Britt among U.S. lawmakers pushing new protections for medical residents on abortion training

U.S. Senators Katie Britt (R-AL), James Lankford (R-OK) and a group of their colleagues have introduced the Conscience Protections for Medical Residents Act—a bill to ensure that medical students and residents are not forced or pressured into abortion training that conflicts with their moral or religious beliefs.

Under current guidelines from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), residents may “opt out” of abortion-related rotations or training. But the new bill would flip that model—residents would have to “opt in,” rather than being automatically assigned and then given the chance to refuse.

“There should never be an instance where a medical student or resident is forced to choose between their deeply held moral or religious convictions and their careers,” Senator Britt said. “Our legislation simply lets residents opt in, rather than be forced to opt out, of training that violates their consciences.”

Senator Lankford echoed that sentiment, saying: “Medical residents should never be pressured to violate their beliefs in order to finish their training or advance in their careers. Many went into medicine to protect life, not take it. No one should have to choose between their conscience and their future in medicine.”

The bill has drawn support from a broad group of lawmakers. Among its cosponsors are senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Jim Banks (R-IN), Steve Daines (R-MT), Rick Scott (R-FL), Ted Budd (R-NC), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Todd Young (R-IN).

Of these supporting Senators, only Senator Cassidy of Louisiana is a physician.

Under the proposed change, medical training programs must treat abortion-related training as optional. If residents decline to take part, they would be protected from any punishment—such as negative evaluations or blocked opportunities.

Supporters of the bill include various pro-life and faith-based organizations: AAPLOG Action, SBA, ADF, AUL, NRLC, CURE, CatholicVote, Vitae Foundation, Human Coalition, March for Life Action, Heartbeat International, SFLA Action, CWALAC, ERLC, Live Action, Heritage Action, FPA, Liberty Counsel, FRC, and Liberty Counsel Action.

Critics of the bill argue that shifting abortion-related care to an “opt-in” model could leave meaningful gaps in physician training, especially in emergency situations where miscarriage management and other obstetric complications require the same clinical skills and procedures used in abortion care. Without consistent exposure to these scenarios during residency, new physicians may be less prepared to manage severe bleeding, septic miscarriage, or other life-threatening conditions in real time. Medical experts, including the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) warn that reduced hands-on training can translate into slower response times, higher rates of complications, and increased morbidity and mortality for patients who need urgent, evidence-based care—particularly in rural or understaffed hospitals where specialists may not be readily available.

As the debate over conscience protections in health care continues, the Conscience Protections for Medical Residents Act intends to give future doctors the freedom to practice medicine in line with their faith—without fear of losing their career prospects. However, some warn that the unintended consequences of such a move may cause more harm, and even death, to women during obstetrical emergencies.

The full text of the Conscience Protections for Medical Residents Act is HERE.