Pro-life doctors could be forced to violate their consciences by new bill

Madison, Wis., Sep 6, 2007 / 08:48 am

Newly proposed legislation in Wisconsin could force doctors to act against their conscience and give emergency contraception to rape victims, says Pro-Life Wisconsin.

The advocacy group, which includes pro-life physicians, will present their arguments Thursday before a public hearing committee on two bills that would force every Wisconsin hospital, regardless of religious affiliation, to provide an alleged victim of sexual assault emergency contraception immediately upon her request.

Wisconsin law currently protects the right of hospitals to refuse to participate in morally objectionable practices such as abortion and sterilization.

Pro-Life Wisconsin’s primary opposition to the State Capitol on Senate Bill SB 129 and the companion Assembly Bill (AB) 377 is based on the effect of emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill, which causes a pre-implantation chemical abortion.

“There is no truthful person educated in medicine that would deny the possibility that ‘emergency contraception’ may prevent the embryo from implanting in the womb,” said Dr. Amy Schueckler, a licensed obstetrician and gynecologist from Green Bay.

“Individuals and institutions have a right to follow their conscience and not be forced by the state to provide treatments that may result in the death of an already conceived human being,” said Dr. James Linn, a Milwaukee-area hospital chairman of obstetrics and gynecology.

The draft legislation does not require a hospital “to provide emergency contraception to a victim who is pregnant, as indicated by a test for pregnancy.” However, a standard pregnancy test cannot accurately determine fertilization; it can only determine implantation. 

“Forcing doctors to immediately provide medication to patients based solely upon their request is simply bad medicine,” said Matt Sande, director of legislation for Pro-Life Wisconsin.  In the case of emergency contraception, such a policy could contradict a physician’s medical judgment as EC could be medically inadvisable for the patient.