News Releases: 2005
Alliance Defense Fund,
San Francisco, California
December 13, 2005, 4:50 PM (MST)
"The government shouldn't force pro-life medical professionals to
participate in abortions against their conscience," said Casey Mattox,
litigation counsel with the CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom.
Attorneys with the
Alliance
Defense Fund and the
Christian Legal Society
filed a
brief
today with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to support their
appeal of a lower court's decision that denied California healthcare
professionals the opportunity to intervene in a case affecting their right
to refuse to provide abortions and abortion referrals.
"The government shouldn't force pro-life medical professionals to
participate in abortions against their conscience. Unfortunately, that's
exactly what the state of California wants to do by pursuing this lawsuit,"
said Casey Mattox, litigation counsel with the CLS Center for Law &
Religious Freedom.
ADF and CLS filed the motion to intervene in June on behalf of members of
the Christian Medical Association, the American Association of Pro-Life
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physicians
Assistants in the case
State of California v. United States of America.
The three groups are asking the court to allow them to enter the case as
defendants in order to adequately protect their members' interests by
defending the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment.
Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the "Weldon Amendment" in
December 2004. The statute forbids state and local governments that receive
federal funds from discriminating against healthcare providers because they
refuse to perform or refer patients for abortions.
"The Weldon Amendment is a critical protection of healthcare professionals'
rights of conscience, and we hope that the 9th Circuit will allow these same
medical professionals to defend the statute against California's challenge,"
Mattox explained.
Bill Lockyer, the attorney general of California, filed suit against the
U.S. government in January, claiming the Weldon Amendment is
unconstitutional because it prevents the state from applying its
own laws requiring healthcare professionals to provide abortions
in some cases. The case is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division.
Together, ADF, America's largest legal alliance, and CLS, America's premier
membership organization of Christian legal professionals, defend religious
liberty, human life, marriage, and the family.
Pharmacist appeals Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board's Final Disciplinary
Decision
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
4 November, 2005
Neil Noesen, the Wisconsin pharmacist disciplined earlier this year by the
Wisconsin State Pharmacy Examining Board has filed an opposing brief November 1st
in Barron County Circuit Court.
The brief argues that Noesen fulfilled the standard of care in his fair
disclosure to his employer and in his professional service to the patient's
health, safety, and well-being. Furthermore, it is argued that Board's
standard of care is unconstitutional and that the Board made a critical
omission of law in failing to prudently examine Wisconsin State Statute
Chapter 941.
In July 2002, Noesen conscientiously objected to cooperate with the filling of
an order for a patient to use Loestrin FE 1/20 as a contraceptive agent. The
Board admits that Loestrin FE 1/20 may decrease the likelihood of implantation.
Implantation is when an embryo bonds to the endometrium, the wall of the uterus.
Noesen states in this new brief that this decreased likelihood of implantation
constitutes unlawful reckless endangerment of the safety of an unborn child,
"under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life" according to
Wisconsin Stat. § 941.30(1).
"The standard of care set forth by the Board is not in accordance with the
timeless philosophy of our profession to care for the sick and the suffering.
As privileged servants to the health of the public we have a duty to defend the
values that ennoble man." Noesen states.
The State Attorney General's office will have until December 1, 2005 to reply to
Noesen's appeal.
Contact:
William Goodman Phone: (715) 341-4034
Protection of Conscience Project
For Immediate Release
31 October, 2005
Physicians must refer patients for euthanasia, and euthanasia is
part of palliative care in Belgium, according to a joint statement issued by the
Catholic University of Leuven, the University of Ghent and the Belgian
Association of General Practitioners.
Concerned about the implications of the statement for freedom of
conscience, the Protection of Conscience Project wrote to the Association in
July, 2004 to initiate a dialogue on the subject. The Association answered
the first letter but failed to respond when the Project attempted to continue
the discussion.
"Referral is contentious for many objectors," said Project
Administrator, Sean Murphy. "A Belgian doctor is legally required to
transfer a medical file to someone chosen by the patient. But neither
Belgium's Euthanasia Act nor its
Patients' Rights Act require
physicians to actively facilitate the procedure, so the
Association and universities appear to be over-reaching."
Murphy noted that this is not unusual, as demands for referral
for controversial services that are made in other countries are often without
legal or ethical foundation. "We encounter demands that objectors refer
patients for contraception, the morning-after pill, or abortion, for example,"
he explained. Citing the case of a medical student whose professors
attempted to fail him for refusing to provide or refer for such services, Murphy
commented that it was most interesting to see that their reasons were
essentially the same as those given to force Belgian physicians to refer for
euthanasia.
"Whether or not they realize it," he said, "these professors are
laying the foundations for compulsory referral for all controversial procedures,
including euthanasia or assisted suicide, if such procedures were to be
legalized."
Murphy said that the incorporation of euthanasia into palliative
care is also problematic from the perspective of freedom of conscience.
"Many people working in palliative care entered the field with
the understanding that it does not include euthanasia or assisted suicide," he
observed. "It would be most unfair to incorporate the procedure into the
discipline without very substantial legal safeguards to protect conscientious
objectors."
The
joint statement,
related documents and
correspondence between the Project and the Belgian Association of General
Practitioners are available in English and in Dutch on the Protection of
Conscience Project website. The accompanying
commentary introduces the documents and outlines the issues.
