USMA Admonishes ACOG for Its Viewpoint Discrimination Against Colleagues

Recently, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) banished the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) from participating as exhibitors at its annual meeting due to AAPLOG’s pro-life position despite the over forty year history of recognizing pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists as an ACOG “special interest group”–until the discontinuation of the special interest program in 2013–and of AAPLOG’s consistent participation since then as an exhibitor. 

Towards its defense, ACOG spuriously claims that AAPLOG does not “align with ACOG’s and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics’ (APGO’s) shared commitment to the advancement of evidence-based, scientific information.” Additionally, the ACOG communications director, has confirmed that AAPLOG’s pro-life stance is now so unpalatable as to result in the latter’s banishment.  The irony is that in so doing, both ACOG and the APGO ignore the existence of their other, equally important patient, the unborn baby, who within a few weeks of conception possesses a detectable heartbeat and, shortly thereafter, brainwaves.  Further, in dismissing their pro-life colleagues, ACOG and the APGO ignore the potentially deleterious impacts of abortion on the mother.  Clearly, in this case, it is ACOG that is failing to support evidence-based or scientific information.

In light of these developments, the United States Medical Association (USMA) publicly admonishes ACOG for its conduct towards its AAPLOG colleagues.

The USMA was created on the premise that civil discussion and deliberation of topics regarding healthcare and the medical profession are integral to the improvement of quality of care in medicine.  Furthermore, it recognizes that professional, ethical, and productive collaborations between colleagues are integral to the common goal of healthcare quality improvement.  Indeed, it is our shared commitment towards delivering the highest quality of care after thoughtful consideration of all therapeutic options that ought to bind us with a glue infinitely stronger than disagreements on certain issues may work divide us.

ACOG’s conduct in this regard is exactly the type of behavior the USMA wishes to see end as a sad epoch in the history of medicine where intimidation, bullying, and faux elitism played a significant role in scientific debate and deliberation. 

Clearly, there is no formula through which the concerns of pro-life physicians within the field of obstetrics and gynecology (and in medicine generally) can be suppressed as invalid.  Even worse, in accepting only evidence-based data that “aligns” with its views of promoting abortion, ACOG is admitting that it only represents certain obstetricians and gynecologists and should now consider changing its name to the more accurate, “American College of Abortionist Obstetricians and Gynecologists.”

In light of these considerations, the United States Medical Association implores the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to retroactively rescind its banishment of its pro-life colleagues and demands that it continue to work to find solutions for women’s healthcare through open and non-oppressive deliberations in a spirit of mutual respect and collegiality regardless of differences in ideology, scientific beliefs, or moral/ethical considerations.

We look forward to hearing of ACOG’s renewed acceptance of all views within its specialty and the restoration of an amicable and trustful relationship with obstetricians and gynecologists holding pro-life views regarding the delivery of healthcare.