Abstract

In 2019, several US states passed “heartbeat” bills. Should such bills go into effect, they would outlaw abortion once an embryonic heartbeat can be detected, thereby severely limiting an individual’s access to abortion. Many states allow health care professionals to refuse to provide an abortion for reasons of conscience. Yet heartbeat bills do not include a positive conscience clause that would allow health care professionals to provide an abortion for reasons of conscience. I argue that this asymmetry is unjustified. The same criteria that justify protecting conscientious refusals to provide abortion also justify protecting positive conscientious appeals regarding abortion. Thus, if the law provides legal exemptions for health care professionals who, as a matter of conscience, refuse to provide abortions where it is legal, it should also provide exemptions for health care professionals who, as a matter of conscience, feel obligated to provide abortions where it is illegal.

摘要

2019年，美国多个州通过了“心跳”法案。如果此类法案生效，一旦可以检测到胚胎心跳，它们将宣布堕胎为非法，从而严重限制了个人获得堕胎的机会。许多州都允许医护人员出于良心理由拒绝提供堕胎服务。然而，心跳法案中并未包含积极的良心条款，该条款将允许医疗保健专业人员出于良心原因进行堕胎。我认为这种不对称是不合理的。保护出于良心拒服兵役而堕胎的标准相同，也有理由保护关于堕胎的积极良心呼吁。因此，如果法律规定医疗专业人员的法律豁免，出于良心考虑，他们拒绝在合法的情况下提供堕胎服务，