Family Life International (New Zealand)
Sunday 16th October, 2005
The bold and important decision of Dr Joseph Hassan to cease prescribing
contraceptives to his patients is to be praised
Catholic pro-life and family organisation, Family Life International,
commends the stand taken by Nelson GP, Dr Joseph Hassan, to stop prescribing
contraceptives to his patients.
In July of this year the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared that they rate
the combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives as a Group 1
carcinogen.
A Group 1 rating is the highest classification of carcinogenicity, used
only "when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans."
(Emphasis theirs)
Combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives are the most commonly
prescribed forms of contraceptives. According to the IARC "worldwide, more
than 100 million women - about 10% of all women of reproductive age -
currently use combined hormonal contraceptives."
It has also been well documented that most oral contraceptives are
abortifacient in nature, which means that they actually chemically abort a
newly conceived child rather that preventing the conception of a child from
occurring.
Dr Hassan is to be praised for his bold and important action, which shows
true respect and holistic concern for the health and wellbeing of his female
patients and a great respect for the sanctity of all human life.
Our hope is that other medical professionals will be encouraged by the
example of Dr Hassan, and take a stand to cease promoting contraception to
their patients as well.
Placating Pro-Abortion Movement Trumps Protecting Conscience Rights
Wisconsin Right to Life
14 October, 2005
This afternoon, Governor James Doyle vetoed Assembly Bill 207 (The
Conscience Protection Act) authored by Rep. Jean Hundertmark
(R-Clintonville) and Sen. Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh).
"The Governor has once again decided that it is more important to please
his allies in the abortion industry than it is to protect health
professionals and facilities from being forced to participate in
activities that deliberately destroy human life," said Susan Armacost,
Legislative Director for Wisconsin Right to Life, the lead organization
promoting AB 207.
AB 207 would protect the right of health care professionals, medical
students, health care facilities and medical schools to not be forced to
participate in activities that involve the deliberate destruction of
human life. The legislation clearly outlines what those activities are -
abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, the deliberate destruction of
human embryos for research or other purposes, and the use of the body
parts of aborted babies.
The legislation would not provide conscience protections for any other
activities and the legislation does not prohibit those activities from
taking place. Rather, it simply provides conscience protections for
those particular health care facilities and facilities that have an
objection to the deliberate destruction of human life in these
particular ways. In no way would AB 207 prevent any health care
professional or facility from engaging in the activities outlined in the
bill if they wish to.
"It was an outrage that the governor characterized the legislation as
giving the health care community the opportunity to 'deny health care
based on ideological beliefs,' " said Armacost. "The governor apparently
believes that abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, the deliberate
destruction of human embryos and the use of the body parts of aborted
babies constitute health care. He is truly out of sync with the public
on these issues."
"It is clear that we need an individual as governor who respects human
life," said Armacost. "We will be back next session with this issue with
renewed vigor to see that this measure becomes law."
Susan Armacost, Legislative Director
Cell: 414-840-2097
Protection of Conscience Project
17 September, 2005
For Immediate Release
An "invitation only" focus group will meet in Windsor, Ontario, on 20
September to consider a proposal that includes a
draft code of
ethics for Ontario's pharmacists. Its response may determine how far
the Ontario College of Pharmacists (OCP) can go in suppressing freedom
of conscience.
The draft code obliges pharmacists and technicians to respect human
rights and avoid discrimination. But
Principle 4 goes on: "No patient shall be deprived of pharmaceutical
services because of the personal convictions or religious beliefs of a
pharmacist or pharmacy technician."
"This would authorize persecution of any pharmacist who refuses to
dispense drugs for reasons of conscience," says Sean Murphy,
Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. "This is
alarming, especially since professional and regulatory authorities have
been markedly hostile to freedom of conscience in the profession."
Reporting his discovery of the draft code, Iain Benson of Canada's
Centre for Cultural Renewal protested what he called the "narrow and
frankly totalitarian view of professional practice" that prevails among
pharmacists. He added that "this blunt and unfair kind of principle"
would not be endorsed by the Canadian Medical Association.
Murphy points out that the CMA, the Canadian Health Association and
the Canadian Nurses Association
agree
that health care providers should not be expected to act contrary to
their conscientious convictions, nor should they be discriminated
against for acting upon their beliefs.
Murphy is disturbed that the Ontario Health Professions Regulatory
Advisory Council is seeking the endorsement of anonymous,
invitation-only 'focus groups' to abrogate a fundamental freedom
recognized by the Charter of Rights. He is also troubled that
representatives of conscientious objectors were excluded from the
process that produced the controversial draft.
"By the time they heard about the proposal, the deadline for
submissions had already passed," he said. "The Project has asked the
HPRAC to extend the deadline. I am waiting for an answer."
Nation's Most Comprehensive
Medical Conscience Rights Legislation to Receive
Public Hearing
Wisconsin Right to Life
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
September 14, 2005
Christian
Wire Service/ -- Tomorrow, Thursday,
September 15, the
Conscience Protection Act
(AB 207) will receive a public hearing before the Senate Health,
Children, Families, Aging & Long Term Care Committee. The legislation is
authored by Rep. Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville) and Sen. Carol Roessler
(R-Oshkosh). Assembly Bill 207 has already passed the Assembly. "We look forward to swift State Senate action on
this important legislation," said Susan Armacost, Legislative
Director for Wisconsin Right to Life, the lead organization promoting the
Conscience Protection Act.Armacost said that a number of physicians, nurses, and
medical students will be testifying in support of AB 207 at tomorrow's
hearing. The legislation would protect medical professionals, medical
students, health care facilities and medical schools from being forced to
participate in abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, the deliberate
destruction of human embryos for research and the use of the body parts of
aborted babies.
