There are two problems with this line of argument.
1. The doctors presumably knew when they chose their profession that they could be asked to do things (perform abortions, prescribe birth control, treat people they don't like, etc.) in conflict with their religious beliefs. The time to think about that is *before* they decided to go into medicine, not when there's a patient in front of them who needs medical care. If someone thinks they might have that sort of conflict, they should pick another profession, or at least find a speciality where it's not likely to be an issue.
2. "Just finding another doctor" is not always that simple, particularly when the medical procedure in question is an abortion. In some states, physicians who will provide abortions are few and far between; a woman may have spent all her available resources to get to the closest doctor, who could be 100 miles away. If that doctor then refuses to provide the treatment, she may not have another opportunity.
In most cases, when a situation is not immediately life-threatening, physicians *are* allowed to refuse to give treatment that they morally oppose, but they also have to refer the patient to someone who will help them. I think this is a reasonable compromise. The problem with the new "conscience" rule that's been in the news, is that a doctor who refuses to provide treatment has no further obligation to the patient whatsoever. This is the change that has so many people, including myself, up in arms. It's playing games with people's lives for the sake of politics, and I do not approve.
no subject
1. The doctors presumably knew when they chose their profession that they could be asked to do things (perform abortions, prescribe birth control, treat people they don't like, etc.) in conflict with their religious beliefs. The time to think about that is *before* they decided to go into medicine, not when there's a patient in front of them who needs medical care. If someone thinks they might have that sort of conflict, they should pick another profession, or at least find a speciality where it's not likely to be an issue.
2. "Just finding another doctor" is not always that simple, particularly when the medical procedure in question is an abortion. In some states, physicians who will provide abortions are few and far between; a woman may have spent all her available resources to get to the closest doctor, who could be 100 miles away. If that doctor then refuses to provide the treatment, she may not have another opportunity.
In most cases, when a situation is not immediately life-threatening, physicians *are* allowed to refuse to give treatment that they morally oppose, but they also have to refer the patient to someone who will help them. I think this is a reasonable compromise. The problem with the new "conscience" rule that's been in the news, is that a doctor who refuses to provide treatment has no further obligation to the patient whatsoever. This is the change that has so many people, including myself, up in arms. It's playing games with people's lives for the sake of politics, and I do not approve.