In civil law, access does matter. If there is no other facility within reasonable access of the plaintiff to receive equal services, the court will most likely rule in favor of said plaintiff in a case such as this. I think the decision might have been different in this case if the plaintiff’s insurance covered another clinic.
You could be put into a position of violating your faith in almost any job whatsoever.
I believe that we are responsible for using reasonable methods to make sure that we are not accepting a job which will lead us to violate our values. Obviously, there are individual situations that can come up, but if we do our due diligence we should be able to avoid most conflicts.
Not if a group of Judges decides that they can force us to act contrary to our faith.
Exactly.
No, their faith is protected by the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the government, congress, and judiciary to protect those rights.
Not if it endangers the safety or welfare of others. Medical professionals are under a unique burden, which they are made well aware of in their ethics courses.
Not in my view, the view of civil law. Equal access means equal access, whether it’s something we find morally objectionable or not.
So, in your view, a pro-life OB/GYN serving a remote area as the only OB/GYN should be required to perform abortions!?!
And as for teaching the procedure, there are hospitals in NY that claimed that “teaching the procedure” required the residents to perform abortions under supervision. How can that ever be morally (or constitutionally) justified?
No that is not correct, that is simply the opinion of a few jurisdictions, not the Constitution. Civil law has many layers but all are subject to the Bill of Rights.
Incorrect, we have a right to set up shop wherever we want and still enjoy our religious freedoms
You are misinterpreting equal access. Equal access means that my hypothical OB/GYN in the boondocks would have to provide the same services to all of his/her patients, not that he would have to add services beyond what he would ordinarily provide just because another doctor somewhere else provides those services.
But you just mentioned that there were OBs that did not do work for those over the age of 35, that is also an issue with the patent not the procedure
The problem with this is that, if we take this to it’s end, it means that we must forfeit certain professions to those who have no moral convictions. I can’t see how this could do anything besides even more deeply entrenching into law and society those things that are opposed to the Gospel.
How is exercising religious freedom twisting it to one’s tenets of faith? The Constitution directly says that there shall be no prohibition of the free practice of religion.
If the state legislates that a MDs religious beliefs allow them to not treat homosexuals-something that only some religions believe is a sin- then that would be a de facto establishment of a particular religious view.
That’s why I said “possibly” since equal access usually allows doctors to place some limits on who they treat. My guess is that since there is an economic hardship to the doctor involved (higher malpractice insurance) they have a stronger case. I know that was the case with the GYN who didn’t do OB. She couldn’t afford it.