The major opposition to AB 207 is coming from
pro-abortion organizations who continue to make a number of false claims
regarding the legislation. The following is a memo sent to Committee
members from Susan Armacost that addresses a number of the fabrications
being circulated by Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion
organizations.
Contact: Susan Armacost, Legislative Director,
Wisconsin Right to Life, 414-778-5780
Christian Medical Association (USA)
Washington,DC,
September 12, 2005
The 17,000-member
Christian
Medical Association (CMA)
today highlighted the hypocrisy of The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists (ACOG) in pushing for legislation to force conscientiously
opposed physicians into referring their patients for abortions.
CMA Executive Director Dr. David Stevens said, "For years now, ACOG has
tried to promote abortion on demand as a matter of free choice. We've always
known that abortion affords no choice or rights to a developing baby. Now we
learn that ACOG would also strip choice and rights away from the very
physicians it claims to represent. This is not only the height of hypocrisy;
it is also a sure-fire way to lose more physician members who value their
constitutional and professional rights of conscience."
In an Aug. 30 letter to U.S. senators from ACOG president Dr. Michael T.
Mennuti, ACOG asserted, "Doctors who morally object to abortion should be
required to refer patients to other physicians who will provide the
appropriate care." In his letter, Mennuti advocated that the
Abortion
Non-Discrimination Act , which Congress passed to protect the conscience
rights of healthcare professionals and institutions, be changed to force
physicians to refer patients for abortions.[See
Stevens noted, "If a physician is morally opposed to abortion, why would
that same physician violate his or her conscience by referring a patient to
an abortionist to end the baby's life? And what kind of nation would force
its physicians to violate their consciences and their Hippocratic oath by
mandating participation in abortions?"
CMA Associate Executive Director Dr. Gene Rudd, an obstetrician and
gynecologist, observed, "For years, many of us who have belonged to ACOG
have hoped to change the organization from within, hoping that reason and
Hippocratic values would prevail over the organization's strident and
inappropriate abortion advocacy. It has become clear that in the blind
pursuit of abortion at any cost, the ACOG leadership is ready to sell out
its own membership by advocating laws that remove the rights of physicians.
With more and more physicians morally opposed to abortions, this move for
mandates simply shows the desperation of abortion advocates to enforce their
agenda by any and all means."
To schedule an interview, please contact Margie Shealy at (423) 844-1047
or by e-mail: margie.shealy@cmda.org.
The Christian Medical Association is equipped with Ku Band Digital Uplink
satellite and ISDN lines.
Monday, July 25, 2005
(WASHINGTON) House Small Business Committee Chairman Don Manzullo (R-IL)
today said pharmacists in several states face fines and possibly the loss of
their business if they refuse to dispense certain birth control drugs that
are against their beliefs.
Manzullo, who held a full committee hearing on the issue today, said five
states currently require pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill even
if they oppose it on moral or religious grounds. At least two bills have
been introduced in Congress to carry the mandate throughout the nation, even
though several other states have specifically given pharmacists the right to
refuse to dispense medication if they oppose it on moral or religious
grounds.
Failure to comply with the proposed federal legislation and the state
mandates could cost pharmacists heavy fines and even revocation of their
licenses.
"Pharmacists shouldn't be forced to choose between their business and their
beliefs," Manzullo said.
Instead of creating rules to punish pharmacists and put their businesses at
risk, the states should seek ways to diffuse the confrontation between
pharmacists and their customers. Manzullo suggested creating a list of
pharmacists who will fill certain prescriptions that doctors can share with
their patients before they try to have their prescriptions filled.
"The confrontation could be avoided completely if a patient knew for sure
that a certain pharmacist would fill his or her prescription," Manzullo
said.
Islamic Medical Association of North America
6 July, 2005
The Islamic Medical Association of North America (www.imana.org)
is opposed to the use of physicians for torture of inmates irrespective of their
faith, race, gender, nationality or alleged crime. Thus IMANA recommends that
its members and all Muslim physicians not participate in the delivery of
inhumane treatment, lethal injection, non-surgical amputation or torture of
inmates by any means when ordered by their employers, government or private
agencies or on their own. When asked to do so, not only they should refuse to
comply but also notify Human Rights organizations such as Physicians for Human
Rights.
Muslim physicians are reminded that they are to uphold the sanctity and dignity
of human life and be instrument of God's healing and compassion. They are
further reminded that they will be held accountable to God for their actions in
this life.
Shahid Athar, MD,FACP, FACE
Chair, Medical Ethics Committee,
Chair, Board of Regents.
Islamic Medical Association of North America
101 West 22
nd Street, Suite 106
Lombard, IL 60148
630-932-2000, 630-932-2005(fax)
Washington, DC
27 June, 2005
Christian
Wire Service/The nation's largest faith-based organization of
physicians today spoke out in opposition to the American Medical
Association's recent stance regarding forcing the filling of
prescriptions for drugs that can cause abortions.
Christian Medical Association Associate Executive Director Gene Rudd,
MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist, noted, "The key issue here is not even
the important question of the ethics of birth control, but the
fundamental freedom to follow the dictates of one's conscience and of
the teachings of one's religious faith."
