Project Logo

Protection of Conscience Project

www.consciencelaws.org

Service, not Servitude
Subscribe to me on YouTube

News Releases: 2008

Bishops Welcome HHS Regulation Protecting Conscience Rights in Health Care

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

08-203
December 18, 2008
For Immediate Release

WASHINGTON-A final regulation protecting health care providers' conscience rights was issued December 18 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The U.S. Catholic bishops' spokesperson on abortion, Deirdre A. McQuade, welcomed the published regulation as a way to protect medical personnel from being coerced to violate their consciences in federally funded programs. The regulation clarifies and implements existing federal statutes enacted by Congress in 1973, 1996 and 2004. (For the text of these laws see www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/crmay08.pdf.)

"Individuals and institutions committed to healing should not be required to take the very human life that they are dedicated to protecting," McQuade said. "The enforcement of federal laws to protect their freedom of conscience is long overdue."

"Catholic health care providers will especially welcome this mark of respect for the excellent life-affirming care they provide to all in need. But Catholics do not stand alone in opposition to the deliberate destruction of nascent human life. All health care providers should be free to serve their patients without violating their most deeply held moral and religious convictions in support of life," McQuade said.

"The USCCB thanks Secretary Michael Leavitt for implementing this regulation," McQuade said. "We urge the incoming Congress and Administration to honor this much-needed implementation of longstanding laws. Respect for conscience rights on abortion should be a strong point of agreement among those considering themselves 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice.' Yet this regulation is already under attack. A month before it was even published, pro-abortion senators had introduced a bill (S. 20) to invalidate it regardless of its content."

The USCCB issued a statement on August 21 welcoming the proposed regulation when it was first released for public comment. Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chair of the bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities, also wrote to Congress urging respect for conscience protection measures. Formal comments on the proposal were later submitted by the USCCB Office of General Counsel (www.usccb.org/ogc/ruleind.shtml).

Care Net Applauds New Conscience Protections for Health Care Providers

Care Net

18 December, 2008

LANSDOWNE, VA, Dec. 18 /Christian Newswire/ -- Care Net President Melinda Delahoyde praised the Department of Health and Human Services for issuing regulations that strengthen existing laws and provide protection to pro-life physicians and other healthcare professionals who conscientiously object to perform or refer for abortion.

"Care Net and its national network of pregnancy centers rely on the availability of health care providers who have the right to conscientiously object to abortion," Delahoyde said. "These health care providers - RNs, nurse practitioners, and physicians - provide critical free services at pregnancy centers to those facing unplanned pregnancies and other health concerns. Without these new conscience protections, fewer health care providers would be available to serve this at-risk population in our nation's pregnancy centers." Among Care Net's affiliated pregnancy centers, more than 450 of 1,100 offer medical services and operate under the supervision of a pro-life physician.

Care Net's National Medical Consultant Dr. Sandy Christiansen was interviewed by CNN and testified before the President's Council on Bioethics about her own experience of discrimination as a pro-life OB-Gyn. "I've shared my story of discrimination because I've been concerned about our future - that young people with conscientious objections to abortion would start to avoid the field of obstetrics and gynecology," Dr. Christiansen said. "These new regulations send a message to both current and aspiring health care providers that their personal code of ethics, their conscience, and their adherence to the Hippocratic Oath matter and will be protected."

When Dr. Christiansen was an intern, she was denied operating room privileges by her chief resident who explained it was because she was not "working hard doing the abortions" like others and thus would not get that "perk." Later, as a chief resident, she was humiliated by the attending physician in front of her team of residents, interns and students when she would not perform an abortion on a patient whose baby was diagnosed with Down's syndrome. Dr. Christiansen was accused of abandoning her patient and shirking her responsibilities, even though she made arrangements with another physician to oversee the patient's care. Not once were Dr. Christiansen's faith-based convictions validated in these experiences or was she informed of her rights according to existing law to protect against this kind of discrimination.

