New York Attorney General Letitia James is spearheading an effort with a coalition of 20 attorneys general, pushing for the American Medical Association (AMA) to better safeguard healthcare providers from stringent medical board certification requirements. This focus is particularly on those who provide abortion and gender-affirming care, urging the AMA to reconsider its policies for medical practitioners who are required to travel to states with restrictive health care laws for board certification. The concern here is the exposure to not just legal complications but also personal risks for those seeking to pursue or continue a career in medical services, as per the Attorney General's Office.
In a submitted testimony, James, along with her coalition, highlighted the dire situation healthcare providers are facing in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which has seen a ripple effect in the form of harsh anti-abortion and anti-trans health care laws in certain states. As per the testimony by the coalition, states have been rolling out laws that seek to punish and intimidate healthcare providers, compelling the AMA to make immediate adjustments to its board certification policies. Specifically, they called for relocating testing sites to states without restrictions, the introduction of remote testing options, and granting exemptions from in-person exams in restrictive states for at-risk candidates.
Attorney General James issued a stern warning in her testimony, stating that "Reproductive health care and gender-affirming care providers should not have to risk their safety or freedom just to advance in their medical careers.” Furthermore, she emphasized that forcing these professionals to travel to hostile environments is not only unnecessary but also dangerous, according to an official press release from the Attorney General's Office. Aligning with the concerns of the coalition, AMA had previously recognized the problem and encouraged boards to provide alternative testing options, but the attorneys general argue that these recommendations lack the needed urgency and specificity to effectively shield providers.
Citing Texas as an example, known for having one of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the nation, the statement from the attorney general’s coalition focused on the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ABOG). Despite the risks, ABOG continues to demand that candidates travel to Texas for in-person testing, a requirement the coalition regards as reckless. This is especially troubling considering the Texas law permits private citizens to sue abortion providers, and has classified gender-affirming care for minors as child abuse. These concerns highlighted the legal minefield that providers could face merely by attempting to comply with a professional requirement.
The attorney generals’ continued activism in the arena of reproductive rights is undeniable, pointing to a series of actions including lawsuits and amicus briefs aimed at maintaining care access. This includes a recent call to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the reinstatement of federal reproductive health funds and a court victory against the anti-abortion group Red Rose Rescue for invading care clinics. As healthcare providers find themselves caught between their duties and shifting legal landscapes, the attorneys general's collective stance sends a clear message: barriers to essential care cannot and should not be tolerated.
