Few services at UHS evoke the intense moral argument surrounding abortion subsidies. For those who are pro-choice, this is a legal right and a medical treatment that falls under the collective services provided by UHS. Allowing refunds for this procedure sets a dangerous precedent for moral dissenters to demand tailor-made exemptions for any and every kind of concern. Ultimately, they argue, it would give more vocal groups control of community resources by virtue of their greater volume.

For those who are pro-life, UHS's subsidy is an unconscionable action. While the Supreme Court has said that organizations may provide abortion or access to it, it has not said that they must. By choosing to do so, dissenters from the subsidy policy believe, UHS has made a decision they cannot condone and will not be a part of.

In choosing both to provide access to abortion, and to offer a refund option to those who are pro-life, UHS has drawn a careful and distinct line. It both respects the legal rights of women and demonstrates an admirable sensitivity to the concerns of those who genuinely believe that they cannot contribute to what they believe to be a fundamental moral wrong.

While allowing the refund may seem to open the door to myriad other objections, real or theoretical, the fact is that the fee students are paying is not optional. In a world with a free market for health care, pro-life dissenters could simply take their money elsewhere. However, since all students are required to pay the health services fee in order to enroll at Harvard, this refund option represents a reasonable compromise, an acknowledgement that the monopoly of health services is a binding constraint on the moral choices people may make with their money.

Certainly, this type of objection could be taken further--what about refunds for people with moral objections to antibiotics? Throat cultures? Taking a temperature? But ultimately, abortion is a unique moral problem for medical institutions and their users. Allowing a refund for this single issue is unlikely to prompt a landslide of requests for refunds for other issues. Decisions involving collective action are difficult because they inherently require the consensus of numerous and disparate groups. However, in this case, UHS's policy represents a compassionate and reasonable compromise.