Conscience clauses are in the news lately in the USA. The term refers to the practice of allowing medical practitioners to refuse to perform certain procedures if they are in violation of their personal beliefs. For example, some pharmacists who are religious choose not to dispense the morning after pill.
There are two sides to the debate. One side holds that it is wrong to require people to act against their beliefs. This side typically favours the introduction of a law prohibiting employers from firing people who refuse to do their jobs on such grounds.
The other side argues that pharmacists’ conscience clauses make contraception harder to get and are therefore detrimental to women’s health. This side typically favours the introduction of a law requiring pharmacists to dispense all prescriptions no matter what their individual beliefs.
Like most political debates, it is a false dichotomy and both sides miss the glaringly obvious.
The solution is quite simple: Let those who want to sell contraceptives sell them. Let those who own pharmacies and who want staff willing to sell contraceptives hire such staff if they can find them. Let those who refuse to sell contraceptives refuse to sell them as long as they can find an employer who doesn’t mind such behaviour. Let those who want to buy contraceptives buy them, as long as they can find someone willing to sell them.
End of story: no-one is forcing anyone to do anything they don’t want to do; no laws need to be made; no taxpayers’ money needs to be wasted drafting laws; no politicians required.