Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Should a medical personnel have the right to refuse assisting with abortions on grounds of the conscience law?
For those of you that are law illiterate
Conscience clause laws allow medical providers to refuse to provide services to
which they have religious or moral objections. In some cases, these laws are designed
to excuse such providers from performing abortions. an abortion conscience clause bill. Bill H.R. 3664, was introduced in the House. Congress did pass appropriations legislation that contained a conscience clause
provision. This report describes the history of the conscience clause as it relates to
abortion law and provides a legal analysis of the effects of such laws, including the
provision contained in P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.
Legislators are likely to consider similar legislation during the 109th Congress.
The History and Effect of Abortion
Conscience Clause Laws
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/c...
The messiah is going to repeal the law.
7 Answers
- SassygirlzmomLv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
Yes - every person should have the right to refuse to perform a task that is against their morality.
- iThinkLv 61 decade ago
Medical personnel do have the right to refuse assistance with abortions. They can chose whether or not to work in an abortion clinic.
Abortions don't typically happen in hospitals unless it is medically necessary to save the mother's life and I would expect my family to sue **anyone** who hemmed and hawed about their own moral objections to assisting an EMERGENCY medical procedure while I lay dying on a table.
The medical field is not the place for your morals. If you can't do your job, GTFO.
- Michael HLv 71 decade ago
Yes, they should and they can UNLESS they work in a facility that receives federal funding.
At that point, the choice is no longer performing the abortion, but they must decide if that job is worth violating the conscience.
Source(s): EDIT: To the answer below me: 'Giving oxygen and transplants is not something god would approve of, as it is MEDDLING. Most of healthcare is 'playing god' thus it is my opinion that any true religious person would not be comfortable in most medical settings. as you know, Jehovas Witness' refuse medical help most of the time. I at least respect them for that. Most religious people as usual, just pick and choose which bits they want to follow, and which bits to flaunt.' Seriously? Where did you get that? That has to rank up with the top 10 most asinine things I have ever read. If you could provide any factual link to support that I would be more than happy to argue it. 'Abortions don't typically happen in hospitals unless it is medically necessary to save the mother's life and I would expect my family to sue **anyone** who hemmed and hawed about their own moral objections to assisting an EMERGENCY medical procedure while I lay dying on a table.' No one is arguing an emergency, the discussion is elective (or at least that's how I take it) abortions. "The medical field is not the place for your morals" Try reading this. http://thuddle.net/Documents/proofs%20of%20prof%20... So a simple abcess, which can become deadly, and the treatment of it with simple antibiotics is 'meddling'? Who draws the line? Or do YOU just pick and choose which bits they should follow, and which bits to flaunt'? - Anonymous1 decade ago
No because you are providing a legal service, and a medical service, not a religious one.
If they feel like they can't perform their job, they need to leave and find another one, or ask to be moved department.
Unless the law suddenly changed, they trained and went into the job knowing this was expected of them.
PS - Giving oxygen and transplants is not something god would approve of, as it is MEDDLING. Most of healthcare is 'playing god' thus it is my opinion that any true religious person would not be comfortable in most medical settings. as you know, Jehovas Witness' refuse medical help most of the time. I at least respect them for that. Most religious people as usual, just pick and choose which bits they want to follow, and which bits to flaunt.
Source(s): edit: what part of it is hard to understand? The Amish do not use modern inventions or electricity, they often refuse treatment, as do lots of religious people, like Jehovah's Witness' fame over blood transfusions. Why would someone play God, and shove tubes in someone to keep them alive artificially, if God planned that they were to die. Then you phoned an ambulance and got a machine to breathe for them ? That is meddling. edit 2 : your sniping addition about the law does not change the answer to your question. You are the one who is ignorant. You have asked the question to a WORLD WIDE audience, asking in a manner that seeks OPINIONS, and assumed EVERYONE lives in the same country and STATE as you, when you didn't even bother to mention where you lived, and if there were any relevant laws. FYI, there are no weird laws about abortion in my country. I don't live in your state, I did not KNOW your state, how does that make ME ignorant? LOL!! - ?Lv 61 decade ago
They should find a different job if they can't do the one they have. The law allows this, therefore they must perform or proceed to the exit.
- Caramel DelightLv 51 decade ago
Yes, they should be able to refuse.
I am pro-choice. I feel that in certain situations, a woman should be able to get an abortion. But I could never assist with one and wouldn't want to be forced to.
- 1 decade ago
All people should have a choice in what they want or don't want to do, no matter the subject, and they should be respected for it.
