News Releases: 2007
Christian Medical Association, USA
11 December, 2007
Standard
Newswire/ -- The nation's largest faith-based
association of physicians, the 15,000-member
Christian Medical Association (www.cmda.org), today
joined other leading national organizations in
challenging The American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (ACOG) to stop its attack on the
conscience rights of pro-life physicians.
A
letter, drafted by CMA and signed by other
national organizations, blasted ACOG's Committee on
Ethics position statement, "
The
Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive
Medicine." CMA's letter noted that the statement
"suggests a profound misunderstanding of the nature
and exercise of conscience, an underlying bias
against persons of faith and an apparent attempt to
disenfranchise physicians who oppose ACOG's
political activism on abortion."
CMA CEO David Stevens, MD said, "ACOG
is not only out of touch with conscience-driven
physicians, but also with our long-standing American
tradition to protect the rights of citizens to not
participate in conscience-violating
actions-especially when those actions would take a
human life. That American tradition rests on
constitutional principles of religious freedom and
speech."ACOG's position paper targets
pro-life physicians, insisting that
abortion-objecting physicians refer patients to get
abortions and declaring that physicians who will not
participate in conscience-violating procedures and
prescriptions must actually move close to doctors
who will.
Dr. Stevens added, "Many physicians
had been realizing that because of their aggressive
abortion lobbying, ACOG officials do not represent
the values of most physicians and mainstream
medicine. This statement goes a step beyond not
representing our life-affirming values to actually
advocating policies to prevent us from exercising
those values. ACOG's attitude seems to be, 'If you
don't toe the ACOG line on abortion, the
'morning-after pill,' and the application of
reproductive technology, then you shouldn't be
practicing obstetrics--and if you do, we're going to
do everything in our power to force you to
accommodate our abortion agenda."
CMA Executive Vice President Gene
Rudd, MD, an obstetrician and gynecologist, noted,
"I have withdrawn my ACOG membership of over 25
years. My conscience can no longer support their
lack of conscience. ACOG's strategy seeks to
marginalize dissenting opinions. I as an
obstetrician have a moral obligation not only to act
in my patient's best interest, but also in the best
interest of the developing baby, and of society as a
whole."
Alliance Defence Fund
Olympia, Washington, USA
November 08, 2007, 3:34 PM (MST)
A federal court
Thursday confirmed that the right of Washington pharmacists to obey their
conscience when they object to dispensing abortion-inducing drugs on religious
grounds will be protected while a lawsuit by two pharmacists and a pharmacy
owner moves forward. The court halted newly passed regulations, which the
pharmacy and pharmacists are challenging, until a decision is reached in the
case. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and ADF-allied attorneys filed
the lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction in July.
"The government shouldn't force pro-life pharmacists or any other health care
providers to violate their religious beliefs simply to appease a political
agenda," said lead counsel and ADF-allied attorney Kristen Waggoner of the
Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. "The right to conscientiously
object to the taking of human life is deeply rooted in our nation's history and
laws. The 'morning-after' pill can unnaturally and deliberately kill innocent
human life."
The
court's order
stated, "the regulations appear to target religious practice in a way forbidden
by the Constitution" and "appear to intentionally place a significant burden on
the free exercise of religion for those who believe life begins at conception…."
"This is not an uncompromising battle between access and conscience," said
Steven O'Ban, also of Ellis, Li & McKinstry. "Despite the fact that Plan B is
widely available in Washington, the new regulations prohibit pharmacies from
refusing to stock the drug because of religious objections. This is neither
necessary nor constitutional."
Before the new regulations were passed, Kevin Stormans, an owner of Ralph's
Thriftway, received a phone call inquiring about whether the store carried Plan
B. After researching the abortion-inducing drug and its effects, Stormans, a
Christian, decided that his store would not stock the drug based on religious
and moral grounds. Activists then began to picket Ralph's and filed complaints
with the Washington Board of Pharmacy. The board investigated Ralph's for over
a year and then referred the matter to legal counsel.
When it became apparent the board would pursue charges, Stormans contacted
Ellis, Li & McKinstry. They and ADF attorneys represent Stormans, Inc., doing
business as Ralph's, along with two Christian pharmacists.
