Originally Posted by
fjm1
Why?
They still have the option of getting services elsewhere. In a Missouri case, Doe vs. Poelker the state is required to have a facility capable of meeting this demand. The patient just has to be reffered to a treating physician that does not have any qualms about performing the proceedure.
This is a good thing. Then the state/feds can't MAKE a doctor or hospital perform a proceedure against their moral or religious convictions.
This is illegal in South Dakota. And this is a pressing argument among many other states. This is still in question and not a federal law. Regardless, you are only debating half of my argument.