Read Next
Analysis
Abortionist responsible for woman's death calls 911 for serious injury to another abortion patient
Cassy Cooke
·Spotlight Articles
Guest Column·By Omar L. Hamada MD, MBA, FACOG, FAAFP
OBGYN: Why the Tennessee Medical Association doesn't speak for me or my patients
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this guest post are solely those of the author.
For 30 years, I have cared for women, mothers, and their babies. I have treated ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, hemorrhages, and infections when minutes mattered. So when the Tennessee Medical Association told a court that Tennessee's abortion law keeps physicians like me from caring for women in danger, I read its brief carefully.
I do not recognize the medicine it describes, and it does not speak for me.
On Oct. 7, the TMA filed an amicus brief in Phillips v. State of Tennessee, now before the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The plaintiffs challenge the medical-necessity exception in Tennessee's Human Life Protection Act. Its co-signers include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which the brief describes as committed to "ensuring access to" care "including abortion care." The brief declares that "[a]ccess to abortion is essential," and asks the court to "affirm the decision below."
The TMA says it wants "more legal clarity to protect physicians." I share that goal: no woman with a dangerous complication should wait for care, and no doctor acting in good faith should fear prosecution.
But this brief goes beyond clarity.
It argues for abortion after lethal fetal diagnoses and lists "certain psychiatric conditions" among the indications, even though our legislature deliberately excluded mental-health conditions.
That is a policy argument, not a request for clarity.
Under Tennessee law, "abortion" means an act done "with intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant," and the definition expressly excludes acts intended "to terminate an ectopic or molar pregnancy, or to remove a dead fetus."
"Pregnant" means carrying a living unborn child. And medical treatment that results in the accidental or unintentional death of the unborn child "shall not be a violation" of the law.
In plain terms, treating an ectopic pregnancy or completing a miscarriage after the baby has died is not an abortion under Tennessee law. Doctors call miscarriage "spontaneous abortion," and that word causes real confusion. The brief never defines the word.
The law also allows a physician, using "reasonable medical judgment," to end a pregnancy to prevent the mother's death or a "serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
In 2025, the legislature added definitions that name the emergencies people worry about most: previable rupture of the membranes, "inevitable abortion" (a miscarriage already under way, with the cervix dilating), severe preeclampsia, mirror syndrome, and infections that threaten the uterus or fertility.
In those emergencies, the treatment is delivery, by inducing labor or by cesarean section.
Before viability, the baby will not survive, and that is a heartbreaking loss. But delivering a baby to save the mother is different from an abortion intended to end the baby's life. The difference is intent, and Tennessee wrote that difference into the statute: the physician must use the method that "provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive," unless that method would put the mother at greater risk.
"Reasonable medical judgment" is not a trap. It is the standard every physician is held to every day, and the statute applies it "based upon the facts known to the physician at the time," not in hindsight.
If some hospitals or pharmacists still hesitate, the answer is clear guidance, not telling a court that ordinary miscarriage care is "abortion." That only feeds the fear that delays care.
The brief tells the court the TMA "is comprised of approximately 10,000 members," including "ob-gyns, family physicians and emergency physicians who provide care to pregnant women in Tennessee." I practice all three. The TMA's Board approved the filing at its July retreat, but the association never surveyed or polled its members on this filing before putting their name on it.
As a physician and a follower of Jesus, I believe a doctor caring for a pregnant woman has two patients. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, headquartered in Bristol, Tennessee, hold the same view.
TMA leaders are entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to present those opinions to a court as the voice of Tennessee medicine.
On a question that deeply divides our profession, the TMA lent its name and its members' dues to one side without asking those members first.
To the TMA:
Withdraw from the brief, or tell the court plainly that it does not represent your whole membership.
Disclose who authorized it and what it cost.
Before joining litigation on a contested moral question again, give members notice and a voice.
Put your influence where every physician agrees: clear guidance, developed with the Board of Medical Examiners, the Department of Health, hospitals, and pharmacists, so no one mistakes lawful, lifesaving care for a crime.
To my fellow physicians:
If you share these concerns, tell the TMA and tell your legislators. Silence will be read as agreement.
To every reader:
Tennessee's law protects both patients, mother and child. Learn what it says, share it, and stand with the physicians who care for both.
Read an open letter from Tennessee physicians to TMA leadership regarding the amicus brief here.
Author Bio: Omar L. Hamada, MD, MBA, is a board-certified OB/GYN and family medicine physician in Franklin, Tennessee. A U.S. Army veteran, he served as a Special Forces flight surgeon and diving medical officer with the 20th Special Forces Group and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal. He holds an MBA from Vanderbilt University and is an ordained minister with a master's degree in theological studies. He has served as a medical consultant to the Tennessee Attorney General's office and writes in his personal capacity. Connect with him on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/omarhamada).
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!
