Use our account feature to register for a free CLI account. Your new account will allow you to bookmark and organize articles and research for easy reference later - making it simple to keep track of the research that's important to you!
Register / Sign in
close-panel

Charlotte Lozier Institute

Phone: 202-223-8073
Fax: 571-312-0544

2776 S. Arlington Mill Dr.
#803
Arlington, VA 22206

Get Notifications

Sign up to receive email updates from Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Become A Defender of Life

Your donation helps us continue to provide world-class research in defense of life.

DONATE

Charlotte Lozier Institute

Phone: 202-223-8073
Fax: 571-312-0544

2776 S. Arlington Mill Dr.
#803
Arlington, VA 22206

Life & the LawAbortion

Unconscionable: Threats to Religious Freedom and Rights of Conscience in the Abortion Debate

To read this paper in full, see Unconscionable: Threats to Religious Freedom and Rights of Conscience in the Abortion Debate.

 

Executive Summary

 

Those watching the nation’s capital earlier this year witnessed three important events bearing on religious freedom and rights of conscience in the abortion debate.

 

In a June 21, 2016, letter, the Obama administration made it clear that it would not take action against the California Department of Managed Health Care’s policy requiring all health plans in the state to cover elective abortions.[1] The Weldon Amendment prevents federal agencies and state and local governments receiving funds from the Department of Health and Human Services from discriminating against health care entities opposed to abortion,[2] but the Obama administration will not seek to apply the law in this case.[3]

 

One week later, on June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court denied review in the case Stormans v. Wiesman, a dispute regarding the ability of Washington pharmacists with conscientious objections to abortion-inducing drugs to decline to stock such products at their stores.[4]

 

 

Then, on July 13, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Conscience Protection Act by a vote of 245-182.[5] The legislation would prevent government from discriminating against health-care providers who object to participating in the practice of abortion.[6]

 

These events highlight continuing developments in the abortion debate. While society continues to debate whether and when abortion should be permitted, a second question concerns whether to force pro-life individuals and institutions to participate in or facilitate abortions.

 

This paper presents a survey of challenges reflecting this transition “from culture wars to conscience wars.”[7] At risk are not only the religious freedom and rights of conscience of pro-life individuals and institutions, but also the goods that a robust understanding and protection of religious liberty and conscience rights provide for society as a whole.

 

Tim Bradley is a research associate at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.


[1] Richard M. Doerflinger, A Pledge Betrayed: The Obama Administration Nullifies Conscience Rights, Public Discourse (July 6, 2016), http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17295/.

[2] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, Div. H. Sec. 507(d) (Dec. 18, 2015).

[3] Doerflinger, A Pledge Betrayed: The Obama Administration Nullifies Conscience Rights.

[4] Stormans v. Wiesman, No. 15-862, slip. op. (U.S. June 28, 2016) (Alito, J., dissenting), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-862_2c8f.pdf.

[5] House Votes 245-182 for Conscience Protection Act, CNSNews.com (July 13, 2016), http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/house-votes-245-182-conscience-protection-act.

[6] Conscience Protection Act of 2016, H.R. 4828, 114th Cong. (2016).

[7] Thomas M. Messner, From Culture Wars to Conscience Wars: Emerging Threats to Conscience, Heritage Foundation (April 13, 2011), http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/from-culture-wars-to-conscience-wars-emerging-threats-to-conscience.

Latest Posts

March 1, 2024 Fact of Life: American Cars (and Their Drivers) Exhibit Decidedly More Pro-life than Pro-choice Views Fact of Life: American Cars (and Their Drivers) Exhibit Decidedly More Pro-life than Pro-choice Views February 29, 2024 Abortion Reporting: Nevada (2022) February 29, 2024 Abortion Reporting: Illinois (2022)

You Might Also Be Interested In

Fact of Life: American Cars (and Their Drivers) Exhibit Decidedly More Pro-life than Pro-choice Views

Fact of Life: American Cars (and Their Drivers) Exhibit Decidedly More Pro-life than Pro-choice Views

March 1, 2024
ClosePlease login
Lozier Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Ecuador Law Limiting Abortion

Lozier Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Ecuador Law Limiting Abortion

charlotte-lozier-institute Charlotte Lozier Institute
February 21, 2024
ClosePlease login
Public Comment: Lozier Institute on CDC’s Notice of Proposed Modifications to Assisted Reproductive Technology Program Reporting

Public Comment: Lozier Institute on CDC’s Notice of Proposed Modifications to Assisted Reproductive Technology Program Reporting

charlotte-lozier-institute Charlotte Lozier Institute
February 21, 2024
ClosePlease login

Become A Defender of Life

Your donation helps us continue to provide
world-class research in defense of life.

BECOME A PARTNER
cta-image