AMA policy makers last week passed a resolution calling on pharmacists
to fill or help fill prescriptions for contraceptives such as the
"morning-after pill". Some pharmacists conscientiously oppose
participating in such prescriptions because of the drugs'
post-fertilization effects--preventing an early embryo from implanting
in the uterus.
Dr. Rudd added, "Regardless of whether we would personally take that
position, it is important to defend the rights of those who do. Instead
of limiting the rights of healthcare professionals, true patient
advocates should insist that contraceptive makers and marketers insure
patient informed consent--by providing full information on the product
so the patient realizes exactly what it does and what the risks are.
Many women would be devastated to realize that so-called 'emergency
contraception' can actually end early developing life.
"There is simply no reason to trample over the consciences of
pharmacists to fill these prescriptions. This is often framed as a
matter of patient rights and access to healthcare when it in fact is an
issue of patient convenience. Patient convenience is a good goal, but it
cannot trump fundamental rights of conscience. It is clear that abortion
advocates will not tolerate anyone who opposes their doctrine. It is
ironic that while they appeal to principles of freedom of choice,
abortion advocates are willing to eliminate the choice of those who hold
opposing views.
"What we are seeing in this country is a wholesale movement to deny
healthcare professionals the right to follow their own consciences,
especially in matters regarding reproduction. Mandating abortion
training for New York City residents in training, forcing pharmacists to
fill prescriptions that violate their consciences, and requiring
faith-based organizations to violate their religious teachings are not
only morally objectionable, they violate our constitutional freedoms of
speech and religion.
"History teaches us that denying the freedoms of one group is a threat
to the constitutional freedoms of every one of us. As Martin Niemoller
said of failing to oppose the Nazi regime, 'First they came for the
Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists.
I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade
unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for
me. There was no one left to speak for me.'"
To schedule an interview please contact Margie Shealy at (423) 844-1047
or by email at
Margie.Shealy@cmda.org.
Alliance Defense Fund
Covington, Louisiana USA
June 23, 2005, 11:34 AM (MST)
"The hospital's refusal to make a reasonable accommodation for Ms.
Lemly's sincerely held religious beliefs and their termination of her
full-time job is unlawful," said ADF attorney Mike Johnson.
COVINGTON, La.-Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund have filed suit
against St. Tammany Parish Hospital for terminating the employment of a
nurse who refused to administer the "morning after" abortion pill. The suit
argues that the hospital's actions violate the Louisiana Employment
Discrimination Law.
The nurse, Toni Lemly, had informed hospital supervisory staff that she
objected to administering the "morning after" abortion pill because of her
sincerely held religious beliefs. St. Tammany Parish Hospital responded by
firing her from her full-time position and reducing her to part-time status,
working only three days a week. The demotion to part-time status caused a
substantial reduction in her pay as well as loss of employee benefits.
"This case is about the protection and freedom of conscience," said ADF
attorney Mike Johnson. "The hospital's refusal to make a reasonable
accommodation for Ms. Lemly's sincerely held religious beliefs and their
termination of her full-time job is unlawful."
Lemly had offered a number of reasonable suggestions to the hospital that
would enable the facility to continue administering the "morning after"
abortion pill while still allowing her to abstain from dispensing the pill
herself. The hospital chose not to act on any of her suggestions.
"St. Tammany Parish Hospital should have reversed its course and complied
with the law. Had they done so, this lawsuit would not be necessary,"
Johnson said. "Ms. Lemly, a nurse of 23 years, loves her work, and she does
not deserve to be discriminated against because of her religious beliefs.
All that she asks of the hospital is to respect her freedom in choosing to
not participate in the taking of a human life."
The lawsuit,
Lemly v.
St. Tammany Parish Hospital District No. 1, was filed in the 22nd
Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany.
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
ADF is America's largest legal alliance defending religious liberty
through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
Alliance Defense Fund
San Francisco, California, USA
June 17, 2005, 12:05 PM (MST)
The
Alliance Defense Fund and
the Christian Legal Society filed a motion to
intervene Thursday in State of California v. United States of America
on behalf of California healthcare professionals to defend their right to
refuse to provide abortions and abortion referrals.
"Forcing pro-life healthcare workers to provide abortion services is hardly
'pro-choice,'" said Chief Litigation Counsel Steven H. Aden of the CLS
Center for Law & Religious Freedom.
"The State of California says it would require them to offer abortions only
in 'emergency' cases. The problem is that California law assumes that every
abortion after viability is a 'medically necessary' abortion. Hence it is
always an 'emergency' because there is always some risk to the mother's life
or health in carrying a pregnancy to term," Aden said.
ADF and CLS filed the motion on behalf of members of the Christian Medical
Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physicians Assistants.
The three groups are asking the court to allow them to enter the case as
defendants in order to adequately protect their members' interests. They
seek to protect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals by
defending the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment.
"California is trying to use this lawsuit not only to strike down the Weldon
Amendment, but also to take steps to completely nullify any right of
conscience in California," Aden explained. "Congress overwhelmingly passed
this amendment to protect pro-life doctors and nurses from this very thing."
Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Weldon Amendment in
December 2004. The statute forbids state and local governments that receive
federal funds from discriminating against healthcare providers because they
refuse to perform or refer patients for abortions. Bill Lockyer, the
attorney general of California, filed suit against the U.S. government in
January, claiming the Weldon Amendment is unconstitutional.
The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.
Motion to intervene
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
Together, ADF, America's largest legal alliance, and CLS, America's
premier membership organization of Christian legal professionals, defend
religious liberty, human life, marriage, and the family.
