Physicians could face dilemma over New Hampshire abortion law decision

Some doctors question the state's attempt to legislate their medical judgment in an emergency. Other disagree and say the law works.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Dec. 26, 2005.

A number of doctors say the outcome of the first abortion case before the John Roberts-led U.S. Supreme Court could pose a dilemma for them: What to do first -- trust their medical judgment or call a lawyer?

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of a 2003 New Hampshire law that requires doctors to notify parents 48 hours before an abortion is performed on a minor. The only exception to that rule is if the abortion is necessary to save the patient's life.

A federal appeals court declared the law to be unconstitutional, saying that the exception was not broad enough to protect young women from health emergencies that are not immediately life-threatening.

Some in the physician community say the law is a good one. Others say it needs to be struck down because having to consult a judge, or having a judge potentially decide whether an abortion was legal, puts doctors in an ethical and legal bind.

Oral arguments took place Nov. 30, and several medical societies filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case.

Physicians who oppose the law in its current form say it interferes with their medical judgment. Doctors are particularly concerned that the narrow definition of a medical emergency will mean that the decisions they make about what is best for the patient would be subject to a judge's interpretation.

It poses physicians with an ethical dilemma, said Georgia Tuttle, MD, past president of the New Hampshire Medical Society, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief along with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association/State Medical Societies Litigation Center and several other medical societies.