News Releases: 2006
Canadian Physicians for Life
For Immediate Release
December 5, 2006
(OTTAWA, Dec.5, 2006) - Among all the medical advances of the past
two centuries, immunization may have brought the greatest improvement to our
health and life expectancy. It provides the best possible protection against
some very serious diseases. Canadian Physicians for Life recommends that all
adults and children be vaccinated according to the current national and
provincial immunization guidelines.
Some vaccines protect against bacteria, and some against viruses. Canadian
Physicians for Life has become aware that some viral vaccines were developed
from tissue from aborted fetuses.
A list of some of those vaccines can be found on our website. This
presents a serious moral dilemma to those who might view the use of such
abortion-related vaccines as a form of cooperation with an immoral act, but
who are also aware of the dire health consequences of failing to immunize
themselves or their children.
It has been brought to our attention that legally approved and effective
vaccines are available which have been created from sources other than
abortion-derived fetal cell lines. Specifically, the infant vaccine,
PENTACEL (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and Haemophilus B), contains
the MRC-5 fetal cell line while PEDIACEL (same diseases) does not. Both
vaccines are Health Canada approved but only PENTACEL is marketed in Canada.
PENTACEL is publicly funded in the regular childhood vaccination programs.
For PEDIACEL to be available to Canadians requires the recognition of
these concerns by Health Canada and, most importantly, the provincial
vaccine acquisition programs, and it is this recognition and assistance
which Canadian Physicians for Life is requesting at this time.
First, we are asking provincial governments to provide a choice between
these two vaccines for parents who are morally troubled by the origins of
the Pentacel vaccine. In terms of practical action, the current contract for
PENTACEL (at least in the province of Ontario) expires in March 2007.
Finally, as physicians concerned with both the health and moral concerns of
our patients, we request government intervention to ensure the supply of
vaccines from non-objectionable sources.
For more information contact:
Will Johnston, MD, President
Canadian Physicians for Life
ph/fax: 613-728-5433
email:
info@physiciansforlife.ca
Alliance Defence Fund
14 November, 2006, 3:55 PM (MST)
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court today upheld the dismissal of a
lawsuit brought by a pro-abortion group challenging the "Weldon Amendment."
The Weldon Amendment is a federal statute that prohibits the federal
government or state and local governments receiving certain federal aid from
discriminating against medical professionals who refuse to perform or refer
for abortions.
"Doctors and nurses should not be forced to participate in abortions against
their religious beliefs or conscience. Under the banner of 'choice,' the
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association asserted a
supposed right to do this, but the court didn't buy it," said Casey Mattox,
litigation counsel for CLS's Center for Law & Religious Freedom. "This
decision turns back the effort to enshrine abortion as a right above even
the First Amendment."
NFPRHA challenged the Weldon Amendment just days after it was first signed
into law in December 2005. After a federal district court upheld the law,
NFPRHA appealed, arguing that the Weldon Amendment was too vague to enforce
and that their member organizations had a constitutional right to force
medical professionals to provide abortion referrals.
The ruling today held that NFPRHA lacked standing to challenge the Weldon
Amendment. The decision in National Family Planning and Reproductive
Health Association v. Gonzales from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit can be read at
www.telladf.org/UserDocs/Gonzales-NFPRHAopinion.pdf.
The Christian Medical Association and American Association of Pro-Life
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, represented by attorneys from ADF and CLS's
Center for Law & Religious Freedom, intervened to defend the Weldon
Amendment on behalf of members of the two medical associations: over 18,000
pro-life doctors, nurses, physician assistants, and other medical
professionals across the country.
CMA and AAPLOG, along with the Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants,
are also defending the Weldon Amendment in California ex. rel. Bill
Lockyer v. United States, a case pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.
Together, ADF, America's largest legal alliance, and CLS, America's premier
network of Christian legal professionals, defend religious liberty, human
life, marriage, and the family.
New York State Catholic Conference
19 October, 2006
Richard E. Barnes, executive director of the
New York State Catholic Conference, issued the following statement after today's
decision by the New York State Court of Appeals upholding a state mandate that
forces Catholic education, health and human service ministries to provide
contraception coverage in employee health plans:
"We are very disappointed with the Court of
Appeals decision and firmly believe that it is in error. Any religious
organization must have the right in American society to uphold its own
teachings, even if those teachings are unpopular or counter cultural. Plaintiffs
will give every consideration to asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review it and
reverse it.
