Beyond Religious Refusals: The Case for Protecting Health Care Workers’ Provision of Abortion Care

Stephanie A. Sterling, Jessica L. Waters
{"title":"Beyond Religious Refusals: The Case for Protecting Health Care Workers’ Provision of Abortion Care","authors":"Stephanie A. Sterling, Jessica L. Waters","doi":"10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9963-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article seeks to explore the question of whether and to what extent conscience-based employment protections available to those medical professionals opposed to the provision of abortion care should also be available to health care professionals who seek, based on their religious or moral beliefs, to affirmatively provide abortion care at religiously affiliated medical facilities. Part I examines the prevalence of religiously affiliated medical institutions that refuse to provide abortion care and the ways in which these prohibitions violate the consciences of some health care professionals who seek, as a matter of religious or moral conviction, to provide abortion care to their patients. Part II examines whether existing employee legal protections such as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the Church Amendment, both of which prohibit various forms of employment \"discrimination\" based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, can be used to protect health care providers’ affirmative right to provide, as a matter of conscience, abortion care. While both laws have been used to protect employees’ conscience-based refusals to provide reproductive health care, Part II explores whether and to what extent these same laws could also provide meaningful remedies for medical professionals who seek to provide conscience-based abortion care. Recognizing that existing employment conscience protections for employees seeking to provide abortion care are in some ways limited, Part III briefly concludes that policymakers and courts must begin to recognize that the conscience-based provision of abortion care can be rooted in beliefs held with a strength equal to the beliefs underlying the conscience-based refusal of such care, and as such must craft and enforce existing laws to provide parallel protection for both.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"297 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employment Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9963-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This article seeks to explore the question of whether and to what extent conscience-based employment protections available to those medical professionals opposed to the provision of abortion care should also be available to health care professionals who seek, based on their religious or moral beliefs, to affirmatively provide abortion care at religiously affiliated medical facilities. Part I examines the prevalence of religiously affiliated medical institutions that refuse to provide abortion care and the ways in which these prohibitions violate the consciences of some health care professionals who seek, as a matter of religious or moral conviction, to provide abortion care to their patients. Part II examines whether existing employee legal protections such as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the Church Amendment, both of which prohibit various forms of employment "discrimination" based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, can be used to protect health care providers’ affirmative right to provide, as a matter of conscience, abortion care. While both laws have been used to protect employees’ conscience-based refusals to provide reproductive health care, Part II explores whether and to what extent these same laws could also provide meaningful remedies for medical professionals who seek to provide conscience-based abortion care. Recognizing that existing employment conscience protections for employees seeking to provide abortion care are in some ways limited, Part III briefly concludes that policymakers and courts must begin to recognize that the conscience-based provision of abortion care can be rooted in beliefs held with a strength equal to the beliefs underlying the conscience-based refusal of such care, and as such must craft and enforce existing laws to provide parallel protection for both.
超越宗教拒绝:保护医护人员提供堕胎护理的案例
本文试图探讨的问题是,对于那些反对提供堕胎护理的医疗专业人员来说,基于良心的就业保护是否以及在多大程度上也应该适用于那些基于其宗教或道德信仰而积极寻求在宗教附属医疗机构提供堕胎护理的医疗专业人员。第一部分审查了宗教附属医疗机构拒绝提供堕胎护理的普遍情况,以及这些禁令如何违反了一些出于宗教或道德信念而寻求为其病人提供堕胎护理的保健专业人员的良心。第二部分审查现有的雇员法律保护,如1964年《民权法案》第七章或《教会修正案》,是否可用于保护保健提供者作为良心问题提供堕胎护理的肯定权利,这两项法律都禁止基于道德、伦理或宗教信仰的各种形式的就业"歧视"。虽然这两项法律都被用来保护雇员基于良心拒绝提供生殖保健,但第二部分探讨了这些法律是否以及在多大程度上也可以为寻求提供基于良心的堕胎护理的医疗专业人员提供有意义的补救措施。认识到现有的对寻求提供堕胎护理的雇员的就业良心保护在某种程度上是有限的,第三部分简要地得出结论,政策制定者和法院必须开始认识到,基于良心的堕胎护理的提供可以植根于与基于良心拒绝这种护理的信念相同的信念,因此必须制定和执行现有法律,为两者提供平行的保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信