Earlier this month, Joyce Arthur and Christian Fiala argued in a piece for RH Reality Check that clinicians should not be permitted to claim “conscientious objection” as grounds for refusing to provide abortion or contraception, taking issue with any tolerance of it. Global Doctors for Choice thinks differently on both philosophic and strategic grounds.
The exercise of conscientious objection is a violation of medical ethics because it allows health-care professionals to abuse their position of trust and authority by imposing their personal beliefs on patients.
In St. Louis, we’ve always said, “Don’t like the weather? Wait a minute. It’ll change.” Well, the weather is not changing in our floodwater-friendly capitol, where a torrent of anti-choice bills is raining down on our heads. It is simply foul.
If CVS wishes to keep moving in the direction of providing health care, the women who patronize it need to know they can come in to the store for contraceptives and leave that same store with contraceptives in hand.
Rep. Timothy Jones (R-Eureka) introduced HB 1430, which, according to the bill language, would apply to medical professionals refusing to participate in procedures that include surgical and medication abortions, contraception, assisted reproduction, human cloning, and human embryonic stem-cell research.
The bill would allow health-care providers to refuse to perform specific reproductive health services that they say violate their conscience.
If you don’t want to provide the obstetric or gynecological services your patient needs—which may include an abortion—maybe you should choose another field of specialty.