American Center for Law and Justice
Urbana, Illinois, USA
June 8, 2005
The American Center for Law and Justice
(ACLJ), which specializes in constitutional law, today filed a federal
lawsuit against Eastern Illinois University after a nurse who was working at
the University's Health Services Department was not promoted because of her
pro-life beliefs and her objection to dispensing the morning-after pill.
"It is not only wrong to deny an applicant a position based on her
religious beliefs, it is a violation of the law," said Francis J. Manion,
Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, which is representing the nurse. "There appears
to be a systematic pattern in place in the state of Illinois designed to
punish pro-life health care professionals who merely want to fulfill their
professional obligations without violating their religious beliefs. This
hostility toward pro-life health care professionals is very troubling and we
are confident that the court will uphold the constitutional rights of our
client in this case."
The ACLJ today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Urbana, Illinois on
behalf of Andrea Nead, who has been employed as a part-time nurse at the
Health Services Department of Eastern Illinois University since 2000. When
a full-time position became available in October 2004, Nead applied for the
promotion. She was asked a number of questions including whether she would
be willing to dispense the morning-after pill. Nead told the interviewer
that the morning-after pill violates her religious beliefs because she
believes it is a form of abortion by preventing a newly conceived human life
from implanting to the uterine wall. The complaint contends that the
interviewer told Nead that another applicant - who eventually was hired for
the position - did not oppose dispensing the morning-after pill. The
complaint contends that the decision not to hire Nead was based on her
religious beliefs regarding the morality of dispensing the morning-after
pill.
The suit names as defendants the Board of Trustees of Eastern Illinois
University and the Director of Health Services for the university. The suit
contends that denying Nead the promotion violates the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Health Care Right of
Conscience Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit
requests a trial by jury and unspecified damages.
The suit comes just weeks after the ACLJ filed a lawsuit in state court
challenging an amendment to the state code issued by Illinois Governor Rod
Blagojevich that requires pharmacists to dispense medication even if filling
the prescriptions violate their conscience and religious beliefs. The ACLJ
represents six pharmacists in that case.
The ACLJ has had success in protecting the rights of pro-life health care
professionals in Illinois in the past. In 2003, the ACLJ filed a federal
suit against the DeKalb County, Illinois Health Department on behalf of a
health department employee who was denied a promotion because she expressed
reluctance to participate in abortion counseling at the center. The case
was resolved after an agreement was reached and the county paid $40,000 to
settle the employee's claims.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional
law and is based in Washington, D.C.
Americans United for Life
For Immediate Release
8 June,2005
Today, Americans United for Life filed suit on
behalf of pharmacy owner Luke Vander Bleek of Morrison, Illinois against
Gov. Rod Blagojevich over his emergency rule issued April 1, 2005
requiring pharmacies to dispense contraceptives and abortifacient drugs
such as the morning-after pill "without delay."
The suit alleges in part that the Governor's emergency rule violates
the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act by compelling pharmacy
owners who do not want to carry drugs such as the morning-after pill
that can cause abortions to act against its ethical and moral beliefs in
dispensing such drugs. The suit also challenges the ability of the
Governor to require health care providers to violate their conscience or
choose another career.
AUL attorneys believe that if the Governor's rule is allowed to
stand, the rights of conscience of all health care providers in the
state are in jeopardy.
Edward R. Martin, Jr., attorney and director of the Center for the
Rights of Conscience at Americans United for Life said, "Luke Vander
Bleek is suing to protect his rights as an American-his right to build a
business, contribute to society as a health care professional, and to
live according to his principles. The Governor is trampling the rights
of health care professionals and small business owners through his
emergency rule."
Martin continued, "This case seeks to defend the right of individuals
to be free from the Governor's coercive and politically-motivated
action. No longer can people like Luke Vander Bleek decide to not
participate in an act they find to be morally objectionable without
shuttering their business and changing careers."
Contact:
Daniel McConchie
Director of Public Relations and Public Policy
(312) 492-7234, Ext. 213
Americans United for Life (AUL) is the leading public-interest law firm
dedicated to providing legal expertise and strategy in the field of
life-affirming legislation, litigation, and public education. Headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois, AUL's fields of legal expertise include abortion,
infanticide, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, destructive embryo
research, and human cloning.
Alliance Defense Fund
Waukegon, Illinois, USA
June 07, 2005, 10:57 AM (MST)
WAUKEGAN,
Ill.-Albertsons Corporation has agreed to accommodate its pharmacists' right
to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious or moral
beliefs. The accommodation came on the heels of a lawsuit filed by
attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and Christian Legal Society against
the employer and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on behalf of pharmacist David
Scimio.
"The right of conscience is an important component of religious liberty.
Pharmacists should not be forced to fill prescriptions for the 'morning
after' abortion pill if it violates their conscience," said Chief Litigation
Counsel Steven H. Aden of CLS's Center for Law and Religious Freedom.
"We applaud the decision by Albertsons to restore to Mr. Scimio and other
Albertsons pharmacists the same rights they had prior to the governor's
action and allow them to be true to their beliefs about the sanctity of
human life," Aden said.
Shortly after ADF and CLS filed suit, Albertsons distributed a memo to all
of its Illinois pharmacists stating that it would accommodate their
pharmacists' right of conscience by permitting them to refer prescriptions
to which they conscientiously object to another Albertsons pharmacist or to
a competitor to be filled within two hours.
