Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has a conservative majority that appears inclined to consider an overhaul or even reversal of Roe v. Wade, efforts to ratchet back women’s reproductive rights are moving forward on judicial as well as legislative and administrative tracks. The multipronged affront is troubling, and should be fended off with considerable vigor.

In the latest push on the administrative track, President Donald Trump announced earlier this month, during the National Day of Prayer, the so-called “conscience protection rule,” which allows health care providers to refuse to provide care on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, this rule protects individuals — from medical students to ambulance drivers and emergency room doctors — and entities, including charitable groups, insurers and employers, from having to violate personal beliefs by participating in any way in abortions or other procedures.

In addition to refusing care, it allows businesses to refuse insurance coverage, and permits health care workers to not fully inform patients of medical options they deem objectionable. Hawaii Attorney General Clare Connors, joining nearly two dozen states and cities suing to block the rule, rightly called it essentially a “license to discriminate.”

Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortion as a largely elective procedure — three years before the Roe v. Wade (1973) decision allowed it on a national scale, up to the point of fetal viability. Since then, access has been fairly open to the full spectrum of legally permissible reproductive health care here.

Elsewhere, in recent years, some states have enacted increasingly restrictive abortion-related laws. Six states — Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia — now have only one abortion clinic left. Hawaii’s leaders must continue to guard against efforts that would erode reproductive rights in the islands.

The new Alabama law establishing a near-total abortion ban does not take effect for six months, but looms as a threat on the judicial track. As its supporters had apparently hoped, the measure is prodding challenges that could produce a legal case that takes down the landmark Roe ruling.

Staunch abortion foes see even a minor undercutting, which sets the stage for subsequent decisions, as a legal gain that makes it increasingly difficult to obtain an abortion in the U.S. But imposing barriers intended to result in an outright ban is a clear violation of a woman’s constitutional right to privacy.

In 1970, Hawaii’s Gov. John Burns was on the mark when he asserted that an abortion decision should be reserved for a woman and her doctor — reasoning that aligns with the court’s view of the Fourteenth Amendment. His levelheaded stance was particularly impressive due to his personal religious beliefs as a Catholic. (The Catholic Church had waged a long battle to keep the bill from passing; Burns let the measure become law without signing it).

In the mid-1990s, Bill Clinton employed the nuanced phrasing of “safe, legal and rare,” to describe his policy outlook on abortion. The tagline is a unifying sentiment; and various polling has repeatedly confirmed that most Americans agree with the realistic take that, with some exceptions, abortion should be legal, even if it is morally unwanted.

In recent years, though, the pendulum has swung to frame the debate in starker “pro-choice” and “pro-life” terms, which can stir emotionally-charged divisions.

The federal government’s “conscience protection rule” is now being legally challenged by Hawaii and 22 other states and municipalities, which seek to block the rule from going into effect on July 22. Such response, and ongoing vigilance, is needed to prevent a chipping away of reproductive rights.