The Catholic Conference
represents New York State's Bishops in matters of public policy.
Alliance Defence Fund
Washington, DC, USA
September 07, 2006, 1:29 PM (MST)
An
attorney with the
Christian Legal Society
will be available for comments to the media outside the E. Barrett Prettyman
U.S. Courthouse immediately following Friday's hearing in National
Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association v. Gonzales, a
federal lawsuit involving the conscience rights of pro-life physicians and
healthcare workers.
"Pro-life healthcare workers do not deserve to be discriminated against for
their beliefs," said Chief Litigation Counsel Steven H. Aden of CLS's Center
for Law & Religious Freedom. "When Congress enacted the Weldon Amendment,
it intended to bring job security and peace of mind to thousands of pro-life
healthcare workers who work in federally-funded health programs. On behalf
of those dedicated professionals, we are hopeful that the Court of Appeals
will agree with the district court's determination that the legal challenge
to this important civil rights legislation is groundless."
NFPRHA appealed the
district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit. In September of last year, the district court denied NFPHRA's
claim that the Weldon Amendment was unconstitutional and upheld Congress's
authority to protect pro-life healthcare workers' right of conscience to
refuse to provide abortions or abortion referrals.
The Christian Medical Association and the American Association of Pro-Life
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, represented by attorneys with CLS and ADF,
intervened to defend the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment. Friday,
Aden will argue that the appeals court should uphold the district court's
decision.
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.
September 7, 2006
WASHINGTON - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)
today hailed as "a significant victory for the right of conscience" a
decision of the U.S. District Court in Springfield, Illinois denying
Illinois Governor Blagojevich's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by seven
pharmacists challenging that state's year-old morning-after-pill mandate.
ACLJ represents seven Illinois pharmacists who contend that the mandate or
rule violates their right of Free Exercise of Religion protected by the
First Amendment by requiring them to dispense drugs that they believe act to
terminate a human life. The pharmacists also argue that the state's rule
conflicts with the religious discrimination protections contained in Title
VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Five of the seven pharmacists have lost
their jobs as a result of the conflict set in motion by last year's mandate.
In a 28-page
opinion, issued on September 6, 2006, denying the Governor's motion to
dismiss the case, Judge Jeanne E. Scott said that the pharmacists'
allegations, if proven at trial, "may establish that the object of the Rule
[morning-after-pill mandate] is to target pharmacists, such as the
Plaintiffs, who have religious objections to Emergency Contraceptives, for
the purpose of forcing them either to compromise their religious beliefs or
to leave the practice of pharmacy. Such an object is not religiously
neutral."
The pharmacists' suit was brought last year to challenge a rule issued in
April 2005 by Governor Rod Blagojevich as an emergency regulation and made
permanent in August 2005. Since that time, at least three Illinois pharmacy
owners have had charges filed against them by the State of Illinois for
allegedly violating the regulation. At least five individual pharmacists
have been fired or suspended by their employers for asserting their right to
refuse to dispense the drugs on religious and moral grounds.
"Today's ruling is an important recognition of the right of conscience,"
said Francis J. Manion, ACLJ Senior Counsel and lead attorney in the suit.
"The Court has recognized that the State may not target religious objectors
for disparate treatment. Our clients have never sought to prevent anyone
from gaining access to these drugs. They simply want the State to respect
their right to refrain from participating in activity that violates their
sincerely held beliefs."
At the crux of the legal battle is the question of whether the Emergency
Contraceptives Rule, which took effect on August 25, 2005, violates the Free
Exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Also at
issue is whether the Rule violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Title VII prevents employment discrimination based on religion. The
seven pharmacists are alleging that the Rule requires or permits employers
to engage in religious discrimination and is therefore invalid under Title
VII.
In yesterday's opinion, Judge Scott appeared to invite the State to amend
the existing rule "to clarify its object and application . . . in a manner
that would be consistent with individual constitutional rights." ACLJ's
Manion welcomed this invitation saying, "This is something we have been
suggesting from the start. There is no good reason why both sides of this
controversial issue cannot be accommodated if the State is willing to
recognize and respect the interests of all of its citizens - including
objecting pharmacists. Telling our clients, as the Governor has repeatedly
done, that they should 'find another profession' is not the way to show
respect for their rights."
