True.

You do source them, but be careful of your sources. Your Yahoo!News article makes a premise, uses a few ancedotal examples and then presents them as "trends". But they are not trends, they are anecdotal stories.

Your article cites one "large recruiting firm) and noted 20 OBs truned down positions in red states. It then said, AMN said it had 20 candidates turn down offers. It sounds like one source. AMN is huge. And why didn't Yahoo!News ask the obvious question... "are their OBs that won't practice at hospitals or in groups that do elective abortions?" Before they argued a trend, that you picked up and declared red states would suffer from a lack of physicians. They won't because of abortion... they do because rural areas pay far worse than urban areas.

Physicians have a host of reasons that drive their decision regarding where to practice. For a few abortion might be one of those reasons. And I respect their decision. But that simply means they shut themselves out of those opportunities and choose from the rest.

Meanwhile, there are an equal number or greater of physicians that won't practice at a hospital that does elective abortions or in a group that performs them. Does that mean blue states won't have enough physicians? Or more likely, will OBs that have a preference simply choose to practice in states that align with their preference.

So your link highlights only half the story and from my experience groups will fill their "open positions" and "hospitals" will have no trouble attracting physicians that are happy they don't do abortions. Ditto, for groups and hospitals that do.

I was a bit harsh in my criticism, sorry about that. I respect your opinions even when I don't agree with them. The real failure was Yahoo! News not doing substantive reporting but rather building "a mountain" out of an anecdotal story. Good reporting would have examined if there are countervailing trends... and in this case there are.