There’s a dangerous idea growing in our laws and our culture. It dresses itself in the language of freedom but carries coercion in its bones. It claims abortion is a universal human right – it isn’t. But that claim still demands someone else do the work. And when someone else objects, abortion zealots, like Abigail Spanberger, label those who object as recalcitrant and an obstacle to progress. She insists they comply or face career ruin.
A human right that forces another to act is no right at all.
This principle matters because the push for abortion access doesn’t just demand permission; it requires participation. It demands that clinicians perform abortions whether they believe in them or not. It demands that medical professionals suppress their moral convictions. And this is the central injustice we must expose.
HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
In Virginia’s current political climate, we already see how this plays out. Democratic governor candidate Abigail Spanberger once said she “opposes the ability of religious institutions to put their religious-based ideas on individuals and their health care choices and options.” Seriously, she said that out loud. She went further: “I do not believe that people should have the option to allow their own personal beliefs to dictate the type of medical care that they are providing their patients.” That is no mere philosophical stance. It is a red flag for forced medical compliance spoken like a true Soviet apparatchik.
Earlier in that footage, she defended the legal requirement that religious hospitals must sometimes override their own convictions, saying she rejects letting faith-based hospitals “dictate” care. Her words betray a worldview that treats moral conviction as a barrier rather than a right.
That worldview conflicts with freedom. If doctors deserve conscience protection, then no law should demand that they suppress, violate, or betray their fundamental convictions. Just as the First Amendment doesn’t allow the state to force a pastor to preach a political agenda, the state must not force doctors to perform procedures they believe kill innocent life.
No system that forces doctors to act against their conscience can claim to respect fundamental rights. That is coercion in a lab coat. The right to abortion has no moral or legal precedent to bulldoze over the rights of others and force them to carry out the procedure.
Spanberger’s position gives us a window into how hard the battle is. She sees conscience as a liability, not a liberty. She frames medical service as a duty to ideology. And in doing so, she forces a stark choice: either doctors surrender their moral agency, or they are marginalized.
That is intolerable. True respect for life requires that we protect those who stand between the vulnerable unborn and the tools of death. Conscience clauses are not loopholes. They are a shield. They affirm that the right to life must honor the rights of the living who guard it.
If you champion freedom, you must defend the freedom of conscience—even (and especially) when it clashes with dominant ideology, because rights that demand forced labor are tyranny in disguise. Rights that violate a doctor’s moral core are rights no civilized society should endorse.
Your demands do not give you the right to someone else’s hands. And your politics do not cancel someone else’s soul. That holds even when a heavily funded pro-abortion candidate tries to erase it.
Bottom line, if it requires the labor of others, it is not a human right. Abigail should know that.
LifeNews.com Note: Raimundo Rojas is the Outreach Director for the National Right to Life Committee. He is a former president of Florida Right to Life and has presented the pro-life message to millions in Spanish-language media outlets. He represents NRLC at the United Nations as an NGO. Rojas was born in Santiago de las Vegas, Havana, Cuba and he and his family escaped to the United States in 1968.
