Consider two potential creditors:
Can you see how B is a less risky client than A? A is essentially an unknown risk, but B has demonstrated the ability to manage their debt. A could still get, for instance, a car loan, but likely not a mortgage. And B will get a lower interest rate.
There is a such a thing as an affirmative defense, though. An affirmative defense allows a person to commit an act that would otherwise be illegal under certain circumstances. However, as the name implies, an affirmative defense has to be argued by the defense. The burden is on the defense to prove that they acted under the circumstances permitted.
Consider murder, for instance. Self-defense is usually an affirmative defense. The prosecutor's only burden is to prove that you killed someone. You have to demonstrate that you were acting in self defense in order to avoid the guilty verdict for murder.
So @vettnerk is asking a good question: will it be assumed that the doctor acted in good faith, or bad faith? Does the defense have to justify the abortion, or does the prosecutor have to demonstrate that it wasn't necessary?
This is only partly wrong, though. Happy employees stay even when paid less than they might get elsewhere, and unhappy employees leave regardless of high pay.
In my humble opinion, I'd say none of the three options are correct.
What workers actually ask for is reasonable staffing, work/life balance, adequate tools to do their job, and autonomy.