Why the Medical Community Says Vote NO on 26
Why the Medical Community Says Vote No on 26
Many members of the medical community have expressed opposition to Initiative 26. Here are the facts about Initiative 26's impact that have led medical organizations to come out in opposition to Initiative 26.
INITIATIVE 26'S IMPACT ON:
Birth Control Pills
In-vitro Fertilization
Medically Complex Pregnancies
Ectopic Pregnancies
Life of mother
Doctor/Patient Relationship
Doctors leaving the state
Miscarriages
Malpractice Insurance
Confidentiality of Medical Records
Birth Control Pills
If Initiative 26 passes, many forms of commonly used birth control pills could become illegal. Most birth control pills contain a combination of the hormones estrogen and progestin. These pills prevent unintended pregnancies primarily by suppressing ovulation, but in theory could also prevent fertilization and implantation. Since Initiative 26 would designate a fertilized egg as a person—even before implantation in the uterus - birth control pills could be banned on the basis that they impact a “person.”
In-vitro Fertilization
Initiative 26 could ban in vitro fertilization. Designating a fertilized egg as a “person” would greatly restrict advancements in reproductive health technologies. Since more than one egg is harvested and fertilized to achieve a successful IVF pregnancy, making all embryos “people” under Mississippi state law will make it difficult if not impossible to continue offering IVF. Leading organizations in these fields oppose Initiative 26 because they believe it will essentially ban their work to help families have children of their own.
Medically Complex Pregnancies
Initiative 26 would be cruel to families facing medically complex pregnancies.
Tragically, we know that some families face medically complex pregnancies. Initiative 26 would stand in the way of families making the difficult decision to end a pregnancy that is not viable or is putting the health and life of the mother at risk.
Ectopic Pregnancies
One pregnancy complication Initiative 26 fails to recognize is ectopic pregnancies-- when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus, often in the fallopian tube or cervix. Because these locations are not large enough to allow full gestation of the developing fetus, ectopic pregnancies, if not treated, often result in the rupture of the fallopian tube, cervix, or other organ where implantation occurred if the pregnancy is not removed.
Life of mother
Initiative 26 has no exception for pregnancies that put the life of the mother in danger. Some pregnancies, if carried to term, pose life threatening dangers to the mother. Initiative 26 makes no exception for these tragic cases, forcing women to risk their lives or leave the state to seek medical care. Abortion is a complex issue. It is a decision that must be made by a woman in consultations with her doctor, her God, and her family— not the government.
Doctor/Patient relationship
Initiative 26 would insert the government into the doctor-patient relationship. It will make it difficult if not impossible for women to seek medical treatment if there is any possibility of harming the embryo. Many doctors and nurses say that this initiative would restrict their ability to provide care to women and families. For example, a pregnant woman who is diagnosed with cancer would have potentially limited treatment options. Doctors in Mississippi would not be able to use the full scope of available medical technologies to save these women’s lives.
Doctors leaving the state
Initiative 26 could force Mississippi doctors to move out of the state. Rather than take on the added liability and the high costs of malpractice insurance, doctors may choose to seek employment elsewhere. In an already medically underserved state, a decrease in the number of medical professionals could mean even greater health disparities.
Legal Liability
Initiative 26 could hold women and doctors criminally responsible for common medical practices. In-vitro specialists could be investigated if one of the embryos is damaged. Physicians could be faced with the choice of saving a woman’s life by terminating a pregnancy, or refusing to harm a fertilized egg, which under Initiative 26 would also be a “person.” This could put physicians in a place where they are sued for malpractice no matter what decision they make.
Miscarriages
Initiative 26 fails to recognize the prevalence of miscarriages (both when a woman is aware of being pregnant and when she is not) and non-implantation – even when a woman is not using a contraceptive method that can inhibit implantation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant.
Malpractice insurance
Initiative 26 could increase the amount of liability doctors assume, which would in turn drive up the costs of malpractice insurance. While it’s important that doctors be held responsible for negligent care, Initiative 26 could drive the price of insurance so high that Mississippi doctors are forced to practice out of state.
Confidentiality of medical records
Initiative 26 could result in the government accessing confidential medical records as evidence for criminal investigations. Women who miscarry may be investigated, as well as doctors who prescribe medical treatment that potentially harms a fertilized egg. As part of these investigations, the government could potential access confidential medical records.