A "first of its kind" law (SB 234) in Utah that requires physicians to administer anesthesia to a fetus when providing abortion care at 20 or more weeks of gestation "is a reckless intrusion of a state legislature into the practice of medicine," according to a Los Angeles Times editorial.
"In order to assure the best possible care for patients," the editorial writes, "decisions about what type of pain medication or anesthesia to administer should be made by medical professionals, not by state legislators."
The editorial explains that the law, signed by Gov. Gary Herbert (R) in March, is based on the medically unfounded claim that fetuses can feel pain at that point of pregnancy. "[T]he law calls on doctors to use anesthesia in order to solve a non-existent problem," the editorial states.
Moreover, according to the editorial, the law also requires physicians to "follow a vague course of action that is likely to leave them stymied over how to reconcile the demands of the statute with their best medical judgment." The editorial notes that "abortion providers don't know how much anesthesia they ought to give to a woman in order to alleviate or eliminate pain they don't even believe the fetus feels." The editorial explains that abortions provided in the first trimester are usually performed with a combination of oral pain medication and local anesthetic, while abortion care at 20 weeks is usually performed with an intravenous sedation. The editorial questions, "Would that be enough to satisfy the law? Would general anesthesia be required? Even at 20 weeks, general anesthesia poses more risks to the woman than the actual abortion procedure. And it would raise the cost of the procedure."
Physicians "are expected to put their patients' health first, but it's hard to see how they can do so if anti-abortion legislators insist on meddling in a medical process they clearly do not understand very well," the editorial continues. According to the editorial, the Utah law is part of a broader effort by antiabortion-rights lawmakers "to legislate constitutional rights for" fetuses via personhood amendments and fetal tissue disposal requirements.
The editorial concludes, "It's bad enough that states pass laws that restrict access to abortion, often unconstitutionally. To dictate how doctors practice medicine is unconscionable" (Los Angeles Times, 4/12).
