2018•UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona)Requires access

THE CONSCIENTIOUS WAR ON WOMEN:COMPLICITY-BASED CONSCIENCE CLAIMS AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE

Casey Murray

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Citing their own personal moral beliefs, some health care providers refuse to provide certain reproductive services, like prescribing contraception or performing abortions. This refusal has contributed to a reproductive health care crisis in the United States that disproportionately affects rural and low-income women. This thesis evaluates whether conscientious objection and complicity-based conscience claims in reproductive health care should be protected under First Amendment freedom of religious expression. In the paper, I differentiate between conscientious objection and complicity-based conscience claims in the context of reproductive health care. I evaluate the current state of reproductive care in the U.S., along with U.S. Federal law and case law, to argue that complicity-based conscience claims in reproductive health care should not be protected, however conscientious objections may be.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Citing their own personal moral beliefs, some health care providers refuse to provide certain reproductive services, like prescribing contraception or performing abortions. This refusal has contributed to a reproductive health care crisis in the United States that disproportionately affects rural and low-income women. This thesis evaluates whether conscientious objection and complicity-based conscience claims in reproductive health care should be protected under First Amendment freedom of religious expression. In the paper, I differentiate between conscientious objection and complicity-based conscience claims in the context of reproductive health care. I evaluate the current state of reproductive care in the U.S., along with U.S. Federal law and case law, to argue that complicity-based conscience claims in reproductive health care should not be protected, however conscientious objections may be.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Citing their own personal moral beliefs, some health care providers refuse to provide certain reproductive services, like prescribing contraception or performing abortions. This refusal has contributed to a reproductive health care crisis in the United States that disproportionately affects rural and low-income women. This thesis evaluates whether conscientious objection and complicity-based conscience claims in reproductive health care should be protected under First Amendment freedom of religious expression. In the paper, I differentiate between conscientious objection and complicity-based conscience claims in the context of reproductive health care. I evaluate the current state of reproductive care in the U.S., along with U.S. Federal law and case law, to argue that complicity-based conscience claims in reproductive health care should not be protected, however conscientious objections may be.

Key concepts: Conscientious objector, Complicity, Conscience, Political science, Medicine, Law, Psychology, Spanish Civil War

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
THE CONSCIENTIOUS WAR ON WOMEN:COMPLICITY-BASED CONSCIENCE CLAIMS AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE — Research Paper | ScholarLens