"The court correctly held that the regulations force health care providers to
'dispense a drug that ends a life as defined by their religious teachings.' No
health care professional should be forced to participate in destroying human
life to preserve his or her professional license," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary
McCaleb.
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through
strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
Alliance Defence Fund
Tacoma, Washington, USA
September 25, 2007, 4:08 PM (MST)
Alliance
Defense Fund allied attorneys Kristen Waggoner and Steve O'Ban will be available
to answer questions from the media Wednesday following a court hearing on their
motion for preliminary injunction filed against the Washington State Pharmacy
Board. The lawsuit
Stormans v. Selecky
seeks to protect the rights of pharmacists and pharmacies which choose not to
stock or distribute abortion-inducing drugs on religious or moral grounds.
"The government cannot force pro-life or any other health care providers to
violate their conscience simply to appease special interests. Society has long
accepted that those with religious objections to killing in a time of war should
be exempt from military service. If we exempt a soldier from killing an enemy
combatant who threatens our nation, surely we ought to exempt a pharmacist who
sincerely believes he or she is being forced to help destroy an innocent child
in the womb," Waggoner said. "No one should be forced to choose between keeping
their job and keeping their faith."
"The flawed process that led to the adoption of the rule stripping our clients
of their right of conscience is deeply disturbing," said O'Ban. "In 2006,
Governor Gregoire actually threatened to fire the entire Board of Pharmacy when
it appeared they might adopt rules that would protect the right of conscience.
Because the board capitulated to the governor, our clients must now sue to get
their rights back."
Waggoner, O'Ban, and ADF represent Stormans, Inc., along with two Christian
pharmacists, Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen. Both choose not to dispense the
pill, "Plan B," based on their moral and religious beliefs about the sanctity of
human life. The pill can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg,
effectively killing it. Many health care providers, including the plaintiffs,
believe that human life begins at fertilization and that the pill destroys
innocent life.
In March 2006, ADF attorneys sent a
letter to the pharmacy board urging them to adopt a "conscience clause"
protecting the right of conscience for pharmacists. In July, Waggoner, O'Ban,
and ADF attorneys filed a
lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction on behalf of Stormans, Inc..
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through
strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
Alliance Defence Fund
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
September 11, 2007, 3:52 PM (MST)
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit Tuesday in
federal court on behalf of an Illinois clinical psychologist who lost his
contract with the city of Minneapolis because of his membership with a
politically conservative, pro-family organization [Campion
v. City of Minneapolis].
"Pro-family, Christian conservatives cannot be treated as second-class
citizens," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. "Government officials do
not have the right to end someone's contract on the basis of religion or
political viewpoint. The city of Minneapolis is engaging in viewpoint
discrimination, and that is clearly unconstitutional."
Dr. Michael Campion, a Christian, is a licensed clinical psychologist who taught
at the College of Medicine at the University of Illinois for 18 years and whose
expertise the U.S. Department of Justice sought for three of its research
projects. In early 2005, the city of Minneapolis hired him as an independent
contractor, and Campion enjoyed a successful professional relationship with the
city, providing for them pre-employment testing, fitness for duty testing, and
other services.
After an Illinois Times author wrote an article in May 2005 criticizing
Campion's affiliation with the pro-family organization Illinois Family
Institute, the city "suspended" him. The city then hired an independent
psychological testing company to evaluate Campion and see if his process for
reviewing applicants for employment with the city was inherently flawed or
biased. In July 2006, the testing company submitted its conclusions to the
city, having found no evidence of bias and having found Campion's processes to
be consistent with or beyond expectations for good psychological and statistical
practice, adding that Campion is "clearly an expert in this line of work."
Despite those findings, the city rescinded its agreement with Campion to conduct
62 pre-hire screening tests in October. Instead, the city, using taxpayer
money, hired a consulting company, which was significantly more expensive and
less qualified to conduct such tests.
Later, the city received bids for the psychological testing that Campion had
performed in the past. Campion submitted a bid but was rejected in favor of
another firm.
