Literature DB >> 33399515

Unjustified Asymmetry: Positive Claims of Conscience and Heartbeat Bills.

Kyle G Fritz1.   

Abstract

In 2019, several US states passed "heartbeat" bills. Should such bills go into effect, they would outlaw abortion once an embryonic heartbeat can be detected, thereby severely limiting an individual's access to abortion. Many states allow health care professionals to refuse to provide an abortion for reasons of conscience. Yet heartbeat bills do not include a positive conscience clause that would allow health care professionals to provide an abortion for reasons of conscience. I argue that this asymmetry is unjustified. The same criteria that justify protecting conscientious refusals to provide abortion also justify protecting positive conscientious appeals regarding abortion. Thus, if the law provides legal exemptions for health care professionals who, as a matter of conscience, refuse to provide abortions where it is legal, it should also provide exemptions for health care professionals who, as a matter of conscience, feel obligated to provide abortions where it is illegal.

Keywords:  Abortion; conscience; conscientious objection; health policy; heartbeat laws

Year:  2021        PMID: 33399515     DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1863514

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Bioeth        ISSN: 1526-5161            Impact factor:   11.229


  1 in total

1.  The Unethical Texas Heartbeat Law.

Authors:  Casey Michelle Haining; Louise Anne Keogh; Julian Savulescu
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2022-04-09       Impact factor: 3.242

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.