“Do no harm.”

This principle has been fundamental to medical ethics since ancient times. However, political pressures and misunderstandings about patient autonomy are leading doctors to compromise their patients’ dignity and their own beliefs.

This represents a concerning shift within the medical landscape, particularly in the OB/GYN sector.

Doctors are increasingly seen as mere service providers, simply giving patients what they ask for rather than offering careful, evidence-based care.

As a result, institutions like the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) now overlook physicians’ essential rights to operate according to their moral values and genuine concern for their patients.

As someone with deep-rooted Catholic beliefs who faced similar challenges during my residency, I’ve experienced how these pressures affect healthcare professionals.

This is why I’m advocating for the Conscience Protections for Medical Residents Act, co-sponsored by Rep. Greg Murphy and Sen. James Lankford, to help return medicine to its core principles.

Throughout my medical education, I aimed to be a pro-life advocate within the OB/GYN community, striving to care for both mothers and their unborn children. I deliberately sought programs that aligned with my views and avoided hospitals that mandated abortion training.

The University of Texas at Austin appeared to be ideal; they reassured me that I wouldn’t be compelled to act against my beliefs.

Yet, my experience was quite the opposite.

During my second year, I dreaded the upcoming rotation at Planned Parenthood. Previous residents who shared my objections had been compelled to attend, so I felt pressured to follow suit.

This experience clashed with my conscience and my understanding of what is morally right for patients.

I approached my assistant program director, who oversaw the rotation, seeking to opt out.

Initially, I was told this wasn’t an option, but if I persisted, I would have to discuss it with the department chair.

Feeling strongly, I persisted. Eventually, I was allowed to opt out if I could design a substitute curriculum approved by the chair.

For a weekend, I flipped from student to teacher, hoping by Tuesday my alternative curriculum would be enough to excuse me from Planned Parenthood. Ultimately, the alternative was never approved. Since I refused to attend, I was assigned reading tasks in the residency office.

This personal account touches only the surface of a far-reaching issue that has persisted for years.

The ACGME’s politically driven abortion training requirement dangerously undermines the conscience protections essential for effective and ethical medical practice.

This “opt-out” requirement puts medical residents in a precarious position, leaving them to confront mentors who control evaluations and training opportunities that could influence their careers.

Coercion in medicine should never be tolerated.

Yet, in the name of patient autonomy, organizations like ACGME and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) make exceptions for abortion training.

This is despite the fact that a large percentage of OB/GYNs, roughly 76 to 93%, do not perform induced abortions and are already trained to manage miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

ACOG persistently advocates for mandatory abortion training, further alienating many within the medical field.

A study from 2016 highlighted that over half of all physicians identify with some form of faith, and 65% believe in God, yet ACOG and ACGME show little regard for their inclusion.

In fact, another study conducted just before the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision revealed that nearly a quarter of medical program directors hold negative views toward students who refuse to perform abortions based on their beliefs.

The consequence? The field of OB/GYN is diminishing under the weight of political influence dictating medical training.

Now is the moment for those in the medical profession committed to foundational principles to take action.

In my communication with Attorney General Ken Paxton regarding the Coats-Snowe Amendment on abortion training, I referenced former Sen. Olympia Snowe’s aim: “to safeguard institutions and individuals who wish to abstain from performing or training for abortions against their beliefs,” while still upholding rigorous medical training standards.

This should be the benchmark. Politics should safeguard scientific integrity and ethical standards rather than distort them. With the efforts of Rep. Murphy and Sen. Lankford, we have a chance to restore this balance.

Rep. Murphy, a fellow physician and co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, has noted the unchecked authority of ACGME and ACOG, calling for a reevaluation of political influence in medicine. His initiative, inspired by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is pushing this bill forward.

Instead of the existing “opt-out” system, this proposed legislation would introduce an “opt-in” framework that respects physicians’ rights to practice in alignment with their conscience and ethical practice. True protections for conscience rights would enable medical residents to make choices without fear of retaliation.

I consistently aim to provide the best care for my patients; I strive to “do no harm.” Many colleagues share this perspective.

It’s crucial for Congress to rise to the occasion and establish protections that keep political agendas out of the medical sphere. The well-being of America’s medical students, physicians, and mothers depends on this.