Skip to main content

Guttmacher Institute

Donate Now

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade in Peril
  • COVID-19 impact
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • U.S. policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • U.S.

Articles

  • Global research
  • U.S. research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Op-eds & external blogs

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • U.S.
  • U.S. State Laws and Policies

Data & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-Reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

U.S.

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work By Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Donate stock or securites
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Annual Report

Awards and Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship

Search form

Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research

 

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Email
Guttmacher Institute

Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research

 

Donate Now

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Email

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade in Peril
  • COVID-19 impact
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • U.S. policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • U.S.

Articles

  • Global research
  • U.S. research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Op-eds & external blogs

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • U.S.
  • U.S. State Laws and Policies

Data & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-Reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

U.S.

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work By Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Donate stock or securites
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Annual Report

Awards and Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship

Search form

As of May 1, 2022 State Laws and Policies

Refusing to Provide Health Services

Background

Sparked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton that legalized abortion nationwide, federal and state governments have enacted laws that allow health care professionals and institutions to refuse to provide services related to reproductive health without facing legal, financial or professional consequences.

A patchwork of federal laws explicitly allows many health care professionals and institutions to refuse to provide care related to abortion and sterilization services. Collectively, these laws prevent government agencies from forcing the provision of services or “discriminating” against individuals and institutions that refuse to provide them; they also prevent institutions receiving certain federal funds from taking action against health care personnel because of their participation or nonparticipation in beliefs about abortion or sterilization. Separate federal laws and regulations, notably Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibit employers from discriminating against personnel based on religion, including religiously based objections to performing specific job functions; an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.

Almost every state has adopted similar policies related to abortion, and, in many instances, policies regarding sterilization or other contraceptive services; while some of the institutional policies are limited to private or religious health care institutions, others apply to all institutions providing health care. In addition to the rights granted by these specific policies, an individual health care professional’s actions may be legally protected by state statutes, similar to the federal Title VII law, prohibiting discrimination against employees based on their religious objections.  

In large part because of the introduction in the United States of emergency contraception in the late 1990s, the issue of religious and moral objections to providing care has expanded beyond doctors, nurses and hospitals to include pharmacists and pharmacies. Since that time, a few states have enacted laws that specifically allow pharmacists or pharmacies to refuse to provide health care because of religious or moral objections. Several other states have broadly worded refusal clause statutes that also might apply in these circumstances. In addition, many states that have policies requiring insurance plans to cover contraception if they cover other prescription drugs have included exemptions to those requirements for certain religious employers or insurers. (See Emergency Contraception and Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives for more details.)

Visit our state legislation tracker for policy activity on all sexual and reproductive health topics.

Highlights

In addition to the federal laws related to refusal (see above),

  • 46 states allow some health care providers to refuse to provide abortion services.
    • All of these states permit individual health care providers to refuse to provide abortion services.
    • 44 states allow health care institutions to refuse to provide abortion services; 13 limit the exemption to private health care institutions and 1 state allows only religious health care entities to refuse to provide such care.
  • 12 states allow some health care providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception.
    • 9 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception.
    • 6 states explicitly permit pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives. (6 additional states have broad refusal clauses that do not specifically include pharmacists, but may apply to them.)
    • 8 states allow health care institutions to refuse to provide services related to contraception; 5 states limit the exemption to private entities.
  • 18 states allow some health care providers to refuse to provide sterilization services.
    • 17 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to provide sterilization services.
    • 16 states allow health care institutions to refuse to provide sterilization services; 4 limit the exemption to private entities.
Printer-friendly version

For more information

  • Public Policy Office

    202-296-4012
    [email protected]

Topic

United States

  • Abortion: State Policies on Abortion
  • Contraception: State Policies on Contraception
  • HIV & STIs: STATE POLICIES ON HIV & STIs

Geography

  • Northern America: United States
    • Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Related Content

Policy Analysis

Provider Refusal and Access to Reproductive Health Services: Approaching a New Balance

Guttmacher Policy Review
Policy Analysis

Rights vs. Responsibilities: Professional Standards and Provider Refusals

Guttmacher Policy Review
Policy Analysis

New Refusal Clauses Shatter Balance Between Provider 'Conscience,' Patient Needs

Guttmacher Policy Review
Policy Analysis

Learning from Experience: Where Religious Liberty Meets Reproductive Rights

Guttmacher Policy Review
Policy Analysis

In Bad Faith: How Conservatives Are Weaponizing “Religious Liberty” to Allow Institutions to Discriminate

Guttmacher Policy Review

 

Policies Allowing Providers to Refuse

STATE

REFUSAL

Abortion

Contraception

Sterilization

Individual Provider

Institution

Individual Provider

Pharmacist

Institution

Individual Provider

Institution

Federal Policy

X

X

 

 

 

X

X

Alabama

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Alaska

X

Private

 

 

 

 

 

Arizona

 X‡

 X‡

X

X

X

 

 

Arkansas

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

California

X

Religious

 

 

 

 

 

Colorado

 

 

X

*

Private

 

 

Connecticut

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delaware

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Florida

X

X

X

*

 

 

 

Georgia

X

X

 

X

 

X

X

Hawaii

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Idaho

X

X

X

X

 

X

X

Illinois

X

X

X

*

X

X

X

Indiana

X

Private

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa

X

Private

 

 

 

 

 

Kansas

X

X

*†​

* †​

 

X

X

Kentucky

X

X

 

 

 

X

 

Louisiana

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Maine

X

X

X

*

Private

X

X

Maryland

X

X

 

 

 

X

X

Massachusetts

X

Private

 

 

Private

X

Private

Michigan

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Minnesota

X

Private

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Missouri

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Montana

X

Private

 

 

 

X

Private

Nebraska

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Nevada

X

Private

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey

X

Private

 

 

 

X

Private

New Mexico

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

New York

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

North Dakota

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Ohio

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Oregon

X

Private

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania

X

Private

 

 

 

X

Private

Rhode Island

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

South Carolina

X

Private

 

 

 

 

 

South Dakota

X

X

 

X

 

 

 

Tennessee

X

X

X

*

Private

 

 

Texas

X

Private

 

 

 

 

 

Utah

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Washington

X

X

 

 

 

X

X

West Virginia

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

Wisconsin

X

X

 

 

 

X

X

Wyoming

X

Private

 

 

 

 

 

STATE TOTAL

46

44

9

6

8

17

16

Note: Unless indicated, the right to refuse applies to all institutions-private, religious and public.

 

*   A broadly worded refusal clause may apply. In Illinois a state court held that a regulation requiring pharmacies to provide emergency contraception cannot be enforced against pharmacies that refuse to dispense the medication.

‡   In Arizona private hospitals and health facilities may restrict the information providers give to patients about lawful health care services if the institution’s objection to providing the information is based on sincerely held religious or moral beliefs.

†   The law permits refusal if the provider "reasonably believes" the drug or device "may result" in an abortion.

 

Get updates on policy issues and more

Guttmacher Institute
Reproductive rights are under attack. Will you help us fight back with facts?
Donate Now
Follow Guttmacher:

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Footer Menu

  • Privacy Policy
© 2022 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.

Get Our Updates