"City officials in Minneapolis should base their contract decisions on
experience and qualifications," said Raum. "Dr. Campion is a highly qualified,
experienced professional, and the city was absolutely wrong to fire him."
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.
American Center for Law and Justice
August 1, 2007
(Washington, D.C.) - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)
today praised a ruling by the U.S. District Court in Springfield, Illinois
denying a motion by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a former
Wal-Mart pharmacist arising out of his suspension for refusing to sell "Plan B"
and other drugs he considers abortifacient. In a decision released late
yesterday, Judge Jeanne E. Scott of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois, ruling in the case of Ethan Vandersand v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., held that Vandersand has the right to proceed with his case against
Wal-Mart under both the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act and Title
VII, the federal statute that prohibits employment discrimination.
"This ruling is a huge step forward in the ongoing struggle to ensure legal
recognition of pharmacists' right to practice their chosen profession without
violating their moral and professional integrity," said Francis J. Manion, ACLJ
Senior Counsel. "Wal-Mart's arguments, now soundly rejected by this Court, may
no longer be used by corporate or governmental officials to squeeze out of the
profession pharmacists with a high regard for the sanctity of all human life."
The case is one of a series of similar cases that have arisen since April of
2005 when Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich issued an Executive Order requiring
that all Illinois retail pharmacies make available "without delay" Plan B and
other forms of "emergency contraception." More than a dozen Illinois
pharmacists who voiced religious objections to dispensing the drugs have been
fired or suspended over the issue by employers purportedly implementing the
Governor's order.
Ethan Vandersand, who worked at a Wal-Mart pharmacy in Beardstown, Illinois,
was suspended by Wal-Mart after he responded to a telephone inquiry from a
Planned Parenthood nurse about whether or not he dispensed Plan B. In his
lawsuit he contends that it is his right to step away from prescriptions such as
Plan B and that, by suspending him, Wal-Mart violated both the Illinois Health
Care Right of Conscience Act and Title VII. In support of its motion to dismiss
the case, Wal-Mart argued that the Right of Conscience Act did not cover
pharmacists and that, under the Act's definitions, pharmacists are not
considered health care providers who participate in the furnishing of health
care services. The retailer also contended that it could not accommodate
Vandersand's beliefs (as required by Title VII) because it was merely
implementing the Governor's Executive Order.
In rejecting each of Wal-Mart's arguments, Judge Scott held that the plain
language of the Right of Conscience Act, the language of which speaks in terms
of "any person," unquestionably shows that it covers pharmacists, and that they
are to be considered health care providers who participate in the furnishing of
health care services. The court likewise rejected the Title VII argument,
pointing out that the Governor's Order placed a duty on pharmacy owners not on
individual pharmacists, leaving it up to the owners to fashion a policy for
complying with the Order without violating the rights of their individual
pharmacist employees.
Manion also said, "In enacting the Right of Conscience Act, the people of
Illinois expressed their desire to have the State and private individuals
respect the consciences of all the state's citizens when it comes to
participating in morally controversial medical services. That this mandate
includes pharmacists should never have been in dispute. That it took a lawsuit
to establish what should have been obvious from the language of the Act is a
testament to the ingenuity of some in our society who would place political
advantage or the corporate bottom-line above fundamental human rights. It also
shows the need for vigilance and resolve in resisting such encroachments on our
freedom."
ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said: "This ruling highlights the importance
of our organization's continuing work in this crucial area of protecting
religious liberties. The ACLJ is currently involved in a dozen cases across the
country seeking to protect the right of conscience and this ruling demonstrates
that our work is bearing fruit."
The American Center for Law and Justice specializes in
constitutional law and through its global affiliates works to protect religious
freedom and liberty in more than 36 countries worldwide. The ACLJ is
headquartered in Washington, D.C.
Alliance Defence Fund
Olympia, Washington,
USA
For Immediate Release
July 27, 2007
Seeking to safeguard the rights of pharmacists and
pharmacies who choose not to stock or distribute abortion-inducing drugs on
religious and moral grounds, ADF attorneys and allied attorneys filed a lawsuit
Wednesday in federal court. They also asked the court on Thursday to halt
enforcement of newly-passed regulations in the state while the case against the
new rules moves forward.
