Why should a Doctor go against any of his/her principles?
If they opt out they can inform the patient and the patient then has the right to find another doctor.

Seems logical and fair to me.

Where do we draw the line. If the law passes legislation that protects someones rights it should not be up to some strangers values to legislate morality they believe in on another person, they should just obey the law. They don't know the reason for the treatment (pharmacist) if a woman was raped or the victim of incest, or if being pregnant endangers her life, it is their duty to dispense the treatment prescribed by the doctor.

What if the drugjockey doesn't morally approve of my narcotic pain medication. I don't get them ?

Doctors should give notice up front so that a patient can choose, but if the patient is rushed into an emergency room after a rape the doctor has an obligation to protect that woman from further damage, like being forced into an unwanted rape pregnancy, if she chooses not to take a chance of pregnancy. The doctor has the same duty to protect the life of a women if it becomes compromised do to pregnancy and she chooses to remain healthy and alive.

Personally I don't believe abortion should be a means of contraception, unless a woman's life is in jeopardy or she is a victim of rape or incest. I would still abide by the law in any case, I already follow a number of laws that I don't like.

When is abortion ever an emergency and since when did pregnancy become a life-threatening condition?

Well to some extent I agree.

Essentially I feel that to be truly constitutional you cannot deny someone the freedom of religion except in state institutions. That doesn't mean things can't be regulated to work with such exceptions. Also then this also means if this would be a military hospital, etc. then obviously in that situation your voice does not matter due to separation of church and state.

I am pro life, but as I said that doesn't necessarily mean that I am entirely anti abortion as some conservatives are.

I think that the highest quality of life should be preserved.

An example of how this might allow abortion is look at what you said about an emergency and life risk. If the baby can be induced and a c-section would not risk the life of the mother regardless I feel that is the better choice. However, if a mother were to have her life truly at risk and the doctor believes that delivery will mean highly reduced chances of survival we should look at her life and aspects there of. If the mother has pre-existing children, a husband, etc. lookat what they lose. I would say that losing the mother is the worst case scenario over losing the unborn child.

I also agree about it should not be used as a form of contraception. This is why I choose being pro life over being altogether pro choice. With that choice using it as a form of contraception is just that, a choice.

I agree with abiding by the law, however that doesn't always mean some laws a right and justified. To me repealing the clause is a violation of consitutional rights. Laws are supposed to abide by the constitution. In a sense as well I also think that this is excess legislation. I don't believe we really need this law because the constitution itself already declares what is being said here. But even since the founding of the country we have been granting powers and enacting legislation not with what is herein the constitution. The bill of rights is an example of this. In this case I feel this clause is another example of this in that some people just have to have is spelled out for them.

And to Anonymous there can be complications. In reality these are rare overall, but never the less there are exceptions. There is no absolute truth in this no matter how you see it. You have to decide what you believe in the most and argue that the best of your ability.

This is one that I find most revealing with regard to the hypocrisy of the so called Democratic Party. Their blatant absence of concern for the rights of others and willingness to sacrifice the moral standards of our Doctors in order to achieve unchallenged slaughter of the innocent. Clearly the only reasonable choice for abortion would be due to rape or the mothers health. "My body my choice" now rules over responsibility and consequence. When the freedom of choice should have been, "To NOT get pregnant in the first place". Now the Easy Way Out trumps over all else forcing responsible educated people who save lives to violate their own moral character and principle in order to allow arrogance and ignorance to run rampant...Our collective bodies immune system has been destroyed...this CANCER Spreads like a wildfire. Whats next...Post Birth Executions on Reality TV ???

TRex -

You know I have to agree with what you said TRex because just as one has the right to get pregnant one also has the right to NOT get pregnant.

Such an open option in choice allows irresponsible abuse of it which occurs much more than necessary.

Although in addition to rape and the mother's health I also would consider incest an option as well. Though personally I am still on the sidelines about that issue this is one I am a little more lenient with until such a time I may or may not finally decide otherwise.

Good point! first of all I don't agree with abortion but I also don't agree that the rights of some are sacrificed and neglected.