Basically, for the latter, that usually doesn’t involve religious restrictions that prevent a person from actually DOING part of their job.
Generally, you’re talking about such things as letting an employee take their scheduled break to coincide with their prayer times rather than with the rest. Or letting them do so in private.
Or wearing particular religious garb. Which I have no problem with IF it isn’t a threat to health or safety of themselves or others. I mean, with some jobs, there’s a reason you aren’t allowed to wear things that dangle or excess cloth, or have to wear certain clothing items.
But NOT ‘I can’t do this part of my job because it is against my beliefs’.
If I can get my groceries without trouble, while the person is wearing a headscarf, or religious jewelery (as long as the showing of their religion isn’t involving insulting other groups..), that’s fine.
If their religious practice means I can’t get my groceries, at the grocery store, from the cashier.. because they won’t process the order.. that’s another matter.
And what do they mean by ‘taking human life’? What about JW’s and blood products? They believe that there are health issues that ensue from it, and that they are protecting the health, not only the spiritual health, but physical health, of others by refusing to do so.
Or Scientologists… or Christian Scientists, or any number of religions out there that have health and well being sorts of restrictions and mandates?
Or is this to be the ‘Freedom of a particular variety of Christianity, or those who hold a certain narrow range of social views’ Act?

Jay, that’s just disgusting. The broad language used in the proposal quoted (and the even broader language you apparently support) go way too far.
I think there is a general agreement that an OBGYN does not have to perform abortions if that doctor does not want to do so. It should be perfectly acceptable for that doctor to say, “I do not perform this procedure nor will I advocate for it, you should go talk to Doctor X if you are interested in that.”
However, you would apparently not be satisfied with this. Instead, the doctor should be able to say “I do not provide that procedure and I refuse to give you any information about it. I will not tell you if it might be worth considering. I will not tell you what other patients might do. I will not tell you if it is medically recommended. I will not identify a doctor that performs that procedure. I will not even suggest a doctor who might be willing to discuss the issue.” That’s what your “broader” language protects – the “right” of a doctor to put his/her own personal beliefs entirely ahead of the needs and desires of the patient.
Imagine that a woman enters the doctor’s office complaining of pain. The doctor determines that she has an ectopic pregnancy (the fertilized embryo is growing in her fallopian tubes instead of the uterus). She will die if an abortion is not performed. You apparently think it would be perfectly acceptable for an anti-abortion doctor to shake his head and say, “I’m sorry miss, but you are going to die and there is nothing I can do about it” and then say NOTHING else. (After all, giving her any further information would “assist” in the abortion this woman would almost certainly choose to have.)
Again, that’s disgusting, and a complete travesty of the very idea of a doctor as a trusted expert.

I suppose you think that an atheist or humanist may not turn down participation in a procedure he disagrees with? Or do we all just have the right, even on an ad hoc basis, to turn down participation in any of our paid duties for whatever reason? (“I don’t treat dying Baptists.”)

I still maintain that someone with an MD after his name who refuses to perform legal medical procedures for religious reasons should turn in his shingle and define himself by what he is: a religious zealot masquerading as a medical doctor…

I think we can happily revisit this topic on the day that the US Military Academies start graduating Conscientious Objectors and the Armed Forces provide these officers with a “No Kill” career track equal in every respect to the Combat Officer’s career track.
Until then: NO!
There are so many medical procedures to which someone might declare a conscientious objection: by a crazy stretch of the imagination a Christian Scientist working in Maintenance or Food Services might “need” to be excused from whatever it was they were doing because a physician was writing prescriptions in the same room.
Somewhat less ridiculously: hospital workers at all levels might find that they have a religious prohibition against seeing naked people, or touching or speaking to people of the opposite sex — creating all sorts of staff and schedule problems in all but the largest facilities.
Of course what we are really talking about is the freedom of pharmacists and pharmacy clerks to refuse to provide contraception … although even this could be extended to cover other “immoral medications” such as opiates, diet pills, anti depressants, sex hormones, etc.
Practically, such job-shirking might not be much of a problem in a large pharmacy with several pharmacists on duty at all times, or in a city where other pharmacies might be found within walking distance. But in small rural stores and clinics, the unwillingness of one clerk or pharmacist to dispense can mean the patient/customer must travel long distances in the HOPE that some other facility will fill a legal prescription.
And isn’t that the true intent of this proposal — denying service to people whose medical needs do not fit the proponents’ moral agenda?

