Experts Weigh Balance Between Conscientious Objectors and Reproductive Rights

Panelists discussed questions about reproductive rights that have gained new urgency around the globe since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization at a recent panel hosted by the Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for International Human Rights.

“Conscientious Objectors, Reproductive Rights, and the International System Post-Dobbs” explored the evolving tensions between reproductive rights, individual beliefs, and international legal norms since Dobbs overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the United States.

The Oct. 22 panel featured Clinical Professor of Law Claudia Flores, co-director of the Schell Center and member of the United Nations Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls; Associate Professor (Adjunct) of Law Alice Miller, co-director of the Global Health Justice Partnership; and Mindy Roseman, director of International Law Programs and director of the Gruber Program for Global Justice and Women’s Rights. The event was moderated by Schell Center Executive Director Dina Haynes and co-sponsored by the Yale Law School chapter of If/When/How.

The international law and public health experts discussed how the Dobbs decision reverberates in international law, the role of conscientious objectors in healthcare, and the implications for women’s rights worldwide. Conscientious objectors — healthcare professionals who choose not to provide contraceptives, abortions, or related care due to conscience or religious beliefs — were a specific focus. Panelists discussed the balance between respecting their rights while ensuring they do not obstruct access to reproductive rights.

Roseman explained that while most abortion opponents have historically used the language of morality and “family values” to underpin their position, they now increasingly use human rights language. This framing puts reproductive rights and religious rights in opposition, she said. However, the panelists were optimistic that with the right medical system in place, governments can resolve this opposition and ensure reproductive freedom without requiring medical professionals to perform procedures that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Flores discussed her work creating a guidance document on conscientious objectors and reproductive rights with the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls. The document serves as a reference for countries to allow conscientious objection without jeopardizing the right to reproductive health care. She also described how the working group collaborates with countries, providing guidance to increase their complicity with U.N. guidelines around reproductive rights.

Panelists also discussed other barriers to reproductive health care. Miller talked about mandatory reporting laws in Brazil that require medical professionals to report patients who request abortions, even though such reporting often violates medical confidentiality standards. She explained that the medical standards of confidentiality, beneficence, and nonmaleficence can be used as grounds on which to challenge these laws.

Miller also discussed an amicus brief she submitted on behalf of the Global Health Justice Partnership to the European Court of Human Rights in another matter that could have applications for reproductive rights. This brief, in a case concerning the rights of transgender athletes in Switzerland, used medical standards to push back against mandatory reporting laws for healthcare professionals who work with intersex athletes. Miller argued that the brief’s interpretation of medical ethics could also be applied in Brazil to counter mandatory reporting laws around abortion.

While global movements jeopardizing reproductive rights have gained momentum in recent years, particularly in the United States, innovative new arguments to protect these rights are also in development, panelists said.