a chilling effect. Criminal prosecutions are not covered by medical malpractice insurance, so the costs of mounting a defense fall solely on the physician.

Reputable medical specialty organizations (such as the American Heart Assn. and American Cancer Society) and government agencies have developed detailed guidelines for providing care. Physicians are used to following these guidelines.

In states that have banned abortions but where politicians claim abortions are allowed to save a woman’s life, all physicians want is for those governments to develop clear guidelines. If they can’t — which South Dakota state Sen. Erin Tobin, a forced-birth advocate, concedes — the exceptions to the bans exist only on paper.

No matter how much forced-birth advocates try to blame physicians rather than themselves for the public disapproval of their religious-based efforts, doctors will still refuse to do abortions in those states. Daniel Fink, MD

Beverly Hills

::

Thanks for clarifying the confusion over the abortion issue for us.

Clearly, columnist Michael Hiltzik’s separate article on efforts in Republican-led states to fight federal regulations meant to remove lead from water should horrify us all.

However, it might explain the confusion over the abortion bans in many of these states. Perhaps it’s the dangerous level of lead in water that has caused the fogginess in the brains of the GOP politicians who refuse to spend money rectifying the situation.

If only there was a remedy before November.

Marley Sims Valley Village