Lynn v. Sekulow

It sounds like we have some agreement here, at least with respect to a conscientious refusal to take human life.


For example, we would both likely support a Louisiana conscience clause that states that no doctor or other person shall be held liable “or in any way prejudiced or damaged because of his refusal for any reason to recommend, counsel, perform, assist with or accommodate an abortion.” I would support broader language such as the Illinois provision that protects the right of health care personnel to refuse to participate “in any particular form of health care service which is contrary to the conscience of such physician or health care personnel.”


The idea of protecting the right of conscience beyond just the refusal to take life has drawn widespread support. For example, federal and state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which prevent the government from imposing a substantial burden upon one’s religious exercise unless its actions are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest, have drawn support across religious and political lines. In addition, Title VII of the federal civil rights act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of their employees unless doing so would impose an undue hardship upon their business. These statutes strike a sensible balance between preserving the individual’s right of conscience and ensuring that governments and businesses can effectively function.

Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus