The Women's Health Protection Act
Philip G. Ney, MD, FRCP (C)
January 27, 2006

Thanks for asking me to comment on the proposed legislation. I've finally found some time to give it more detailed consideration. Those to whom I send copies of this opinion are friends and respected colleagues who I invite to comment on my comments.

I apologize for iterating my credentials but I wanted you to know that I have been here quite few times in 5 countries, as advisor, encourager and expert witness. All the attempts I know of, by very intelligent prolife advocates in and outside a legislative body, to change the practice of abortion by changing the legislation, have failed, most notably New Zealand and Canada. The successes that I know of or have been associated with, come from prosecutions under the existing laws. The simple point is that there are almost universal constraints to the practice of medicine that can be applied to abortion. It only takes a courageous complainant and a smart lawyer.

Having been a legislator I can tell you that the simpler the proposed piece is the less likely there is to be debate that eventually ends in disagreement and democratic defeat. Having been in courts far too often, I also know that the fewer qualifiers and descriptors there are, the less the lawyers can confuse the judge. Having been a well scrutinized physician, psychiatrist and psychologist in different countries for a very long time, [Thank you Jesus] I have learned to respect "evidenced based medicine" even though I am constantly criticizing the way it is practiced. I also know that physicians now attempt to gain their patients compliance by being popular rather than being credible and out of compassion for the suffering patient will lie. Psychiatrists tend to be better liars than others. Having been an academic and scientist, I know that fudging is part of the game and that the best way to keep people from knowing what is really happening with abortions is to not publish uncomfortable evidence.

So I still firmly believe:

1. Any new legislation should be built on and emphasize pertinent existing state regulations regarding the practice of medicine.

2. Make sure the burden of proof lies with those who recommend or perform abortions to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that any abortion is: a]necessary for this type of women in general and this patient in particular. b] the proceedure in question, [all different methods of abortion] is therapeutic. That by the standards of evidenced based medicine it will make the patient more well than she is and was before she had the "disease" [pregnancy] c] There are relatively few side effects. If there are deleterious consequences that they are less than the benefits.

3. In any emergency, the recommending or performing physician can show beyond reasonable doubt that the benefits outweigh the hazards. The definition of hazard will comply with those in other surgical and medical procedures.

4. The patient has received an unequivocal recommendation for abortion with stated justification by a properly qualified physician and was fully informed of the general and personal hazards, benefits and alternatives.

5. Depending on the circumstances, the patient was given sufficient time to discuss and consider the recommendation and to try the alternatives free of social or family pressures.

6. That parents or guardians of minors are informed and given time and help to find alternatives.

7. Less invasive and less definitive alternatives have been recommeded, tried and found wanting