Talk:Conscience clause in medicine in the United States

Untitled
An earlier edit of mine was badly flawed, and rightly reverted. I have rewritten it. However, the original article had a major flaw: it implied that these clauses were in use in any country; and it did not refer to the reason for enacting these clauses where US state legislatures might have been expected to want to ban procedures. Pol098 12:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"return to the situation as it was before they were enacted"
The point has been made that healthcare providers like the clauses because they protect them. I had entered "without them, they would return to the situation as it was before they were enacted, and be obliged to supply lawful professional services to which they objected, subject to disciplinary or legal action for refusing."

There were objections to "return to the situation as it was before they were enacted" which has been deleted.

The point I was trying to make was that providers had been working under these rules for decades.

In "potentially be subject to disciplinary or legal action for refusing", "potentially" is redundant: "potentially suffer disciplinary or legal action for refusing" and "be subject to disciplinary or legal action for refusing" mean essentially the same.

Pol098 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The point I was trying to make in my edit summary was that with any law, if it were repealed, then people would return to the situation as it was before it was enacted. That's a tautology. If you want to rewrite so as to emphasize that health providers were subject to the previous rules for decades, without sounding redundant, feel free. Catamorphism 18:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Title
Can someone redirect a search of "refusal clause" to this page? I believe that might be appropriate- from research I have done on the subject I have found that it is commonly referred to as a "refusal clause" as well. (I don't know how to do such things yet- still learning!) Smithw14 22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

POV-check?
I nominate for POV-check because it would appear from this article that health-care providers are the primary supporters of the conscience clauses. Also the reference to "reproductive rights organizations" should probably be replaced with a more neutral term. Without mention some of the views of anti-abortion organizations, the article would seem to suggest implicitly that the views of the providers who supported the clauses were motivated mainly by self-interest. 69.140.164.142 05:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
I am proposing that we move this page from Conscience clause (medical) to Conscience clause. I'd be grateful for help with this Bioethica Americana (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, pending evidence that the medical sense is the clear primary topic. This topic could do with full disambiguation.  In addition to Conscience clause (medical) (which covers several different conscience clauses) and Conscience clause (education), there is a third concept relating to parental refusal to vaccinate children:  see Vaccination Act.  Martens Clause may also be included.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionality
The constitutionality of abortion is highly, highly contested. It is decidedly improper to make a blanket generalization regarding the topic on that does not require one and that is cited on politically invested cites. - Schrandit (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, actually, it's not. Even the Republicans admit it would take an amendment to make it unconstitutional.  That's why their strategy has been to hack at reproductive rights in bits and pieces, such as with the Hyde Amendment, which takes away federal funding from those who need it most. Spotfixer (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to offer anything besides partisan conjecture? Many contend that we are a lawsuit away from abortion being a state's issue. - Schrandit (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can contend anything you want, but unless it's cited, it doesn't much matter. Spotfixer (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama thinks it might happen and he is a rather credible guy, if you'd really like me to I can get dozens of other sources. Can't we just that inaccurate remove that bit?

While it may still need a little tweaking, I have attempted to add a version of the disputed text that I hope will be acceptable to both sides here. -Neitherday (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My objections were abortion being described as a constitutional right and conscience clauses being merely described as a way to infringe on a right. Your new wording satisfies both of those objections.  My only concern at this point is that planned parenthood might be a less than neutral source on the matter.  If no one objects I'd like to replace it with a third party source. - Schrandit (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't object to you adding a better source. However, I would note that POV sources can be used when describing a POV as long as it is clear that what is being described is a POV and is it presented from a NPOV standpoint. -Neitherday (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Other countries
I'm not sure that such a clause exists in other countries where abortion is already decriminalized or legalized. Canada removed all restrictions to abortion back in a 1988 Supreme Court decision and made it quite difficult to add further conscience legislation on what amounts to a total liberalization of the practice. Even then, Church leaders and conservative organizations did relatively little to ensure that a conscience clause was really maintained. ADM (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It exists in Poland since 2000s. Zezen (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Doctrine
Catholic Doctrine is not a political policy. This means quite a lot, including the fact that the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion, contraceptives, etc. is not just "some Catholics", nor "most Catholics", but is the Catholic Church itself opposing abortion, contraceptives, etc.

Oct13 (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine. It's just important not to use a phrasing that implies "all or most Catholics." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's part of what I wanted to avoid. Too many people think the Church is a democracy. Oct13 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sweet - I think we're on the same page, even though we seem to be coming at it from different angles. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conscience clause (medical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100628035454/http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/refusalclauses_12-04.pdf to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/refusalclauses_12-04.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Globalize
I added a globalize tag. Most countries in Europe allow conscientious objection for doctors (see Abortion law). Euthanasia laws in the Netherlands and Belgium also allow it. Prevalence 13:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've created a new Conscientious objection to abortion article. It is surely incomplete but it tries to give a worldwide view of the subject. Imho the best thing would be to move this article to Conscience clause in medicine in the United States, or something without the parenthesis. What do you think? --Niccolò Caranti (OBC) (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, that seems the best approach. Prevalence  21:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Niccolò &#34;Jaqen&#34; Caranti (OBC) (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikifying links are needed.Zezen (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)