ADF and CLS attorneys filed the case, Scimio v. Blagojevich, in Illinois
state court April 15 on behalf of Scimio, a pharmacist who objects to
filling prescriptions for abortifacients on religious grounds.
Blagojevich's "emergency rule" stating that a pharmacist "must dispense...
without delay" contraceptives, including so-called "emergency"
contraceptives such as the "morning after" pill, prompted the suit, which
ADF and CLS will voluntarily dismiss at a hearing in the case today.
"Given Governor Blagojevich's claim that the
emergency rule applies only to pharmacies and not
pharmacists themselves, we expect that he will agree
that Albertsons' desire to respect the convictions
of its pharmacists is legitimate under the law,"
Aden said.
Edward Martin of Americans United for Life and
ADF-allied attorneys John Mauck and Jason Craddock
of the Chicago law firm Mauck and Baker also
represent Scimio in the case.
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
Together, ADF, America's largest legal alliance, and CLS, America's premier
membership organization of Christian legal professionals, defend religious
liberty, human life, marriage, and the family.
American Center for Law and Justice
(Springfield, IL)
26
May, 2005
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which
specializes in constitutional law, today filed an amended complaint in state
court in Illinois adding four additional pharmacists to its lawsuit
challenging Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's emergency amendment to the
state code requiring pharmacists to dispense medication even if filling the
prescriptions violate their conscience and religious beliefs. The ACLJ
initially filed suit in mid-April on behalf of two pharmacists and today's
action brings the total to six pharmacists who contend the Governor's order
is unenforceable.
"The Governor's directive continues to cause concern for a growing number of
pharmacists who don't believe they should have to put their religious
beliefs aside to keep their jobs," said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of
the ACLJ, which is representing the pharmacists. "The law is clear:
pharmacists should not be punished for adhering to their religious beliefs.
A growing number of pharmacists believe the Governor's directive forces them
to dispense abortion producing drugs - something that violates their deeply
held religious beliefs. We're hopeful that the court will recognize that
the Governor's directive is legally flawed and will move to protect the
constitutional rights of pro-life pharmacists."
The ACLJ today filed an amended lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Seventh
Judicial Circuit in Springfield, Illinois adding the names of four
pharmacists to the two plaintiffs represented in the April filing.
The ACLJ already represents Peggy Pace, who works in Glen Carbon, and John
Menges, who works in Collinsville. With today's filing, the ACLJ also
represents Gaylord Richard Quayle of Belleville, Amanda Varner of
Carbondale, Jim Lynch who works in southern Illinois, and Michael Melvin who
works in Carbondale. The lawsuit contends all six pharmacists are opposed
to dispensing the morning-after pill and/or "Plan B" medication because of
their religious, moral, and ethical beliefs. The pharmacists believe the
drugs are abortion producing medications.
The lawsuit contends that the Governor's emergency amendment is
unenforceable because it violates the Illinois Health Care Right of
Conscience Act which makes it unlawful for any public official to
discriminate or punish any person who refuses to "participate in any way in
any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her
conscience." The suit also charges the emergency amendment violates the
Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act,
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit requests the court
grant an injunction preventing the measure from being enforced and asks the
court to declare the directive unenforceable and null and void.
The ACLJ also is defending a national law protecting health care workers
from discrimination. The measure, which is being challenged in the federal
courts, bars federal funds from going to federal or state programs that
discriminate against health care professionals who do not participate in
abortion services. The ACLJ represents members of Congress - including
Representatives Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL), the sponsors
of the measure.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional law
and is based in Washington, D.C.
Convenience should not trump conscience, says
Pro-Life Wisconsin
Pro-Life Wisconsin
For Immediate Release
16
May, 2005
The Senate Committee on Labor
and Election Process Reform will hold a public hearing Tuesday, May 17 at the
State Capitol highlighting legislation to provide much needed job security
for pharmacists who conscientiously object to dispensing drugs that they believe
would be used to cause death through abortion, euthanasia, or physician-assisted
suicide.
"No pharmacist should be forced to check his or her
conscience at the workplace door," said Matt Sande, legislative affairs
director for Pro-Life Wisconsin. "Like doctors and nurses, pharmacists are
valued members of the professional health care team. This bill simply recognizes that employers must
not force pharmacists to participate in what they know to be the killing of
another person. One person's convenience should not trump another's
conscience."
Current Wisconsin law already protects health care
employees, including physicians, nurses, and hospital employees, from being
fired or otherwise discriminated against based on a conscientious refusal to
participate in surgical abortion and sterilization. Senate Bill
(SB) 155, authored by State Senator Tom Reynolds (R-West Allis),
would extend that conscience protection to pharmacists who refuse to
participate in chemical abortion and euthanasia.
"Assaults on human life are increasingly chemical in
nature, not surgical," said Sande. "Abortion techniques focusing on
chemical means to end the life of pre-born babies, such as the
morning-after-pill, have received FDA approval. While abortion was formerly
relegated to a clinical setting, it is now possible to receive life-ending
drugs in a pharmacy, thus compelling pharmacists to be party to abortion.
Just as a woman's legal right to a surgical abortion should not compel a
hospital to provide one, a woman's legal right to abortifacient drugs and
devices should not compel a pharmacist to dispense them."
Under SB 155, a licensed pharmacist cannot be required
to dispense a prescribed drug or device if the pharmacist believes the drug
or device will be used for causing an abortion or causing the death of any
person, such as through assisted suicide or euthanasia. Specifically,
pharmacists would be exempt from professional liability or disciplinary
action and would be shielded from employment discrimination based on creed -
including refusal to hire a pharmacist or termination of the pharmacist's
employment.
