EDITED COPY

Word Count: 608

Abortion Refusal Clause: The Fight of Both Sides

By Olivia Ferrington

Wayne State University

Com 2100, April 28, 2017

Michigan permits medical staff to refuse abortion procedures due to personal

or religious reasons after Congresss adoption of Clause in 1974.

Today, this remains relevant because of a recent presidential election and new

considerations about abortion rights stirring around.

According to National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Pro-

Choice America, Michigan adopted the Abortion Refusal Clause in response to Roe v.

Wade, allowing both medical staff and students of hospitals and institutions that

accept federal funding, to refuse the providing of medical services leading to an

abortion due to religion or personal beliefs.

The clause left pro- life activists hopeful of permanent laws and further refusal

rights and left pro- choice facilities concerned of future decisions.

In 2004, pro- life Congress members passed the Federal Refusal Clause,

permitting various health -care facilities to also refuse counselling, payment, and

general referring of the service to other facilities. According to pro- choice facilities,

this is repealing womens rights to information and burdening their right to choice and

availability.

In an effort of pro- life to further the clause, a 2008 regulation offered

extended rights to employees who were only partially involved in the act of abortion

(receptionists), to refuse the scheduling or discussing of abortion with patients

EDITED COPY

(America, N.P., N.D.). Shortly after, the refusal rights went on to include ambulance

drivers and other partially involved employees.

John Jansen, project coordinator of the Pro- Life Action League of Michigan,

said that he is in agreement with the refusal clause.

Jansen said, This clause is simply a common sense measure which defends

the freedom of rights and worship on behalf of the medical staff.

Later Jansen stated that he does not believe this clause necessarily prevents

abortions from occurring, though it hopefully reduces the number, and maybe if

enough medical staff refuses the procedure, the woman will choose not to get the

abortion.

Ruth Lednicer, spokesperson at Planned Parenthood in Warren, Michigan,

stated that while she does understand why medical staff has the right to refuse doing

something they dont believe in, the idea of a woman keeping an unborn child because

too many doctors refused to do or refer the procedure, is unfair to the woman.

Lednicer said, This is putting women in a position without options or access

to information, ultimately leaving her in a problematic and potentially unsafe

position.

Jansen stated that pro- choice activists would say that the affair is no ones

business besides the doctor and patient, but Jansen believes that this should go both

ways. Meaning, the doctor should always have the right to refuse taking part in that

business, no coercion or explanation necessary.

Lednicer came back with the point that refusing to take part in the business of

procedure should not include the refusal of information and options because women

need a safe place to go if choosing the procedure, which Lednicer repeats, is still the

womens choice to make.

EDITED COPY

Wayne State student Leonora Dedvukaj, not personally in agreement with the

act of abortion unless vital, does however agree with Lednicer regarding the necessity

of women to not be withheld information necessary to get a safe abortion.

Dedvukaj said, With limited means or not, a women who chooses to get an

abortion will find a way, and its much better for her to be provided a safe one.

With pro- life activists working to extend refusal acts even further in effort to

advocate for the unborn child, pro- choice activists continue to fight on behalf of

women who may or may not want abortions, but need to be given the option to choose

and provided with enough information to make a safe decision.

--30--