How the abortion industry got mainstream medicine to 'save' abortion

Training future OB/GYNs and other medical students to commit abortions has become an expected part of education in medical schools... but it wasn't always this way.

What isn't widely known is that it was not the mainstream medical community that 'saw a need' for abortion training and sought to address it; it was the abortion industry itself — largely led by the National Abortion Federation (NAF) — that formed alliances to help the abortion industry to advocate for and infiltrate the world of mainstream medicine to ensure that future medical professionals were trained in how to intentionally kill preborn human beings.

In part two of Live Action News' series on the National Abortion Federation (NAF), we document NAF's role in the way things are today, beginning with how NAF sought to address the "growing shortage" or "greying" of abortion providers in the 1990s.

Key Takeaways:

• In the 1990s, abortion supporters were concerned about a lack of doctors committing abortions.

• The National Abortion Federation and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists held a symposium to address the 'shortage' of abortionists.

• Medical Students for Choice was established to educate and involve a new generation of abortionists.

• Abortion training was integrated into OB/GYN training, and Warren Buffett funded efforts to ensure abortion was included in medical schools.

• By 1995, the American Council for Graduate Medical Education had issued a new set of curriculum guidelines that explicitly required training in abortion procedures.

The Details:

As previously documented by Live Action News, NAF has an extensive membership, currently overseeing "more than 450 facility members," including "private and non-profit clinics, Planned Parenthood affiliates, women’s health centers, physicians’ offices, hospitals, and virtual providers in the U.S. and Canada, and public hospitals and both public and private clinics in Mexico City and private clinics in Colombia."

But that was not always the case.

The Problem: 'Greying' of abortion providers

The 1980's brought about the closure of multiple abortion facilities as pro-life activists became more involved in peaceful prayer and demonstrations.

The "greying" (or aging) of abortion providers drew concerns from abortion industry insiders, as Clinician.com details (emphasis added):

The National Abortion Federation first identified this threat... to abortion more than a decade ago, says Vicki Saporta, executive director of the organization. In 1990, NAF convened a symposium, "Who Will Provide Abortions?" to address the growing shortage of health care providers...

NAF established the Berkeley, CA-based Medical Students for Choice to educate and involve a new generation of physicians in the provision of abortion services, notes Saporta. The student organization has more than 4,000 members at more than 100 campuses across the country, she reports.

...NAF also conducts workshops to pair residency training programs with NAF member clinics willing to be training sites in areas where training opportunities are otherwise lacking.

NAF wrote:

In 1996, there were 2,042 abortion providers in the U.S., compared with 2,380 providers in 1992, a 14% decline. Similarly, in 1996, only 703 hospitals reported providing abortion services – almost 18% fewer than in 1992... During that same time period, however, the number of abortions provided in the United States declined by just over 10%...It was clear that the number of abortion providers remained inadequate compared to the need for services...According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 87% of all U.S. counties had no identified abortion provider in 2000, and that number increased significantly – to 97% - in nonmetropolitan counties.

NAF symposium calls for mandates on abortion training

In October of 1990, NAF convened its "Who will provide abortions?" symposium. NAF described it this way:

In 1990, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) along with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) convened a national symposium to discuss what was then a newly recognized shortage of abortion providers and make recommendations to address the problem (National Abortion Federation, 1991).

Since that time, NAF — along with many allies, partners, and supporters — has made great strides in developing programs, influencing policy, and expanding abortion training opportunities to increase the ranks of abortion providers and to remedy this developing public health crisis. The 1990 symposium marked the beginning of an important reinvigoration of abortion training.

Symposium recommendations included:

• "Recruit experienced, 'graying' physicians to become involved in abortion practice, training, and public relations."

• "Develop outreach to encourage retired and semi-retired physicians to provide abortion as a transitional practice, perhaps part-time."

Pro-abortion researchers Carole Joffe and Tracey Weitz wrote (emphases added):

Various speakers, who were long-time providers and observers of abortion work, confirmed not only the nation-wide problem of a provider shortage, but also the low status of this work in the eyes of many medical professionals.

They cited the perception of abortion work as tedious and unchallenging, even among those who were ideologically committed to it. Participants also focused on the failure to routinise abortion training into ob/gyn residency programmes after Roe v Wade.

The normal mechanism by which such training would have become required – adoption by the Committee on Residency Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology (CREOG) – had never taken place.

The final report of the Symposium called for ob/gyn residencies to mandate training in first and second trimester abortion techniques. Recognising that many ob/gyns would continue not to provide abortion care, the Symposium also called for the use of mid-level health professionals – physician assistants, nurse midwives, nurse practitioners – to perform first trimester abortions, under physician supervision.

ACOG gets involved to promote abortion training

Symposium attendees sought to "[e]xpose trainees, medical students, residents, and advanced practice clinicians — to medical abortion services" through mandated abortion training.

NAF described the dilemma (emphases added):

One of three key findings from the 1990 symposium was that obstetrics and gynecology residency programs fall short of their responsibility to train physicians in abortion and contraceptive services.

From that finding recommendations were developed not only to increase the availability of abortion training opportunities, but also to develop appropriate training resources...

In January 1994, the Executive Board of ACOG released a formal statement, “To address the shortage of health care providers who perform abortions, the College encourages programs to train physicians and other licensed health care professionals to provide abortion services in a collaborative setting.

Recommendations also included:

• Promote the integration of abortion care as a required component of ob/gyn residency training...

• Develop opportunities for residents to obtain at least minimum competency in abortion procedures...

• Address physician attitudes by developing teaching and other curriculum resources for medical schools and residency training programs...

• Develop creative incentives to attract residents to train in abortion care...

• Pioneering efforts are needed to normalize and integrate abortion into the comprehensive system of health care delivery.

The abortion accreditation scheme

The next step was recruiting the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) into the scheme.

Prospect.org reported (emphasis added):

As its first national action, Medical Students for Choice collected more than 3,000 signatures to petition the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to reconsider its residency requirements for OB-GYN programs.

In February 1995, the ACGME issued a new set of carefully worded curriculum guidelines that, for the first time, explicitly required training in abortion procedures.

NAF explained (emphases added):

One important consequence was that in 1995 the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) acknowledged that abortion training opportunities had dropped to a dangerous level and adopted clear new guidelines that explicitly set forth the expectation that abortion training would be available to all ob-gyn residents...

The 1995 revision to the ACGME requirements for abortion training in accredited obstetrics and gynecology residency programs — another outgrowth of the 1990 symposium — was crucial in providing an important impetus for positive curricular changes in those programs.

The new standard evolved through a series of iterations, until a final version was adopted on July 31, 1995, for implementation beginning January 1, 1996:

"No program or resident with a religious or moral objection will be required to provide training in, or to perform, induced abortions. Otherwise, access to experience with induced abortion must be part of residency education. 

This education can be provided outside the institution. Experience with management of complications of abortion must be provided to all residents. If a residency program has a religious, moral or legal restriction which prohibits the residents from performing abortions within the institution, the program must ensure that the residents receive a satisfactory education and experience managing the complications of abortion.

Furthermore, such residency programs 1) must not impede residents in their program who do not have a religious or moral objection from receiving education and experience in performing abortions at another institution; and 2) must publicize such policy to all applicants to that residency."

NAF then recommended that "Clinics that provide abortions can 'build a bridge' to a residency program (and future abortion training program) by appointing a faculty member to their Board or medical staff."

Funding the training: 'The usual suspect'

In 1999, "Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy at the University of California at San Francisco organized the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning, designed to address the need for training in abortion and family planning within the academic community. In addition, NAF launched the Medical Abortion Education Initiative," wrote NAF.

Authors Joffe and Weitz stated (emphasis added):

With the help of a private donor, the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning was established in 1999 to offer financial and technical support for ob/gyn residencies committed to establishing abortion training.

The same donor has also funded a postgraduate Fellowship in Abortion and Family Planning. The intent of these programmes is to assure an abortion presence at leading medical schools in the United States, and to facilitate a new generation of physician researchers committed to a career in various facets of abortion care.

That "private donor" was billionaire Warren Buffett.

Buffett is not only the primary financier of the Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion; he has also funded NAF and others.

In 2017, PhilanthropyWomen.org referred to the Susan Thomas Buffett Foundation as "the single largest funder of the National Abortion Federation" including the NAF hotline.

Today Buffett funds NAF to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Bottom Line:

The history of the National Abortion Federation matters because NAF spokespersons are often cited by media outlets as "experts." These experts, sometimes presented as if they are impartial, attack pro-life measures and pregnancy resource centers. The truth is that these experts are inextricably bound to pro-abortion ideology.