Dr. Christiansen currently serves as medical director of Care Net Pregnancy Center of Frederick, MD, which offers free services every year to hundreds of women facing unplanned pregnancies.

Contact: Kristin Hansen, 703-554-8742nbsp;     

Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Blagojevich's 'Emergency Rule'
Pharmacists are not required to distribute Plan B "morning after" pill

Mauck & Baker, Chicago

18 December, 2008

CHICAGO, Ill., Dec. 18 /Christian Newswire/ -- This morning, the Illinois Supreme Court handed the governor another setback in the case of Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich, et al. The court held that pharmacists may now defend their right of conscience against the state's "Emergency Rule" which forces pharmacies to stock and disperse Plan B contraception (known as the "morning after" pill) under threat of sanction or even loss of license. Today's decision is a reversal of the lower courts' ruling against the pharmacists on the grounds that the case was not ripe for adjudication.

The "Emergency Rule" was issued by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich in 2005, requiring pharmacies to dispense the Plan B contraceptive without delay and without regard to the religious beliefs or conscience of the dispensing pharmacist. The Governor stated publicly that "pharmacists with moral objections should find another profession," and "must fill prescriptions without making moral judgments." The Governor's rule was eventually adopted as an Administrative Rule, and within weeks of its final enactment, the Department of Financial & Professional Regulation began prosecuting pharmacies and/or pharmacists alleged to have violated the Rule.

In response, pharmacists Luke Vander Bleek and Glen Kosirog challenged the Rule in court, garnering the support of many groups along the way, including the Illinois and American Pharmacists Associations. The pharmacists claimed, in a nine-count complaint, that the governor's dictate and the administrative rule that followed were violations of their statutorily and constitutionally protected rights to conscience and free exercise of religion.

Richard Baker, of the Chicago law firm of Mauck & Baker, LLC, filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of both the Illinois and American Pharmacists' Associations.

"No pharmacist should ever be forced to choose between their conscience and their livelihood," said Baker. "This decision is good news in light of the many new legislative initiatives, to override the conscience of those, like Luke Vander Bleek and Glen Kosirog, who seek to follow the dictates of conscience in practicing their profession. We would all do well to pay more attention to our consciences--the governor included. I am pleased with the result and hope that the circuit court, on remand, will vindicate the fundamental right of pharmacists in Illinois to follow their conscience in their vocation."

COPY OF THE SUPREME COURT OPINION AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST

Contact:
Rich Baker, 312-853-8708, rbaker@mauckbaker.com;
Noel Sterett, 312-726-1243, nsterett@mauckbaker.com


CMA physicians say new HHS civil rights regulation will protect patients and medical access

Christian Medical Association

18 December, 2008

Washington, DC, December 18, 2008 -- Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, http://www.cmda.org/) today said that a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulation implementing over 35 years of civil rights laws governing healthcare will "protect patients and patient access to physicians who adhere to life-affirming ethical standards." The final regulation is expected to be officially published tomorrow.

"By protecting physicians and other healthcare professionals who still adhere to the Hippocratic Oath, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures and other objective standards of medical ethics, this regulation serves to protect patients who want access to conscientious and compassionate care from life-affirming physicians," Dr. Stevens said. "These objective standards have for millennia formed the foundation of patient care and protection, and this regulation insures that physicians and others won't be run out of the profession for upholding those standards."Dr. Stevens noted, "A scientific poll reveals that only 38 percent of Americans realize that physicians may not legally be coerced into performing or referring for abortions. It's time to educate the medical community to restore these civil rights and put an end to discrimination." Dr. Stevens noted that 41 percent of CMA members responding to a survey reported being "pressured to compromise Biblical or ethical convictions." "Physicians report being forced out of medical positions, residents report loss of training privileges, and students report discrimination in medical school admissions," Dr. Stevens said."Over the past 35 years, Congress has passed civil rights laws to protect healthcare professionals from such discrimination, and today those laws are finally being implemented. We commend Secretary Leavitt for implementing the law, for protecting First Amendment freedoms, and for upholding the interests of patients who value and are protected by life-affirming standards of medical ethics," Dr. Stevens said.

