By Christopher M. Reilly

Does the political action committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) give a significant portion of its funds to pro-life legislators despite ACOG’s long-standing position in support of abortion provision and access? A study published in April in JAMA Network Open claims that it does. According to the study, titled “Abortion Policy Positions of Federal Legislators Who Received Support from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2012–2022,” almost four in ten legislators who received funds from ACOG during the past decade were “anti-abortion access.” A similar portion of the actual funds dispersed to federal legislators went to such pro-life politicians (approximately $1,270,000).

The method for classifying legislators should raise questions, however. A complex algorithm was used to determine whether a legislator was classified as pro-abortion access or anti-abortion access, utilizing votes on relevant legislation, public statements, and classification scores by pro-abortion and pro-life organizations. Nevertheless, the only legislative bills considered were the Women’s Health Protection Acts of 2019, 2021, and 2022. It is hard to see how such a study could then have reflected the actions—including changes or nuances in positions—of legislators, especially in the first six years of the decade. Moreover, every legislator was neatly classified in the pro-abortion or pro-life camp, with no undecideds and no mixed opinions. Finally, the published article did not report how many of the legislators’ statements were placed in the “unclear, mixed, or no statements available” category nor exactly how classification scores from the National Abortion Rights Action League Pro-Choice America and the National Right to Life Committee were then integrated and analyzed to place such legislators on either side of the pro-/anti-abortion access divide (see fig. 1).

It appears that the study’s publication is intended to spark resentment and pressure on ACOG from pro-abortion members. Given the arbitrary and heavily flawed method for labeling legislators, one might wonder why the American Medical Association would publish such at study. Even the reported statistics were simply drawn from the Federal Election Committee website and therefore do not represent particularly novel research.

A May 1 article in Time magazine, which gave a sensational account of the study’s results, quotes the study’s author as claiming that “ACOG’s political donations may be undermining its stated commitment to abortion access and patient autonomy,” and saying, “I hope that these data spark a renewed conversation about how ACOG apportions its resources.” Similarly, the ACOG PAC quickly issued a message that insists, “Our priorities, including our work to restore the right of all people to access abortion care when they need it and where they need it, are varied and strategic, and they are not competing.” The statement goes on to explain that “one of the challenging realities of the highly polarized American political landscape is that collaboration across the political aisle remains critical for effective advocacy. That has never been more true than in the near 50-50 split in today’s Congress. One significant example of a priority that was a hard-won result of bipartisan support and obstetrician–gynecologist advocacy is the permanent state option to extend Medicaid coverage to 12 months postpartum.”

Given the political realities of compromise, negotiation, and mixed positions on divisive issues, financial contributions by ACOG to pro-life legislators need not be sensationalized. The contributions may also be more polarized than this particular study suggests. In the 2019–2020 political cycle, 72 percent of the ACOG PAC’s contributions in federal races went to Democrat candidates.

Christopher M. Reilly lives in the Washington, DC, region. He is a candidate for a doctor of theology degree and holds master’s degrees in public affairs, philosophy, and theology.

Activist Research Sensationalizes ACOG’s Support of Pro-Life Legislators