Mr. Sekulow, would you please comment on whether the intent of your support for this ‘conscience clause’ is to ultimately outlaw abortion? If it is, I can’t support it, not because I like to see dead baby guts on TV, but because I can’t stand the thought of anyone except my wife, her doctor, and her family having a say in what she does with her body. I don’t like the thought of any of the women I know and love having an abortion. I don’t encourage them to be promiscuous. But if, for example, one of them became pregnant after being raped, you bet I’d support them if they didn’t want any part of birthing and raising that baby.
You can say life is sacred, but you can’t prove it. You can say you speak for God, but you can’t prove that either. You can say ending such a pregnancy would be wrong or immoral, but you have no basis for doing so, despite your interpretation of the bible. You have no legal basis for telling women that if such an accidental pregnancy occurs, they have no recourse, and must live with this complete interruption of their life’s plan, and bring into the world a constant reminder of the violent crime perpetrated upon them.
What can you say if I request for proof that there is such a thing as my soul, and proof that I will have to answer to God, way up there, somewhere, for supporting a woman in my family in having an abortion for any reason? You can say nothing that qualifies as proper legal evidence, in my view, and I think it best that you not meddle in people’s private affairs.
Here’s another point. I live in a city, and there are plenty of doctors to choose from, even if zealots like convicted murderer James Kopp have intimidated some into no longer providing abortions. But for those in rural areas, there may not be but one doctor in a hundred miles. If an abortion is required to save the life of a woman who lives and works on a farm, and the only doctor available is unwilling to perform or support or inform, are we to just accept that this woman is to die? Just throw our hands up and say that it’s in God’s hands now? Wouldn’t you feel just a little silly? Wouldn’t you feel like you should have done something more for this person? I think the doctor who refused to provide services to this woman really has no regard for her well-being and shouldn’t be practicing medicine. He should be a preacher.

Wow! So many comments, so little time.
Ok, where to begin? Conscience clause: that’s where it all started. To the commenter on doctors refusing to save someone’s life. Let’s try an example: doctors and hospitals are required to provide medical treatment to someone in danger of death, whether or not they have insurance or can pay for the service. But – and this is a big but, unfortunately – they are not required to provide medicaol care to someone not in danger of death – even someone in great pain or very sick – if that person does not have insurance or the ability to pay. This is an unfortunate situation which is worthy of its own thread. But, the point is, a consience clause can work the same way; if the person’s life is in danger, then the medical need supercedes any religious objections the doctir may have. If not, the religious objections trump the care. If it’s a good enough system when money is involved, then it’s good enough when beliefs are involved.
Concerning the religious beliefs of anyone – secularists, etc. Sure, why not? A deeply held belief is a deeply held belief – no matter who believes it.
Concerning not doing one’s job: again, the word “reasonable” is involved. As long as the business can reasonably accommodate a person’s beliefs, as much as it can accommodate anything else (let’s say a mdeical need or an ADA accommodation), then the religious belief is paramount. We could use such current federal laws as FERPA or FMLA as guidelines.
Concerning safety: certainly safety should be a primary issue. Certain professions do not let their participants wear jewelry because of the dangers inherent in the work they do. For example, my wedding ring is the most important piece of jewelry I possess, and I am never without it. Even so, were I to work in a field in which it could pose a danger, I would leave it in my pocket, car, or locker at work and put it back on as soon as my shift was over. Besides, I brag on my wife so much, most people don’t even notice the ring.
A key point is that the employer should express the demands of the job at the onset, and the employee should ask about any religious accommodations. If all the information is out initially, it is usually easier for an individual to decide if this is the place where he or she wants to work.
Anything else, well Jay… I guess that’s what lawyers are for.
I would like to note that our nation was founded by people with religious convictions – in fact, the churches and their pastors were instrumental in providing impetus and soldiers for Washington’s army – and they had no problems mixing religion, business, and government. Perhaps, we should study history a bit more.
O.K.,
Now, it’s someone else’s turn.
God bless,
— Anthony

I think if someone refuses to perform a legal, health care procedure then they shouldn’t be in the health care profession.That’s it.

I definitely agree that there should be a Conscience Clause to protect those who refuse to take a human life. The fact that over 45,000 people signed a petition supporting such a motion on the web site of the Be Heard project is strong evidence that this is in fact what Americans want as well.