The bills haven’t moved since they passed out of committee in November 2015, but they could always come up again. Even if we never hear about these bills again, there will be others. New legislation is regularly pushed for — and often written by — special-interest groups like Right to Life.

Although groups such as Right to Life are entitled to disagree with abortion, they should not be in a position to dictate the laws everyone else must follow, which are based on their own beliefs and scientific inaccuracies.

I think it’s important for everyone to understand how dangerous it is for people who aren’t medical experts to involve themselves in decisions that should remain between a doctor and patient. When religious groups advocate for laws that govern the practice of medicine, it puts the health and well-being of our communities at risk.

Consider HB 4833 and 4834. I spoke out against those bills because they undermine the ability of doctors to provide the medical standard of care for women in our communities. If those bills became law, they would prohibit Michigan physicians from offering their patients the safest care possible in cases of medically indicated second trimester abortions. There are times that this specific method is necessary to protect the health, or even the life, of the mother.

It’s inappropriate for politicians with no medical education to ban methods deemed as medically standard protocols by an established medical society such as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Women should not be forced to receive substandard care because someone has a religious objection to a safe, medically standard, procedure.

It’s not just Right to Life-backed legislation, either. Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) bills are being introduced more often in states across the country.

One RFRA bill that is reintroduced every year in the Michigan legislature would permit any medical provider to turn away a patient for any reason on the basis of a religious objection. If that RFRA bill became law, a patient could be denied not only abortion care but any care at all, because the provider objects to the patient’s sexual or gender identity, marital status, religion or other life choices. Imagine being turned away from the emergency room because a physician objects to your beliefs. Is that the kind of society we want to live in?

Religion has no place in the practice of medicine. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs — religious freedom is one of our country’s most cherished principles, and it’s protected in the state and federal constitutions. However, that does not give anyone the right to dictate the choices made by others, especially if their health or life is at stake.

RFRA laws and other religiously driven legislation permits refusals of service that would otherwise be forbidden by law — and force physicians to violate the principle they have sworn to uphold: first, do no harm. Legislation like this is not only dangerous to women’s health and lives, but it could drive educated future physicians away from Michigan. Why should new physicians practice in a state that inhibits their ability to provide the best possible care or even incriminates them for doing so?

On the day the House Criminal Justice committee voted on HB 4833 and 4834, many of my fellow medical students gathered to show our strong opposition to the biased politics that often infiltrate the better judgment of our legislators.

Politics and religion have no place in the physician-patient relationship. No one dictates how individuals must practice their faith. The same respect should be given to doctors and other medical professionals, who deserve the freedom to provide the best possible care based on medical standards without interference.

Jackie Davis is a student in MSU's College of Human Medicine.