Berkley Center

Most Americans believe that they should follow their consciences as the ultimate judge of what is right and wrong. Most of the time this works. But problems arise when consciences come into conflict.

For example, my conscience may tell me to do one thing while your conscience tells you to do something else. Or my conscience may tell me to do one thing when the law requires something else.

American society tries to respect freedom of conscience whenever possible. When our country had a draft, the law permitted conscientious objectors to do alternative service rather than serve in the military. Here the law provided protection for conscience even when national security was at stake.

Sometimes conscience impels people to violate the law. During the civil rights struggle, peaceful protesters who practiced civil disobedience were condemned by some for disobeying the law, but today most people recognize that these heroes forced our nation to deal with racial prejudice. That these protestors were willing to go to jail for their beliefs gave them added credibility.

There are limits to America's toleration of conscience. For example, the use of violence to overcome a perceived evil in society has not been recognized as legitimate since the Revolutionary War. And parents with religious objections to medical treatment for their children will be overruled by courts that must look out of the best interests of the children.

The newest area of conflict of consciences is in the field of health care, where abortion is the critical problem. Does a woman's right to an abortion mean that doctors, nurses and hospitals must perform an abortion even if their consciences forbid it?

The Obama administration has proposed revising the regulations governing conscience and health care issued by the Bush administration about a month before it left office. The purpose of these regulations was to ensure that federal funds "do not support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices in violation of federal law."

The law is clear that no one can be forced to perform an abortion, and any new regulations would have to respect the law. Regulations cannot change the law. When it announced the rescinding of these regulations, the Obama administration should have made clearer that it was not going to try to change the law.

But opponents of the regulations feel that they were too sweeping in their interpretation of the law. We will have to wait and see what the new regulations say.

Although the law currently protects the conscience rights of health care providers, some pro-choice activists would like to have the law force health care providers to perform abortions even if they have moral objections. Such a move would be disastrous as well as unnecessary.

Abortion is not normally an emergency procedure. A woman has plenty of time to find a doctor and a facility that will perform the abortion. After all, there are 1,700 abortion providers who perform more than a million abortions a year in the U.S. Forcing providers to perform abortions would be divisive and could result in the elimination of health services in some areas if providers shut down rather than go against their conscience.

The hard case is the treatment of rape victims in emergency rooms. Morning after drugs or Plan B are often given to rape victims to keep them from becoming pregnant. There is some confusion about what these drugs actually do. If they cause an abortion, some would have moral objections. If they prevent fertilization, few would object. Because of this ambiguity, some Catholic hospitals give morning after drugs to rape victims. Others do not.

There is political pressure to force hospitals to provide morning after drugs to rape victims, but before this is done, the possible consequences should be considered. Some hospitals might refuse to accept rape victims or even close down their emergency rooms in response to such requirements. This would be disastrous for everyone.

Another approach needs to be found that respects the right of conscience and the rights of the rape victim. For example, hospitals can be required to disclose what services they will not provide. Ways then can be found to inform the victim from whom she can receive the drugs in a timely manner. Such an approach would respect the rights of the woman while also respecting the consciences of the health care providers.