The "gag rule" revisited: physicians as abortion gatekeepers.

In this article, I explore this failure [of the therapeutic exception as a compromise device in federal abortion counseling regulations] with an eye toward its broader lessons about the social uses of medical discretion and the difficulty of achieving an abortion compromise in America. I begin by examining the legal underpinning beneath the widespread belief that the "gag rule" imposed a near-absolute ban on discussion of the abortion option. This conventional wisdom, I conclude, collapses on careful inspection. It fails utterly to account for the strong support to be found in the Title X regulations and their larger legal context for a therapeutic exception unconstrained by administrative or judicial definition. Next, I observe that this legal unboundedness would have empowered Title X clinic physicians (and perhaps others who do counseling) to exercise broad discretion over abortion access, under the rubric of medical indication.... By so doing, however, physicians would have become abortion gatekeepers. This would have raised difficult ethical and clinical questions about the extent to which medical judgment should be allowed to incorporate (and shield) socially-disputed moral choices. I briefly consider some of these questions, along with the countervailing appeal of preserving a measure of intimate freedom under medical cover. I then conclude by positing some connections between the moral infirmities of medical gatekeeping and the political failure of the therapeutic exception. I suggest, in essence, that this failure was ensured by a strong resonance between the exception's moral infirmities and the fears of the medical leaders, pro-choice activists, and abortion opponents who framed the public debate over the "gag rule." The potential breadth of the therapeutic exception went unrecognized and unexplored because professional and popular understanding of the abortion counseling regulations was molded by the activists who framed the debate...