> Both options are free of charge and free of judgement, especially the latter.

Maybe they are free of charge, idk, but they doesn't seem to be free of judgement. From the article:

Even if an abortion seeker is within the 12 week gestational limit and has access to a local hospital, a doctor can turn them away on the basis of conscientious objection, which legally allows any doctor to deny a patient an abortion on moral grounds. In 2019, it was reported that 67% of Italian gynecologists were registered as conscientious objectors and multiple hospitals reported having a 100% conscientious objection rate.

Even finding a doctor seem to be an issue, because most of them would tell you that they are more moral than you think and wouldn't do an abortion.

If a care seeker can find a doctor who is willing to perform an abortion, they must endure a 7-day waiting period between their initial request for an abortion and the procedure (which can push care seekers past the 12 week gestational limit).

So they believe that women are probably mistaken and don't know what they want, don't they? Or maybe they just want to make it harder to fit abortion in the 12 week limit?

In April 2024, the Italian parliament passed a measure allowing anti-abortion activists to enter abortion consultation clinics.

These activists I'm sure wouldn't judge. No way. Would they?

▲

exolymph 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

Should doctors be forced to perform abortions they don't condone?

	▲	DaFranker 19 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Let me help answer that question by abstracting away the charged element and disambiguating the most common point of actual logical contention: Should doctors be forced to perform <P:procedure> they don't ~~condone~~[A:believe is medically safe and appropriate for a diagnosis\|B:wish to support or endorse on non-medical grounds]. To me, and for most reasonable people I've properly been able to have a conversation with on this subject, the answer is universally an emphatic NO for the vast majority of possible procedures P, in both cases A and B. However, where things diverge is that most people believe there should be consequences for the doctor refusing on grounds B to perform a procedure other doctors would consider to fit the criteria of A, for virtually every P I've thought of. These consequences typically include removal of their license to practice medicine, and may include civil or criminal penalties in egregious cases where a doctor might claim religious objection to something like CPR in a situation where they were the only doctor working at an ER and the CPR was clearly medically necessary, for example.
	▲	secretsatan 37 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Depends how you define a doctor i guess, one that refuses to do the job isn’t.