{"id":330341,"date":"2025-05-01T08:47:02","date_gmt":"2025-05-01T13:47:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=330341"},"modified":"2025-06-04T18:37:44","modified_gmt":"2025-06-04T23:37:44","slug":"guest-opinion-why-left-acog-board-directors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/guest-opinion-why-left-acog-board-directors\/","title":{"rendered":"GUEST OPINION:\u00a0Why I left the ACOG Board of Directors"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this guest post are solely those of the guest author.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

After 25 years of clinical practice of obstetrics and gynecology in both bedside and academic medicine, I still absolutely love what I do. I find it exceptionally rewarding to be able to teach medical students, train residents, and help care for patients across the OBGYN spectrum. Additionally, I\u2019m thankful to have gained valuable experience by participating in various clinical trials throughout the years, and I have learned valuable insights in navigating the turbulent road of academic publishing.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet despite the diverse experiences, there is nothing more satisfying than guiding a patient through a complex obstetrical or gynecological condition successfully. Though we also encounter devastating conditions, this is the world of medicine overall. We celebrate the wins and we grieve the losses.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I have always had a passion to get more involved \u2014 to push for positive change in my field, to help shape medicine. So, when the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) had an open call for national officers in 2022, I jumped right in. I already had experience serving on an ACOG team, assisting with the obstetrical care consensus committee. I found it extremely rewarding. Joining the national board of directors was a no-brainer for me. <\/span><\/p>\n

I entered the national office as the fellow-at-large in spring of 2024 with wildfire enthusiasm. <\/span>But in March 2025, I tenured my resignation from the Board.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A strange virus has now infected professional medical societies like the ACOG \u2014 one that also infects society, preventing those infected from having rational, open, and honest discussions with others who might have different worldviews than their own. Gone are the days of \u201cwe can agree to disagree.\u201d Now, it is \u201cwe will disagree until I MAKE you agree.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Primarily medical or primarily political?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Per organizational bylaws, professional medical organizations like the ACOG are fiduciary bodies and are self-described \u201capolitical\u201d in nature. In a fiduciary, the views, perspectives, and opinions of all members are recognized, accepted, and represented; the professional organization via its leadership, therefore, must work on behalf and in support of the diverse world views of all its members. This, however, is not occurring. <\/span><\/p>\n

This is not a problem unique to the ACOG. This is being manifested across other professional medical societies as well and is the main reason for shrinking memberships. In a May 2024 publication<\/a> by Richard A. Robbins, he writes:<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, in the early 1950\u2019s, about 75% of US physicians were American Medical Association (AMA) members.\u00a0 That percentage has steadily decreased over the years. In 2019 there were only 132,133 practicing physicians or about 12.1% of physicians who are AMA members. <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The same can be said for the AAFP, AAP, and the ACOG. The unfortunate reality is that these professional medical organizations have gone from being primarily medical organizations with political undertones, to being primary political organizations with medical undertones. And it is wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n

On February 9, 2024, the ACOG released a statement on traveling to states with abortion bans in place. Stated in that brief<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

Obstetrician\u2013gynecologists are clinical experts, not legal experts, so they may be uncertain whether they could face recrimination when traveling to states where the care that they provide patients is banned, especially when that travel is conducted for professional reasons. Moreover, obstetrician\u2013gynecologists who are pregnant have valid fears about exposing themselves to the same legal restrictions to care that have caused harm to people living in restricted states. <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Stated differently, the ACOG would not go to abortion ban states for fear of \u201crecrimination\u201d of physicians who may provide abortions back in their own state. <\/span>Not only has this never been proposed in states with abortion bans, but it is also a surprising misunderstanding of the actual language in the abortion statutes. <\/span><\/p>\n

Any pregnant physician should never fear traveling to a state with an abortion ban for fear of lack of treatment in case of an emergency. All states, even those with abortion bans in effect, allow for appropriate obstetrical intervention in cases of ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous miscarriage, or events where a woman\u2019s health would be in jeopardy. This includes allowance for complications such as spontaneous rupture of membranes before fetal viability.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

The ACOG\u2019s decision to not hold its annual clinical meetings in \u201cred states\u201d robs those OBGYN physicians of their ability to attend these meetings based solely on the political \u201ccolor\u201d of the state. This is disappointing, heartbreaking, and wrong. Where is the fiduciary responsibility to its membership in these states?\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

In this same vein, upon hearing that the ACOG was considering leaving one social media platform for another, based simply on the political views of the owner, I had heard enough. It seemed that these decisions were being made based on the individual perspectives and worldviews of the directors, rather than acting on behalf of its membership. <\/span><\/p>\n

This lack of fiduciary representation is also evident in the ACOG stance on abortion. Through direct messages sent to me on my various social media platforms, as well as through in-person communications with other OBGYN physicians at various professional meetings throughout the country, I have had many inform me that this issue in particular was the reason they withdrew membership from the ACOG. <\/span><\/p>\n

This likely also explains the growing interest in parallel OBGYN societies like the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG)<\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Abominable Argument of Induced Abortion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The ACOG is a staunch supporter<\/a> of induced abortion. Based on the high percentage of ACOG communications regarding induced abortion, many in the community believe that most of the practicing OBGYN physicians perform induced abortion. This is not the case. <\/span><\/p>\n

ACOG notes<\/a> in its Committee Opinion 612 (2014), \u201conly 14% of currently practicing obstetrician\u2013gynecologists provide abortions,\u201d and this was before the Dobbs<\/em> ruling in 2022. A 2017 analysis<\/a> by the Guttmacher Institute found that only 7% of OBGYNs in private practice settings provided abortions. <\/span>More recently, a 2023 Kaiser Family Foundation national survey of OBGYNs found<\/a> that only one in five (approximately 18%) office-based OBGYNs are providing abortion services. In states where abortion is available under most circumstances, that percentage is 29%. <\/span><\/p>\n

No, most practicing OBGYNs, like me, do not perform induced abortion. They are busy providing an otherwise diverse offering of obstetrical, gynecologic, and\/or subspecialty care to their communities. <\/span><\/p>\n

Nonetheless, any alternative view to the abortion stance was not entertained, nor welcome, at the ACOG.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The ACOG\u2019s guidance<\/a> on non-directed patient counseling regarding an unplanned pregnancy acknowledges that the healthcare provider should offer three options as a plan of care for the pregnancy: 1. Continue the pregnancy and parent the child, 2. Continue the pregnancy and place the child for adoption, or 3. Elect an induced abortion. <\/span><\/p>\n

Despite all three options being clearly described in the guidance, only the option for abortion is highlighted and emphasized by the ACOG.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n