<p>The decriminalization of surgical and medical abortion in many Australian jurisdictions has led to discussions about the systemic and moral barriers to accessing abortion services. This article reflects on Conscientious Objection (CO), as one of such barriers in abortion services in Australia. Two broad positions are identified in the moral disagreement between a patient’s legal right to abortion and a doctor’s right to conscientiously object to providing such service: (1) pro-conscientious protection and (2) anti-conscientious protection. While each of these positions motivates different courses of action that may independently count as right, a fundamental ethical challenge is resolving the disagreement in ways that both positions are jointly satisfiable. This article argues that (1) and (2) are prima facie flawed as they may perpetuate medical paternalism, psycho-social and moral distress, medical abandonment, moral standing diminution, and reproductive injustice, which considerably impact both patient and physician to varying degrees. This article suggests an Ethic of Solidarity (ES) as an important relational anthropological frame that inspires some compromise in the moral disagreement. When the virtues of solidarity, such as cooperation, sharing, and reciprocity, are applied to the dilemma between respecting a patient’s right or doctor’s professional conscience in abortion service encounters, inclinations toward interchangeable compromises emerge. This article concludes that an ES is worth taking seriously in the CO debate in Australia and beyond.</p>