Applying laser therapy over a gravid uterus is almost always listed as a contraindication. The historical basis for pregnancy being a contraindication is lack of knowledge of the potential effect on the fetus, in addition to studies demonstrating changes in chicken embryo tissue after application of visible red laser wavelengths through a window opened in the eggshell (Avila et al. , 1999).

A rational analysis would indicate that fetal tissue within a gravid uterus will not be harmed by visible or near‐infrared light photons. These wavelengths lack any mutagenic or teratogenic effect. Further, the fetus is well protected from exposure to photons, being surrounded by a significant thickness of tissues rich in the chromophores that most readily absorb the wavelengths being used. Yet, despite evidence to the contrary, unless a special consideration exists that warrants direct treatment over a gravid uterus, the prudent veterinary laser therapist will avoid such treatment.

As with some other modalities used during pregnancy, no proof exists of potential harm to the fetus. But, no proof exists that there is not a potential harm. Absence of proof does not legally constitute proof of absence. Thus, if laser therapy is applied over the gravid uterus, and an unrelated pregnancy complication or fetal deformity occurs, the burden of proof will be on the veterinarian to demonstrate that laser therapy did not cause the complication (Tuner and Hode, 2010).

A valid consideration is whether pregnant veterinary laser therapists (or other pregnant females present during treatment) are at risk. Clothing reflects, scatters, and absorbs visible and infrared photons, significantly reducing the number reaching underlying skin. Thus, clothing gives an additional layer that blocks photons from reaching the fetus. There is no evidence that the well‐protected fetus of a pregnant and clothed female is at risk during a veterinary therapy laser application.