Dr. Stevens added, "Medical students have been reporting to us that they are deciding not to pursue careers in obstetrics and gynecology for fear of coercion to do abortions. Obstetricians are already being forced out of the profession because of soaring malpractice insurance costs. Forcing yet more obstetricians out of the profession simply for following the Hippocratic Oath and other medical ethical standards would only further harm patient access. Like such ethical standards, this regulation ultimately protects patients."

Pell speaks out for human rights

Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney

9 October, 2008

Sydney, NSW, Australia: Bishop Julian Porteous, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Sydney, today released a message from Cardinal George Pell in relation to the proposed abortion legislation before the Victorian Upper House.

His Eminence Cardinal Pell wishes to extend his solidarity with all those persons of good will who are currently confronted by the significant difficulties associated with the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Bill. He shares concerns being expressed that the Bill has the potential to create a dangerous precedent for legislators across Australia. The Bill presently before the Victorian Parliament is designed to make abortion legally available on demand up to 24 weeks and up to birth in certain circumstances.

Speaking from overseas His Eminence reminds us that "every human being has the inherent right to life. There is no right to the destruction of innocent persons and that our community should be offering vulnerable pregnant women much more than simply an increasing number of ever more accessible ways in which their unborn children can be killed".

This Bill, if passed in its current form, will also remove the right of doctors and other health care practitioners to refuse to be involved in or refuse referrals for abortions. Further, the Bill does not affirm the right of a pharmacist or nurse to decline, on the grounds of conscientious objection, to carry out the direction of a doctor to administer or supply a drug to cause an abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Cardinal Pell said: "The rights of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief are fundamental. The ability to exercise conscientious objection is a keystone of democracy. All of us should have the right to hold a belief and not be compelled by the state to act contrary to that conviction. It is the difference between the free society and the one subject to tyranny. That conscientious objection is a fundamental human right is expressly recognised in similar legislation in various jurisdictions both overseas, as in the UK and New Zealand, and also domestically".

"Indeed, the 2006 Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities maintains that persons should not be coerced to act in a way that is contrary to the practice of their beliefs. It is difficult to see how anyone concerned about protecting human rights can fail to be deeply concerned by provisions in the proposed Victorian Legislation that would force people to act against their convictions. It is perhaps a striking illustration of how Charters of Rights are readily malleable and easily manipulated. Such Charters are quoted with gravitas and resolve when it suits and yet easily ignored when uncomfortable issues arise."

"If enacted, it may well fall to the Courts or the Federal Government to act, particularly if it is demonstrated that the final legislation breaches international treaties to which Australia is a signatory."

Cardinal Pell "sincerely hopes that the members of the Victorian Parliament will act to defend human life, to practically and generously support vulnerable pregnant mothers and to allow all men and women to be free to act in accord with their conscientiously held beliefs and principles."

For more information, contact Catholic Communications on 0437 409 344


Catholic Hospitals Announce Support for New Federal Rules Offering Conscience Protections for Hospitals and Health Care Providers

Alliance of Catholic Health Care

25 September, 2008

SACRAMENTO, Calif.- Citing the need to be free from religious discrimination, the Alliance of Catholic Health Care today announced its support for proposed federal regulations that would protect hospitals and health care providers from being forced to provide abortions or any other medical services contrary to their ethical or religious beliefs. States that do not respect or enforce existing laws recognizing freedom of conscience could lose certain federal funding, including matching funds for state Medicaid programs (Medi-Cal in California).

The comments came in the form of a letter to Secretary Michael Leavitt, head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) submitted on behalf of the four health systems and 53 Catholic hospitals represented by the Alliance. Those hospitals represent 16 percent of California's acute care, in-patient hospitals.