The ACLJ is committed to defending the rights of health care
professionals to practice their professions in a manner consistent with
their religious, moral, and ethical beliefs. The organization has been
involved in litigation protecting the rights of conscience for over a
decade. The ACLJ is being assisted in this case by the firm of LaBarre,
Young & Behnke of Springfield, Ill., which is acting as co-counsel.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is the
nation's leading constitutional law firm defending religious liberty. Led
by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional law and
is based in Washington, D.C.
Alliance Defence Fund
San Francisco, California, USA
June 12, 2006, 12:11 PM (MST)
The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled Friday that California healthcare
professionals must be allowed to intervene in a lawsuit to defend their
right to refuse to provide abortions and abortion referrals. Attorneys with
the
Alliance Defense Fund
and the
Christian Legal Society
represent members of the Christian Medical Association, American Association
of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian
Physicians Assistants.
"The choice of doctors to obey their conscience should not be a crime," said
Casey Mattox, litigation counsel with CLS's Center for Law & Religious
Freedom. "California wants to criminalize the decision of a doctor not to
provide abortions. The Weldon Amendment prohibits them from doing that. We
stand to defend the interest of thousands of doctors and other medical
professionals-in California and around the country-who choose not to be
involved in destroying human life."
The 9th Circuit's decision follows a
hearing last month
where Mattox argued that the three pro-life groups must be allowed to enter
as defendants in order to adequately protect their members' interests by
defending the constitutionality of the federal 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. Bill Lockyer, the
attorney general of California, filed suit against the U.S. government in
2005, claiming the Weldon Amendment is unconstitutional.
The healthcare groups were denied intervention in federal district court and
appealed to the 9th Circuit in December of last year.
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.
Alliance Defence Fund
San Francisco, California, USA
May 18, 2006, 1:26 PM (MST)
An attorney with the Christian Legal Society will be available for
comments to the media outside the Browning U.S. Courthouse immediately
following Friday's hearing in State of California v. United States of
America, a federal lawsuit involving the conscience rights of pro-life
physicians.
"California seeks to fine and criminally prosecute pro-life doctors because
they refuse to perform abortions, and yet the district court said that more
than 1,000 pro-life California doctors had no interest in this case," said
Litigation Counsel M. Casey Mattox of CLS's Center for Law & Religious
Freedom. "We hope the court of appeals will recognize the right of these
healthcare professionals to defend themselves against California's attack on
their consciences."
The appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit involves a
motion to intervene filed by CLS and the Alliance Defense Fund 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 a case affecting their right to refuse to provide
abortions and abortion referrals. The motion was
denied by a lower
court in November 2005.
Mattox will be asking the court to allow the medical groups to enter the
case as defendants in order to adequately protect their members' interests
by defending the constitutionality of the federal Weldon Amendment. Bill
Lockyer, the attorney general of California, filed suit against the U.S.
government in January 2005, claiming the amendment is unconstitutional. 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.
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.
Priests for Life
28 April, 2006
"A person's religious freedom doesn't end when he opens
the door to his business," states Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of
Priests for Life. "Michigan's representatives have taken an important step
toward guaranteeing freedom of conscience for those providing health
insurance in that state."
Fr. Pavone's statement follows the passage by the Michigan House of
Representatives of measures that would allow a health maintenance
organization or health insurer to refuse to cover abortion or other
procedures.
"It is ironic that for some supporters of abortion, there are certain arenas
where 'freedom of choice' definitely does not belong," notes Fr. Pavone.
"I'm glad that Michigan legislators are wiser."
Contact: Jerry Horn,
Priests for
Life, 540-220-0095
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro-life organization
dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit
www.priestsforlife.org.
Alliance Defence Fund
Olympia, Washington, USA
14 March, 2006 10:26 AM (MST)
OLYMPIA, Wash.
- The Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter Friday to the Washington State
Board of Pharmacy urging the board to adopt a policy protecting the right of
conscience for pharmacists. Many pharmacists object on moral, ethical, and
religious grounds to dispensing contraceptives, including the
"morning-after" abortion pill.
"Pharmacists shouldn't lose their jobs because of their religious beliefs,"
said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Byron Babione. "Pro-life pharmacists should
not face discrimination on the job because they are morally opposed to
dispensing pills that can induce abortion."