The regulations mandate that pharmacies stock and dispense the so-called
"morning-after" pill regardless of whether doing so would violate a health care
provider's conscience.
"The government cannot force pro-life or any other health care providers to
violate their conscience simply to appease a political agenda," said ADF-allied
attorney Kristen Waggoner of Seattle-based law firm
Ellis, Li & McKinstry, PLLC.
"The morning-after pill is widely accessible in this state. The handful of
health care providers who have a strong moral objection to participating in
taking innocent human life should be allowed to refer customers to someone who
does not have a moral objection to stocking or dispensing the drug. Under the
new rules, their rights are not respected and they may lose their jobs."
Before the new regulations passed, Kevin Stormans, an owner of Ralph's Thriftway,
received a call inquiring about whether the store supplied the pill. After
Stormans told the caller that Ralph's did not carry it, he received numerous
complaints via phone and e-mail from unidentified individuals. After
researching the pill and its effects, Stormans, a Christian, concluded the store
would not stock it based on religious and moral grounds. A few activists then
began to picket Ralph's and filed complaints with the Washington Board of
Pharmacy. The board initiated an investigation about the store's position but
took no action. It later opened another investigation against Ralph's and
referred the matter to its legal counsel for further review.
ADF and its allied attorneys represent Stormans, Inc., along with two Christian
pharmacists, Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen. Both choose not to dispense the
pill based on their moral and religious beliefs about the sanctity of human
life. The pill can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. Some health
care providers, including the plaintiffs, believe that human life begins at
fertilization and that the pill destroys innocent life.
"Health care providers should not be forced to choose between keeping their jobs
and adhering to their faith and moral code," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary
McCaleb. "Honoring a person's right of conscience will not stop anyone from
having their prescriptions filled."
In March 2006, ADF attorneys sent a
letter to the pharmacy board
urging them to
adopt a "conscience clause" protecting the right of conscience for pharmacists (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3706).
Copy of the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington in Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky
Motion for preliminary
injunction
Contact 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.
Thomas More Law Center
Ann Arbor, Michigan
3 April, 2007
ANN ARBOR, MI - The Thomas More Law Center, a national public
interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the
court brief supporting the right of physicians to refuse to perform medical
procedures that violate their sincerely held religious convictions. The brief
was filed in a case pending before the California Supreme Court, North Coast
Women's Care v. Benitiz.
In that case Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian, sued two doctors who refused to
artificially inseminate her-alleging that the doctors discriminated against her
because of her sexual orientation in violation of California's civil rights act.
The doctors assert that they cannot be held liable for refusing to provide
treatment based upon their sincerely held religious convictions because
California's constitution protects their right to the free exercise of religion.
Benitez is represented by the LAMBDA Legal Defense Fund, one of the leading
organizations promoting the homosexual agenda.
According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Thomas
More Law Center, "Forcing doctors to violate their conscience smacks of Nazi
Germany. Doctors are not 'needles for hire.' Benitez received treatment from
other doctors. Her effort to punish these doctors is a mean-spirited effort to
exact a pound of flesh from those who refuse to bow to the homosexual agenda
based on sincerely held religious conviction."
Patrick T. Gillen, the attorney who authored the brief for the Law Center,
observed that the case has broad implications for religious liberty. He noted,
"if the California Supreme Court accepts Bentiz's argument, the protection that
California's constitution provides to the free exercise of religion will be
practically meaningless. The California Supreme Court should hold that
California's religious liberty provision bars Benitez from holding these doctors
liable for their refusal to provide medical care based upon their sincerely held
religious convictions."
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of
Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through
education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its
services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals,
corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section
501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734)
827-2001 or visit our website.
Christian Medical Association
29 January, 2007 19:28:01 GMT
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Christian Medical Association (CMA, ), the
nation's largest faith-based organization of physicians, today issued a
statement criticizing the California Attorney General's legal attack on
physicians' freedom to refuse to participate in abortions on the basis of
conscience. In the case, Lockyer v. United States, heard this month by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, the state Attorney
General has challenged the constitutionality of a federal statute that provides
conscience protections for healthcare providers regarding abortion.
