Read Next
Activism
'Not backing down': Middle schoolers stand firm in prayer despite pro-abortion harassment
Nancy Flanders
·Spotlight Articles
Guest Column·By Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
GUEST OPINION: Study on 'moral distress' of abortion providers reveals perversion of medical ethics
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this guest post are solely those of the author.
A recent study published in JAMA Network Open examines the "moral distress" experienced by abortion-providing clinicians (n= 160) following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.
The authors highlight how legal restrictions and state bans prevent these practitioners from performing elective abortions, causing them professional frustration and burnout.
The premises and framing of this study reveal a profound and disturbing ethical inversion regarding the sanctity of human life.
It is striking that medical professionals can experience profound "moral distress" over being legally barred from terminating human lives in the womb, yet show a total absence of analogous distress regarding the fundamental termination of innocent human life that elective abortion represents.
The study quotes clinicians lamenting that they have the "facility, knowledge and skill" to perform abortions but are legally prohibited from doing so.
True medical ethics is rooted in the preservation of life, etched in the core principle of primum non nocere ("first, do no harm"). Mourning the inability to end a developing human life, while ignoring the irrevocable harm done to the unborn child, represents a complete perversion and inversion of medicine as a field.
This study serves as a textbook example of misplaced distress.
The authors and participants frame their anxiety around regulatory compliance, changes in patient volume, and the inability to execute preferred elective procedures. True moral distress in medicine should arise when a practitioner is forced to violate the oath to protect life.
Instead, these clinicians experience distress when the law protects unborn children from being aborted.
Directing emotional and professional anguish toward laws that protect vulnerable human beings, while treating the destruction of fetal life as a routine medical service, misunderstands the true moral obligations of healthcare.
Ultimately, the data and narrative pushed by this research is inherently self-serving.
By pathologizing protective pro-life laws as the source of "clinician burnout" and framing abortionists as victims of state policy, the study attempts to shift the moral focus away from the patient whose life is ended.
It prioritizes the professional preferences, convenience, and ideological goals of abortion providers over objective moral boundaries and the right to life.
Rather than validating the complaints of those whose business is abortion, our society should recognize that laws restricting abortion successfully fulfill their primary moral purpose: defending defenseless human life.
Reference: Wascher J, Howard D, Bornstein M, Rivlin K. Moral Distress Among Abortion-Providing Clinicians After the US Supreme Court Dobbs Decision. JAMA Netw Open. 2026;9(11):e2641713. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.41713
Author Bio: Hector O. Chapa, M.D. is an OBGYN and Diplomate for the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Nancy Flanders
·
Guest Column
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
·
Guest Column
Mary Strow
·
Guest Column
Angie Childers, MD
·
Guest Column
Austen Haynes
·
International
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
·
Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·
Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·
Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·
Opinion
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·
Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·Guest Column·By Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
GUEST OPINION: Study on 'moral distress' of abortion providers reveals perversion of medical ethics
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this guest post are solely those of the author.
A recent study published in JAMA Network Open examines the "moral distress" experienced by abortion-providing clinicians (n= 160) following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.
The authors highlight how legal restrictions and state bans prevent these practitioners from performing elective abortions, causing them professional frustration and burnout.
The premises and framing of this study reveal a profound and disturbing ethical inversion regarding the sanctity of human life.
It is striking that medical professionals can experience profound "moral distress" over being legally barred from terminating human lives in the womb, yet show a total absence of analogous distress regarding the fundamental termination of innocent human life that elective abortion represents.
The study quotes clinicians lamenting that they have the "facility, knowledge and skill" to perform abortions but are legally prohibited from doing so.
True medical ethics is rooted in the preservation of life, etched in the core principle of primum non nocere ("first, do no harm"). Mourning the inability to end a developing human life, while ignoring the irrevocable harm done to the unborn child, represents a complete perversion and inversion of medicine as a field.
This study serves as a textbook example of misplaced distress.
The authors and participants frame their anxiety around regulatory compliance, changes in patient volume, and the inability to execute preferred elective procedures. True moral distress in medicine should arise when a practitioner is forced to violate the oath to protect life.
Instead, these clinicians experience distress when the law protects unborn children from being aborted.
Directing emotional and professional anguish toward laws that protect vulnerable human beings, while treating the destruction of fetal life as a routine medical service, misunderstands the true moral obligations of healthcare.
Ultimately, the data and narrative pushed by this research is inherently self-serving.
By pathologizing protective pro-life laws as the source of "clinician burnout" and framing abortionists as victims of state policy, the study attempts to shift the moral focus away from the patient whose life is ended.
It prioritizes the professional preferences, convenience, and ideological goals of abortion providers over objective moral boundaries and the right to life.
Rather than validating the complaints of those whose business is abortion, our society should recognize that laws restricting abortion successfully fulfill their primary moral purpose: defending defenseless human life.
Reference: Wascher J, Howard D, Bornstein M, Rivlin K. Moral Distress Among Abortion-Providing Clinicians After the US Supreme Court Dobbs Decision. JAMA Netw Open. 2026;9(11):e2641713. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.41713
Author Bio: Hector O. Chapa, M.D. is an OBGYN and Diplomate for the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Nancy Flanders
·Guest Column
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
·Guest Column
Mary Strow
·Guest Column
Angie Childers, MD
·Guest Column
Austen Haynes
·International
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
·Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·Opinion
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·