In a recent letter, Sayra DeVito says that opponents of NH’s 24-week abortion ban “seek political gain by distorting the facts.” Not true. Those of us opposed to the ban, and to Kelly Ayotte for supporting it, seek access to medical care, not political gain. Contrary to DeVito’s assertions, NH’s ban exceptions do not “offer significant protections to women.” Those like NH’s, with convoluted, non-medical language require physicians to consult with lawyers to gain assurance that care will not result in a criminal prosecution. That delay is harmful, and can even be fatal, as we have seen in the deaths of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller in Georgia.

Under NH law, the “medical emergency” required to exist can be impossible to decipher. Our law says that a “medical emergency” is “when continuation of the pregnancy will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” There is no medical standard for “substantial” or “irreversible” nor are these requirements immediately discernible in a crisis. How “impaired” is substantial enough to allow for the delivery of care without fear of prosecution. How surely “irreversible” must the impairment be to confidently treat a patient in crisis without posing the threat of imprisonment? And what is a “serious risk” in the first place, and who decides? As Physicians for Reproductive Health recently stated in response to the deaths of the women in Georgia, “No doctor should be faced with prosecution for providing care. No patient should live in fear of seeking care.”

Monica Ciolfi

Concord