Law Archives - Page 35 of 43 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Correspondence) Abortion and Promiscuity

RG Wilkins

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract
To refuse to terminate a pregnancy on a matter of conscience is both legally and ethically acceptable, as is a refusal in the absence of the requisite medical, psychiatric, and social indications. But to refuse a termination because the continuation of the pregnancy is held to be a valid means of managing a behavioural disorder, “promiscuity,” is a more questionable matter. In such circumstances the continuation of the pregnancy becomes a therapeutic procedure for which valid consent must surely be obtained.

Keywords:

Wilkins R. (Correspondence) Abortion and Promiscuity. Br Med J. 1975 Jul 26;3(5977):233.

Abortion Conscience Clauses

Marc D Stern

Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems

Extract
Despite the rulings in Roe and Doe, physicians, nurses, and denominational hospitals opposed to abortions have continued to refuse to perform them. They have argued that Roe and Doe, as judicial interpretations of the fourteenth amendment, do not apply to private activity, and that in any event the free exercise clause protects those who, for religious or moral reasons, object to abortion. These claims are not without difficulties. . . . Since Roe and Doe, Congress and many state legislatures have enacted laws to protect both institutions and individuals who refuse to participate in abortions for religious or moral reasons. These so-called “conscience clauses” limit the power of the courts to compel the performance of abortion where a refusal to participate is religiously or morally based. This article will explore the problems these statutes raise. The conclusion reached is that, for the most part, well-drafted conscience amendments are constitutional.

Stern MD. Abortion Conscience Clauses. Columbia J Law Soc Probl. 1975 Summer;11(4):571-627.

(Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill

MBH Wilson

Extract
Every woman has indeed a right to compassion and medical care in unwanted pregnancy, and every fetus has a right to be considered. . .It is very difficult to believe that the enormous number of induced abortions since the Abortion Act became law has only replaced abortions which would have occurred anyway. . .When the Abortion Act was passed my voice was not heard speaking against it. This was because it appeared to put on paper the indications for termination which were already accepted by many gynaecologists who were never prosecuted. It seemed to me logical that the written law should correspond with the law as administered. It was with surprise that I observed the Act’s effects on my own patients. A number of pregnant women requested terminations when I knew that such a course would formerly have been against their principles. The Act had affected their consciences.

Wilson M. (Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill. Br Med J. 1975 Jul 12;3(5975):99.

(Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill

GS Banwell

Extract
In the part of the home counties in which I practise as a consultant gynaecologist abortion in early pregnancy is in fact available on request, contrary to the intentions of Parliament. . .Since it can (be shown statistically that in terms of the risk of death termination in early pregnancy for a healthy woman is a lesser risk than that of bearing a child, the legal case for abortion on request was established. . . Doctors who decline to abort a woman in early pregnancy and who do not plead conscientious objection are liable to criminal prosecution under the current Act . . .The Abortion (Amendment) Bill merely seeks to reword the code using phrases such as, “grave” or “serious” risk. Rather than constitute a threat to professional freedom, it would release doctors from the duplicity inherent in the present badly worded Act.

Banwell G. (Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill. Br Med J. 1975;3(5975):99.

(Correspondence) Abortion (Amendment) Bill

Points from letters

CCS Slorach

Extract
Did you choose deliberately to disregard the fact that in every case of proposed abortion two patients are involved, the mother and the child? The whole tenor of your article, backed up with suitable quotations from the Lane Report, seems to favour abortion on demand.

Slorach C. (Points from Letters) Abortion (Amendment) Bill. Br Med J. 1975 Jun 14;2(5971):620.

(Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion

Wendell W Watters

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
I regret that my previous letter (Can Med Assoc J 111: 900, 1974) did not make clear the distinction between people whose individual value system would not allow them to participate in abortion themselves and people who would prevent anyone from participating in abortion. I sincerely hope we never have laws that prevent the former from following the dictates of their own conscience . . . he is entitled to call embryos anything he wishes. But those of us who call tadpoles “tadpoles” and not immature frogs, acorns “acorns” and not oak trees, prefer to call fetuses “fetuses”. . . With regard to Dr. Baunemann’s letter, the persistent attempt on the part of the self-styled pro-life people to force an association between the Nazis and the advocates of abortion Jaw repeal is wearing a bit thin. . . .History shows that antiabortion laws (phenomenologically, compulsory pregnancy laws) were always introduced to stimulate population growth; and such policies of demographic aggression usually preceded acts of other kinds of aggression. Hitler was a fervent crusader for compulsory pregnancy.

Watters WW. (Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1975 Mar 08;112(5):558.

Abortion: an open letter (CMA President)

Bette Stephenson

Extract
The CMA is not in favour of “abortion on demand”; indeed we are very concerned with the very large and growing number of abortions being performed. . .Our primary aim is to improve family planning programs and, in every way possible, reduce unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortion. . . We believe there is a great need to clarify government policy regarding the abortion laws and for much more meaningful leadership from the federal and provincial governments and the medical profession of Canada to evolve an effective, comprehensive national family planning program. . . .Contrary to a frequent misinterpretation that the CMA is pro-abortion, the association, in fact, is much more strongly pro-prevention of the problem of unwanted pregnancy. If the news media had publicized that important portion of my presentation to the Empire Club regarding the need for effective educational and family planning programs as widely as it did that part related to the problems of abortion, you would have gained a much more accurate view of the policies of the association.

Keywords:

Stephenson B. Abortion: an open letter (CMA President). Can Med Assoc J. 1975;112(4):492. Available from:

(Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion

PG Coffey

Extract
The country that liberalizes abortion creates an atmosphere that encourages abortion. . . Is abortion really no different than any other operation? The people who see no difference are the same people who see all the difference in the world between feticide and infanticide. . . .Dr. Watters refers derisively to the “pro-life” group as the “Canadian Crusaders for Compulsory Pregnancy. . . Is it so difficult to understand that in certain circumstances principles come before expedients? . . . Killing has always been one of the most tempting ways for man to achieve his immediate ends. The numerous complications that may result from abortion, especially the long-term ones, provide good medical reasons for encouraging a pregnancy to continue.

Coffey PG. (Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1975 Feb 08;112(3):283.

(Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion

Bruce Gibbard

Extract
. . . the CMA is composed of physicians who hold strongly opposing opinions on the morality of therapeutic abortion. Consequently, it will be impossible to find a compromise that will satisfy all members of the association. . . What I believe is wrong is that an important, at times essential, and in some cases lifesaving, medical decision is contaminated by the stigma of the Criminal Code of Canada..

Gibbard B. (Correspondence) Therapeutic abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 1975 January 11;112(1):25-27.

Hill-Burton Hospitals After Roe and Doe: Can Federally Funded Hospitals Refuse to Perform Abortions?

Eugene L Berl

Extract
Conclusion
Public hospitals, by reason of the mandate of Roe and Doe, cannot categorically refuse to perform abortions. Similarly, under the state action doctrine, hospitals receiving federal funds pursuant to the Hill-Burton Act cannot refuse to perform abortions, notwithstanding the Health Programs Extension Act of 1973. The inter-relationsip of state and the hospital in the Hill-Burton program, with all the rights, duties and obligations incidental thereto, and the fact that the state and the hospital are joint participants in a state project undertaken for the benefit of the public, support the finding of state action. The Roe prohibition against state interference in a woman’s abortion decision, to be more than a mere cipher, must extend beyond state abortion statutes to the unwarranted refusal to perform abortions by hospitals with which the state is intimately involved.

Berl EL. Hill-Burton Hospitals After Roe and Doe: Can Federally Funded Hospitals Refuse to Perform Abortions? New York U Rev Law & Social Change. 1974;4(1):83-97.