The pharmacists conscience clause bill is the
ONLY bill that protects pharmacists who conscientiously refuse to
dispense the morning-after pill and other abortion-causing "hormonal
contraceptives."
Opponents of Senate Bill 155 claim that it would ban birth control in
Wisconsin. "This is not true," said Sande. "Senate Bill 155 does not
ban birth control. It will not make drugs such as the morning-after pill
and other abortifacient birth control drugs illegal or unavailable.
It is a labor protection bill,
and thus reaches a middle ground where the pharmacist
can be protected and the woman can access her prescription."
The issue of pharmacists being fired for conscientiously refusing to
dispense abortion-causing birth control has received national and
international attention. The BBC News, USA Today, The
Christian Science Monitor, CBS Evening News, and CNN, to
name just a few media sources, have all reported on documented "real-life"
cases in which pharmacists have been put in the position of either leaving
their jobs or compromising their beliefs.
"These attacks on pharmacists are an infringement on
their free exercise of religion, and in the long run will serve only to
aggravate the already acute shortage of qualified pharmacists by
discouraging people of faith from entering the field," said Peggy Hamill,
state director of Pro-Life Wisconsin.
"People who call themselves 'pro-choice' should especially appreciate the
intent of this bill. Pharmacists should have the right to choose not to be
complicit in the taking of innocent human life."
The pharmacists conscience clause bill is modeled after
a South Dakota law enacted in 1998. Other states with specific
and comprehensive pharmacist conscience clause laws include
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Many other states
are actively considering this legislation including North Carolina, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Texas, New York,
Arizona and Washington.
The public hearing on SB 155 will be held in Room 201
Southeast of the State Capitol Building in Madison at 11:00 a.m.
Contact: Matt Sande, Director of Legislative Affairs
(262) 796-1111, (262) 352-0890 or info@prolifewisconsin.org
Alliance Defense Fund
Waukegon, Illinois, USA
April 15, 2005, 2:23 PM (MST)
WAUKEGAN,
Ill.-The Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund filed suit today
against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on behalf of a Lake County
pharmacist. Blagojevich's "emergency rule" filed this month compels
pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, including
abortion-inducing drugs, regardless of any moral objections they may have.
"The governor's order is a bitter pill that no one should have to swallow,"
said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. "It is not legitimate to force a
pharmacist to violate his conscience in this manner. A patient ordering
'morning after' pills can easily be referred to another pharmacist who has
no moral objection to filling the prescription."
The lawsuit,
David Scimio v. Rod R. Blagojevich, et al., was filed
in the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit of Lake County, Illinois.
Scimio, a Christian pharmacist whose conscience would be violated by filling
prescriptions for abortifacients, decided to file suit after Blagojevich
filed his "emergency rule."
The lawsuit contends that the rule violates the Illinois Health Care Right
of Conscience Act, which states that the public policy of Illinois is to
"respect and protect the right of conscience" of health care professionals.
The act also prohibits "all forms of discrimination, disqualification,
coercion, disability, or imposition of liability" upon persons who refuse to
deliver such services based upon a matter of conscience.
"Governor Blagojevich must not be allowed to ignore the law and elevate
convenience over individual rights of religious belief and moral
conscience," said CLS Litigation Counsel Casey Mattox. "We are hopeful that
the judicial department of the State of Illinois will fulfill its proper
function by restraining the governor from remaking state law in the image of
his own personal political viewpoints."
The lawsuit also contends that Blagojevich also violated Illinois law by not
allowing any public hearing on his rule and by failing to obtain proper
authorization from a majority of the Board of Pharmacy. The suit
additionally argues that the rule violates Scimio's religious freedoms
guaranteed under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
ADF is America's largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through
strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
Pro-Life Wisconsin
13
April, 2005
For Immediate Release
Today the state Pharmacy Examining Board (PEB) approved in full last month's
recommendation from Administrative Law Judge Colleen Baird to reprimand and
limit the license of Wisconsin pharmacist Neil Noesen. The PEB's decision
followed an October 2004 administrative law hearing on charges of unprofessional
conduct relating to Noesen's refusal in 2002 to refill a script for birth
control pills at a Kmart in Menomonie, Wisconsin. In response, Pro-Life
Wisconsin State Director, Peggy Hamill, issued the following statement:
"Punishing a medical professional for exercising his deeply held religious
convictions is wrong and is simply un-American. One person's convenience should
not trump another's conscience. Not only is the Pharmacy Examining Board's
action an unconstitutional infringement on Neil Noesen's free exercise of
religion, it will serve only to aggravate the already acute shortage of
pharmacists in this state by discouraging people of faith from entering the
field.
"In adopting Judge Baird's recommendation, the Board clearly recognizes a
pharmacist's basic right to conscientiously object to dispensing drugs
that he or she may find morally objectionable. Recognizing this basic
right, however, the Board then reprimands Noesen and places the burden on him to
ensure that his patients receive their medication. This is confusing. It
should be the responsibility of the pharmacy employer - not the pharmacist - to
accommodate a pharmacist's conscientious objection. Noesen's case should
therefore be dismissed.
