In the wake of the Roe v. Wade decision, which interpreted the U.S. Constitution as requiring states to allow doctors to perform abortions, the federal government and some states acted to protect medical professionals with objections to participating in abortions.

An important example was Illinois. In 1977, that state’s legislature enacted the Health Care Right of Conscience Act.

The law is based on the reality “that people and organizations hold different beliefs about whether certain health care services are morally acceptable.” The underlying policy behind the law is “to respect and protect the right of conscience of all persons.” It applies not only to providers but also to patients and those who pay for medical services. In one case, Illinois courts held that a hospital would violate the act if it failed “to honor the plaintiffs’ religious belief that prohibited being seen unclothed by a member of the opposite sex.”

The law prohibits “all forms of discrimination, disqualification, coercion, disability or imposition of liability upon such persons or entities by reason of their refusing to act contrary to their conscience or conscientious convictions.”

A recent case examined the application of this provision.

The case involved a nurse, Sandra Rojas, who had worked with a county health department providing pediatric and adult vaccinations and phlebotomy. After working with the county for nearly 20 years, she was told she would be “cross-trained to provide all services in the combined clinic, including family planning and women’s health services.”

Rojas explained to her supervisor that “as a practicing Catholic her religious beliefs prevented her from providing birth control, from providing Plan B emergency contraception, and from making a referral for an abortion.” The county declined to exempt her from activities at odds with her faith, offering only to move her into a different line of work, so Rojas resigned. She then sued the county health department.

In October 2021, an Illinois trial court “concluded that the Health Department could have reasonably accommodated [Rojas’] objections without removing her from her job.” Last week, the court ordered the county to pay more than $37,000 in attorney fees for violating the law.

A case like this illustrates what legislators can do to protect religious freedom. By setting out clear parameters for what health care employers and providers can and cannot do, the Illinois law creates reliable protections for patients and health care personnel.

These types of specific protections promote respect for religious practice and accommodation of religious beliefs. With the Supreme Court currently considering the continuing validity of the interpretation adopted in Roe v. Wade and the possibility that states may again be free to create their own policies toward abortion regulation, the need for legislative solutions to ensure rights are protected – rather than leaving that for the courts to do – may be increasingly important.