The letter points out that including a conscience clause to protect
pharmacists does not make contraceptives unavailable nor does it ban
contraceptives. Conversely, if the board does not include a conscience
clause, the right of pharmacists to act according to the dictates of their
conscience will be banned.
"The right to one's conscience is a fundamental right recognized by both the
Washington and U.S. constitutions," said Babione. "It is unjust to
condition the keeping of a person's job on renouncing his or her moral,
ethical, and religious beliefs. Including a conscience clause allows women
to access contraceptives and also protects the ability of pharmacists to
maintain their moral integrity on the job."
The letter points out that Title VII requires employers to make a reasonable
accommodation for an employee's religious observances and practices that
conflict with employer requirements unless the employer can show that the
accommodation would involve more that a minimal burden.
Copy of the
letter sent by ADF to the board.
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth
through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
26 January, 2006
Seattle, Washington, USA
Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA),
representing more than 600 registered nurses at Virginia Mason Medical
Center (VMMC), has filed an unfair labor practice charge against VMMC with
the National Labor Relations Board. The complaint states that within the
past six months, VMMC has retaliated and discriminated against the
registered nurses for exercising their contractual right to refuse flu
vaccination by forcing them to wear masks. VMMC implemented this new
restriction unilaterally without good faith bargaining as is required by the
collective bargaining contract.
In early January, the United States District Court ruled in favor of the
WSNA in upholding the arbitrator's decision against VMMC which stopped the
hospital from forcing RNs to receive flu shots. The Court decision "did not
find that the arbitrator's decision is procedurally defective" thereby
upholding the arbitrator's award by denying the VMMC's appeal.
According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "no
studies have definitively shown that mask use by either infectious patients
or health-care personnel prevents influenza transmission." "Forcing nurses
who are not vaccinated to wear a mask is a punitive and discriminatory act.
This policy is not enforced uniformly with other employees and visitors. It
not only singles out and embarrasses the nurses who refused vaccination but
also unnecessarily alarms patients and disrupts patient care," said Barbara
Frye, RN, Director of Labor Relations at WSNA.
WSNA absolutely supports the flu vaccination and in fact strongly
encourages nurses to get them. But, it does oppose any health care facility
threatening to fire or retaliate against nurses if they do not submit to the
mandatory vaccination, especially in the absence of a declared public health
emergency and a recommendation for mandatory vaccination by the CDC.
Founded in 1908, Washington State Nurses Assocation (WSNA)
is the professional organization representing more than 13,000 registered
nurses in Washington State. WSNA effectively advocates for the improvement
of health standards and availability of quality health care for all people;
promotes high standards for the nursing profession; and advances the
professional and economic development of nurses.
7 January, 2006
Seattle, Washington, USA
The United States District Court ruled in favor of the Washington State
Nurses Association (WSNA), representing more than 600 registered nurses at
Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC), in upholding the arbitrator's
decisions against VMMC which stopped the hospital from forcing RNs to
receive flu shots.
The decision by the United States District Court denied VMMC's motion
challenging the arbitrator's decision, which would have allowed the hospital
to make flu shots a condition of employment and fire RNs who did not comply.
The Court decision "did not find that the arbitrator's decision is
procedurally defective" thereby upholding the arbitrator's award by denying
the VMMC's appeal.
WSNA absolutely supports the flu vaccination and in fact strongly
encourages nurses to get them. But, it does oppose any health care facility
threatening to fire people if they do not submit to the mandatory
vaccination, especially in the absence of a declared public health emergency
and a recommendation for mandatory vaccination by the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention.
"This decision confirms the arbitrator's ruling and prevents VMMC from
forcing RNs to get a flu vaccination against their will. It's a basic right
for people to make decisions regarding their own health care treatment. As
health care professionals, nurses know that education, accessibility and
incentives - not brute force - are the best way to encourage people to
comply," said Barbara Frye, RN, Director of Labor Relations at WSNA.
Founded in 1908, Washington State Nurses Assocation (WSNA)
is the professional organization representing more than 13,000 registered
nurses in Washington State. WSNA effectively advocates for the improvement
of health standards and availability of quality health care for all people;
promotes high standards for the nursing profession; and advances the
professional and economic development of nurses.