The Noesen case is entirely about conscience and religious freedom. No one in
the case - the prosecution, the defense, or the judge - has disputed Noesen's
basic right to a conscientious objection. The only ones disputing it are
Planned Parenthood, Inc. and NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin. Why, then, is the
Board punishing Noesen? The question being raised is: How did Noesen go about
exercising his conscientious objection? The Board is contending he did it
inappropriately. But there is nothing in the law pointing to how to do it
appropriately. There is no state law, code or regulation that governs how a
pharmacist is to exercise his or her conscientious objection. So how can
Noesen be charged with a violation of conduct when the Board cannot point to any
protocols he specifically violated?
Noesen's case highlights the critical need for passage of the Pharmacists'
Conscience Clause Bill. Current law already protects health care employees
from being fired or otherwise discriminated against based on a conscientious
refusal to participate in surgical abortion and sterilization. The
pharmacists' conscience clause bill would extend that conscience protection to
pharmacists who refuse to participate in chemical abortion and euthanasia.
The morning-after pill - which is simply a double dosage of the typical birth
control pill - and other hormonal 'contraceptives' will often act to cause early
chemical abortion by preventing a newly conceived child (human embryo) from
implanting in the womb.
No pharmacist should be forced to daily check his or her conscience at the
workplace door. Just as a woman's legal right to surgical abortion does not
compel a hospital to provide one, a woman's legal right to abortion-causing
drugs should not compel a pharmacist to dispense them.
The bill will not ban drugs such as the morning-after pill and the
birth control pill. It simply recognizes that employers cannot force
pharmacists to directly participate in what they know to be the killing of
another person. It thereby reaches a middle ground where the pharmacist can
be protected and the woman can access her prescription.
Contact:
State Director Peggy Hamill
Director of Legislative Affairs Matt Sande
(262) 796-1111, (262) 352-0890 or
info@prolifewisconsin.org
American Center for Law and Justice
Springfield, Illinois, USA
13 April, 2005
The
American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ),
which specializes in constitutional law, today filed a lawsuit in state
court in Illinois on behalf of two pharmacists challenging Illinois Governor
Rod Blagojevich's emergency amendment to the state code requiring
pharmacists to dispense medication even if filling the prescriptions violate
their conscience and religious beliefs. The ACLJ lawsuit charges that the
Governor's order is unenforceable and urges the court to declare it null and
void because it violates state law including the Illinois Health Care Right
of Conscience Act.
"This directive is not only legally flawed
but it puts pharmacists in the untenable position of having to choose
between adhering to their religious beliefs and violating a law that could
cost them their jobs," said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ,
which is representing the two pharmacists. "There are protections in place
to prevent employees from being punished because of their religious
beliefs. The Governor's directive is out of step with state law and we are
urging the court to issue an injunction that would block the enforcement of
this directive and ultimately declare the Governor's action null and void."
The ACLJ today filed suit in the Circuit
Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Springfield, Illinois on behalf of
Peggy Pace and John Menges, two registered pharmacists who will not dispense
the morning-after pill and/or "Plan B" medication because of their
religious, moral, and ethical beliefs. Both Pace and Menges believe the
drugs are abortion producing medications. Pace is a staff pharmacist at a
retail chain in Glen Carbon and Menges works as a staff pharmacist at a
retail chain in Collinsville.
The lawsuit contends that the Governor's
emergency amendment is unenforceable because it violates the Illinois Health
Care Right of Conscience Act which makes it unlawful for any public official
to discriminate or punish any person who refuses to "participate in any way
in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her
conscience."
The suit also charges the emergency
amendment violates the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the
Illinois Human Rights Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The suit requests the court grant an injunction preventing the measure from
being enforced and asks the court to declare the directive unenforceable and
null and void.
"The religious beliefs of those in the
health care industry must be protected," said Manion. "The pro-life
pharmacist who chooses not to dispense abortion producing drugs should not
face punishment and discrimination for abiding by those convictions."
The ACLJ, which specializes in pro-life
litigation, is defending a national law protecting health care workers from
discrimination. The measure, which is being challenged in the federal
courts, bars federal funds from going to federal or state programs that
discriminate against health care professionals who do not participate in
abortion services. The ACLJ represents members of Congress - including
Representatives Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL), the sponsors
of the measure.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ
specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.
5
April, 2005
For Immediate Release
Springfield, IL…The governor has overstepped his boundaries when he issued an
executive order requiring all pharmacists to fill contraceptive prescriptions
regardless of religious or moral beliefs according to State Representative Ron
Stephens (R-Greenville).
"Previously, it has been our understanding as a matter
of conscious or religious convictions, pharmacists are included in the
conscience clause and may opt out of filling contraceptives," said Stephens.
"Now the governor is excluding all medical professionals except physicians
from this clause, infringing on our right to practice our beliefs."
The reaction from Rep. Stephens, a local pharmacist,
came after the governor issued an executive order which requires all
pharmacists to fill contraceptives including the morning-after pill.
Stephens said he refuses to sit idly by and let the governor dictate the
beliefs of all Illinois citizens.
"Apparently the governor now believes he has the power
to override all matters of religious conviction," said Stephens. "He is
setting a precedence that is harmful to our personal and religious rights as
citizens of this country. He must be stopped."
Rep. Stephens said he plans to contest the executive
order and will continue to fight the governor's threat to revoke the license
of those who don't comply. "I refuse to give in to the governor's demands
without a fight and thousands of my colleagues join me in my efforts," said
Stephens.
"On matters of conscience, I trust my own beliefs…not
the governor's," Stephens said.
Contact:
Rep. Ron Stephens (618) 651-0405