The legislation, known as the Weldon Amendment, provides that no federal
agency or program nor any state or local government receiving certain federal
funds may discriminate against healthcare providers because they refuse to
perform or refer patients for abortions. The Center for Law and Religious
Freedom is representing the Christian Medical Association as Intervenor-
Defendants in the case.
CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens noted, "The Attorney General's attack on conscience
protections is essentially an attack on the First Amendment freedoms of
healthcare providers who wish to act consistently with their religious or
ethical standards. Our country was founded by individuals who had personally
experienced the pain of overreaching governments that tried to force them to
deny their religious beliefs. That's why the United States has historically
prevented governments from tramping over the religious freedom of expression in
the form of conscientious objection.
"The state Attorney General's opposition to these freedoms specifically targets
and threatens faith-based hospitals, clinics and providers who provide
irreplaceable services to underprivileged patients who otherwise would have
nowhere to turn for help. These institutions and individuals will not compromise
their conviction that abortion immorally ends a human life. Is the state of
California prepared to shut down these vitally needed faith-based hospitals and
clinics?"
Senior Vice President and OB/GYN Dr. Gene Rudd added, "Hopefully the court will
recognize not only the constitutional freedoms for healthcare providers with
deeply held convictions, but also recognize the political motivation behind this
attack on conscience protections. If fewer physicians objected to abortion as
immoral and unethical, pro-abortion forces would not have to be attempting to
force physicians to perform abortions. It is sadly ironic that those who march
under the banner of choice are trying to force others to conform to their
beliefs.
"It is imperative that we protect the ethical integrity of physicians and the
medical profession by allowing them to act on their ethical convictions. We do
not want a nation of doctors without conscience."
Alliance Defence Fund
San Francisco, California, USA
January 11, 2007, 1:15 PM (MST)
SAN FRANCISCO - An attorney with the Christian Legal Society will be
available for comments to the media outside the Burton 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, but the choice of physicians to obey their
conscience should not be a crime," said Litigation Counsel M. Casey Mattox
of CLS's Center for Law & Religious Freedom. "We are hopeful that the
district court will uphold the Weldon Amendment's critical protection for
the consciences of pro-life healthcare workers."
Attorneys with CLS and the Alliance Defense Fund represent members of the
Christian Medical Association, the American Association of Pro-Life
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physician
Assistants. The groups
intervened in the case because of its effects on their right to refuse
to provide abortions and abortion referrals.
Mattox will be asking the court to uphold the constitutionality of the
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.
Alliance Defence Fund
Covington, Louisiana, USA
January 05, 2007, 2:50 PM (MST)
A
lawsuit filed by
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys on behalf of a nurse demoted for refusing to
distribute the morning-after pill will be permitted to go forward. A
Louisiana court today informed an ADF-allied attorney that the
denial of the
hospital's motion for summary judgment is official.
ADF attorneys filed suit on behalf of Toni Lemly in 2005 after St. Tammany
Parish Hospital refused to grant a reasonable accommodation for her
religious beliefs. [Petition]
"This case is about protecting a person's freedom of conscience,
particularly when it is guided by religious beliefs," said ADF-allied
attorney Brian Arabie of Lake Charles. "The hospital acted unlawfully when
it refused to make a reasonable accommodation for Ms. Lemly and instead
terminated her full-time position."
Lemly informed hospital staff that she objected to administering the
"morning after" abortion pill because of her religious beliefs. In
response, St. Tammany Parish Hospital fired Lemly from her full-time
position and reduced her to part-time status, working only three days a
week. Her demotion resulted in a significant reduction in pay and the loss
of employee benefits. The hospital declined several reasonable suggestions
made by Lemly, a nurse for 23 years, that would have enabled the facility to
continue administering the pill while allowing her to abstain from
dispensing it herself. The hospital chose not to act on any of her
suggestions.
"Ms. Lemly provided St. Tammany Parish Hospital with options that would have
accommodated both her full-time position and their wish to distribute the
morning-after abortion pill," Arabie said. "Instead, the hospital chose to
engage in discrimination based on her courageous commitment to the unborn.
We are pleased that we will now be able to continue to pursue justice on her
behalf."
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.