|. . .[the author] is seeking a compromise that will provide "maximal
liberty for all parties." She believes that freedom of conscience for
physicians and the provision of legal medical services are both
important social goals, and that they are not incompatible. . . .
However, it is necessary to acknowledge what the author herself admits.
In her view, the heart of the conscience clause debate is patient access
to services. She has written a book about how to help patients obtain
services when some of the gatekeepers who control access to them are
uncooperative. It is not a book about freedom of conscience. . . . Full text