Abstract：
Since the U.S. Supreme Court\'s decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women\'s Health Organization, a growing web of state laws restricts access to abortion. Here we consider how, ethically, doctors should respond when terminating a pregnancy is clinically indicated but state law imposes restrictions on doing so. We offer a typology of cases in which the dilemma emerges and a brief sketch of the current state of legal prohibitions against providing such care. We examine the issue from the standpoints of conscience, professional ethics, and civil disobedience and conclude that it is almost always morally permissible and praiseworthy to break the law and that, in a subset of cases, it is morally obligatory to do so. We further argue that health care institutions that employ or credential physicians to provide reproductive health care have an ethical duty to provide a basic suite of practical supports for them as they work to ethically resolve the dilemmas before them.
摘要：
自从美国最高法院在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织,越来越多的州法律限制堕胎。在这里，我们考虑如何，道德上,当临床上有终止妊娠的指征时，医生应该做出回应，但是州法律对此施加了限制。我们提供了出现困境的案例类型，并简要概述了禁止提供此类护理的法律禁令的现状。我们从良心的角度来审视这个问题，职业道德,和公民抗命，并得出结论，违反法律几乎总是道德上允许和值得称赞的，在一个子集的情况下，这样做在道德上是有义务的。我们进一步认为，雇用或认证医生提供生殖健康护理的医疗机构在道德上有义务为他们提供基本的实践支持，因为他们在道德上解决摆在他们面前的困境。
