Conscientious objection: the struggle continues

Bioedge

Reproduced with permission

Michael Cook*

The fight over conscientious objection to abortion has moved from the evening news to the academic journals. In the April issue of the American Journal of Public Health, two defenders of reproductive rights outline strategies to restrict abortion rights. They complain that “unregulated conscientious objection” seems to be growing, especially in countries where opposition to abortion is strong.

In a SSRN paper which is yet to be published, Lachlan De Crespigny, an Australian doctor writing from Oxford, and two academics from Monash University fiercely defend a recent law in the state of Victoria which forces doctors to refer for abortion. “The unregulated use of conscientious objection impedes women’s rights to access safe lawful medical procedures,” they write. “As such, we contend that a physician’s withdrawal from patient care on the basis of conscience must be limited to certain circumstances.”.

They contend that arguments in support of conscientious objection are often a smokescreen for imposing Catholic dogma. But women who conscientiously desire abortions also have rights. “The choice of abortion is in many cases the morally responsible decision that should not be overridden by the imposition of another’s conscience.”

A recent paper in the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry by two Canadians, a doctor and a lawyer, tries to make some philosophical distinctions which make conscientious objection to abortion more plausible. They distinguish between “perfective” and “preservative” freedom of conscience. The former is exercised in the pursuit of a perceived good. This must often be limited. The latter is more fundamental and cannot legitimately be coerced except in the most exceptional circumstances.

“If the state can legitimately limit perfective freedom of conscience by preventing people from doing what they believe to be good, it does not follow that it is equally free to suppress preservative freedom of conscience by forcing them to do what they believe to be wrong. There is a significant difference between preventing someone from doing the good that he/she wishes to do and forcing him/her to do the evil that he/she abhors.”

It could be argued that an ethics committee, or an institution or a government assumes the moral responsibility for a coerced decision. But this does not take into account the well-documented guilt and shame felt by concentration camp survivors who were forced to participate in heinous crimes. “When it is suppressed by coercion, the result is the kind of spiritual rape suffered by those victims of the camps who were forced to do what they believed to be wrong.”

Midwife fired for refusing to assist in abortion

Hrvatski Ponos (Croatian Pride) Hospital,
Knin, Croatia

Lost her job in the Knin hospital: “They fired me because I would not participate in abortions”

Slobodna Dalmacija

Doctors and nurses in Croatia may call upon conscientious objection in situations when their religious beliefs prevent them from participating in medical procedures contrary to the postulates of their faith. One such situation is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy.

The conscientious objector, however, cannot be a midwife, at least not at the general hospital “Hrvatski Ponos (Croatian Pride)” in Knin because, like Jaga Stojak, they could lose their job.

Jaga Stojak (49), after 27 years of service, of which the last 14 was spent working as a midwife in the Knin hospital, received a dismissal of her contract on June 14 of this year, because she refused to participate in an abortion citing conscientious objection. “It was not the first time when I, as a practicing Catholic, refused to participate in that procedure. There have been many discussions and meetings at the hospital because there are more midwives who share the same opinion.” [Full Text- English; Croatian]

North Carolina strengthens protection of conscience law

Parts of a new law passed in North Carolina strengthen the state’s protection of conscience law for health care workers.  The revisions extend protection against coerced participation in abortion to nurses and other health care workers and to health care institutions other than hospitals.  [CWN]

Update on American HHS controversy

As a result of continuing concerns about the HHS preventive service mandate, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and over 100 prominent national religious leaders and scholars have signed an open letter to the Obama administration entitled Standing Together for Religious Freedom. The letter calls on the Administration and Congress to respect conscience rights  and religious freedom.

Nonetheless, Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, has announced that it considers the Obama administration’s revised contraceptive mandate acceptable. The president of Georgetown stated that the new regulation provides “the opportunity to reconcile our religious identity and our commitment to providing access to affordable healthcare.”   Similarly, the Catholic Health Care Association states that it is satisfied that its members will not have to  “contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage.” The Association includes over 600 hospitals and 1400 other health facilities in every American state and in Washington, D.C. [NCR]

A federal court granted a preliminary injunction to Hobby Lobby.  The business is operated by its owners in accordance with their Christian convictions.  The Green family does not object to contraception, but rejects the IUD and morning-after pill because of concern about embryocidal effects.  The court ruled that the injunction was warranted because of “substantial public interest in ensuring that no individual or corporation has their legs cut out from under them while these difficult issues are resolved.” [Becket Fund]  In contrast, a federal appeals court has rejected the appeal of Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation against a lower court ruling that held they must comply with the regulation.  In a 2- 1 decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a corporation cannot be said to share an owner’s religious convictions. [Lancasteronline]

 

 

 

 

 

Ireland: Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013

Protection of Conscience Provision

The  Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 became law in July, 2013.  The protection of conscience provision is provided here in full within an abbreviated presentation of the entire act.  Paraphrased parts of the bill are in italics.  Mouseover the red text to see government comments that were provided in the “heads of bill” relevant to the text.  Links to other information relevant to the law are in the first column to the right.