Cassy Cooke
·
Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·
Guest Column
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
·
Guest Column
Mary Strow
·
Guest Column
Angie Childers, MD
·
Guest Column
Austen Haynes
·Guest Column·By Omar L. Hamada MD, MBA, FACOG, FAAFP
OBGYN: Why the Tennessee Medical Association doesn't speak for me or my patients
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this guest post are solely those of the author.
For 30 years, I have cared for women, mothers, and their babies. I have treated ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, hemorrhages, and infections when minutes mattered. So when the Tennessee Medical Association told a court that Tennessee's abortion law keeps physicians like me from caring for women in danger, I read its brief carefully.
I do not recognize the medicine it describes, and it does not speak for me.
On Oct. 7, the TMA filed an amicus brief in Phillips v. State of Tennessee, now before the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The plaintiffs challenge the medical-necessity exception in Tennessee's Human Life Protection Act. Its co-signers include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which the brief describes as committed to "ensuring access to" care "including abortion care." The brief declares that "[a]ccess to abortion is essential," and asks the court to "affirm the decision below."
The TMA says it wants "more legal clarity to protect physicians." I share that goal: no woman with a dangerous complication should wait for care, and no doctor acting in good faith should fear prosecution.
But this brief goes beyond clarity.
It argues for abortion after lethal fetal diagnoses and lists "certain psychiatric conditions" among the indications, even though our legislature deliberately excluded mental-health conditions.
That is a policy argument, not a request for clarity.
Under Tennessee law, "abortion" means an act done "with intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant," and the definition expressly excludes acts intended "to terminate an ectopic or molar pregnancy, or to remove a dead fetus."
"Pregnant" means carrying a living unborn child. And medical treatment that results in the accidental or unintentional death of the unborn child "shall not be a violation" of the law.
In plain terms, treating an ectopic pregnancy or completing a miscarriage after the baby has died is not an abortion under Tennessee law. Doctors call miscarriage "spontaneous abortion," and that word causes real confusion. The brief never defines the word.
The law also allows a physician, using "reasonable medical judgment," to end a pregnancy to prevent the mother's death or a "serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
In 2025, the legislature added definitions that name the emergencies people worry about most: previable rupture of the membranes, "inevitable abortion" (a miscarriage already under way, with the cervix dilating), severe preeclampsia, mirror syndrome, and infections that threaten the uterus or fertility.
In those emergencies, the treatment is delivery, by inducing labor or by cesarean section.
Before viability, the baby will not survive, and that is a heartbreaking loss. But delivering a baby to save the mother is different from an abortion intended to end the baby's life. The difference is intent, and Tennessee wrote that difference into the statute: the physician must use the method that "provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive," unless that method would put the mother at greater risk.
"Reasonable medical judgment" is not a trap. It is the standard every physician is held to every day, and the statute applies it "based upon the facts known to the physician at the time," not in hindsight.
If some hospitals or pharmacists still hesitate, the answer is clear guidance, not telling a court that ordinary miscarriage care is "abortion." That only feeds the fear that delays care.
The brief tells the court the TMA "is comprised of approximately 10,000 members," including "ob-gyns, family physicians and emergency physicians who provide care to pregnant women in Tennessee." I practice all three. The TMA's Board approved the filing at its July retreat, but the association never surveyed or polled its members on this filing before putting their name on it.
As a physician and a follower of Jesus, I believe a doctor caring for a pregnant woman has two patients. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, headquartered in Bristol, Tennessee, hold the same view.
TMA leaders are entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to present those opinions to a court as the voice of Tennessee medicine.
On a question that deeply divides our profession, the TMA lent its name and its members' dues to one side without asking those members first.
To the TMA:
Withdraw from the brief, or tell the court plainly that it does not represent your whole membership.
Disclose who authorized it and what it cost.
Before joining litigation on a contested moral question again, give members notice and a voice.
Put your influence where every physician agrees: clear guidance, developed with the Board of Medical Examiners, the Department of Health, hospitals, and pharmacists, so no one mistakes lawful, lifesaving care for a crime.
To my fellow physicians:
If you share these concerns, tell the TMA and tell your legislators. Silence will be read as agreement.
To every reader:
Tennessee's law protects both patients, mother and child. Learn what it says, share it, and stand with the physicians who care for both.
Read an open letter from Tennessee physicians to TMA leadership regarding the amicus brief here.
Author Bio: Omar L. Hamada, MD, MBA, is a board-certified OB/GYN and family medicine physician in Franklin, Tennessee. A U.S. Army veteran, he served as a Special Forces flight surgeon and diving medical officer with the 20th Special Forces Group and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal. He holds an MBA from Vanderbilt University and is an ordained minister with a master's degree in theological studies. He has served as a medical consultant to the Tennessee Attorney General's office and writes in his personal capacity. Connect with him on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/omarhamada).
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!
Cassy Cooke
·Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·Guest Column
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
·Guest Column
Mary Strow
·Guest Column
Angie Childers, MD
·Guest Column
Austen Haynes
·