"Our members provide health care services in accordance with the religious and moral tenets of the Catholic faith," said William J. Cox, president and CEO of the Alliance. "Central to these beliefs is a firm commitment to the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death and a deep concern for the health care needs of the poor and for those in spiritual need.

"We do not impose our religious or moral beliefs on the people and families we serve," said Cox, "but we do hold ourselves accountable, as health care providers, to Catholic ethical and moral standards."

According to HHS, the regulations are necessary because certain provisions of various federal laws -- the Public Health Service Act, the Church Amendments (42 USC 300a-7), the Weldon Amendment (PL 110-161), and others -- that would otherwise prevent discrimination against hospitals and health care workers are being ignored or overlooked. As a result, pressure has repeatedly been brought to bear through state legislation, licensing or certification authorities and professional boards to coerce individual and institutional health care providers into violating their consciences by forcing them, under penalty of law, to conduct or receive training in the performance of abortions.

In California, this pressure has been especially acute:

-- In April 2000, attempts were made to use the California Medical Assistance Commission (CMAC) to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion and other reproductive services as a condition of receiving a Medi-Cal (Medicaid) contract.

-- In 1999, a bill failed on the floor of the state Assembly (AB 525) that would have required Catholic hospitals to provide or arrange for abortions or lose tens of millions of dollars in annual state assistance and impose restrictions on mergers between non-profit health care institutions if access to abortion might be affected.

-- Most recently, in 2005, the California Attorney General sued to overturn the federal Weldon Conscience Amendment on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional infringement on the State of California to enforce its own abortion statutes. The suit was dismissed on procedural grounds.

"These assaults on freedom of conscience not only run counter to our nation's commitment to religious tolerance and liberty, they conclusively demonstrate the urgent need for the proposed regulation," added Cox. "Several of the federal statutes mentioned in the proposed regulations have been in place for more than 30 years, but that hasn't deterred influential California officials from attempting to contravene them."

The proposed amendments can be found in the Federal Register and can be cited as 45 CFR Part 88.

A complete copy of the Alliance's comment letter is posted at www.thealliance.net.


The Alliance of Catholic Health Care represents California's Catholic health care systems and hospitals. There are 53 California Catholic and community-based affiliated hospitals. They represent nearly 16 percent of all California acute care in-patient hospitals. The following Catholic health care systems are located in California and represented on the Alliance Board of Directors: Catholic Healthcare West (San Francisco), Daughters of Charity Health Care System (Los Altos Hills), Providence Health System (Southern California) and the St. Joseph Health System (Orange).


Ontario document reveals plans for Manitoba physicians

Protection of Conscience Project

17 September, 2008
For Immediate Release

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba may implement a policy similar to a controversial Ontario proposal that would restrict freedom of conscience and religion among physicians. News of the plan for Manitoba doctors was disclosed today in a briefing note to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.1

The Manitoba College provided "positive feedback" about the original version of  Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code, which was written in response to pressure from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Commission has since made clear that it expects physicians to "'check their personal views at the door' in providing medical care."2

The document that the Manitoba College of Physicians plans to emulate has been widely denounced as an assault on the fundamental freedoms of physicians. The 25,000 member Ontario Medical Association has asked that the document be withdrawn 3  and has protested the secrecy surrounding its revision.4

Other critics of "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code," include the Catholic Archbishops of Toronto and Ottawa, Rabbi Reuven Bulka of Ottawa, the Canadian Center for Policy Studies, the Centre for Cultural Renewal, and the Protection of Conscience Project.5  

It appears from the Ontario briefing note that the new Manitoba policy will be incorporated into a revised College statement on Discrimination in Access to Physicians. There is no reference to the plans on the CPSM website. It is doubtful that physicians in the province are aware of what the College has in store for them.

Notes:
1.  Council Briefing Note, p. 3, bullet 5
2.  OHRC Submission
3.  OMA Response to CPSO Draft Policy
4.  "The OMA Responds." National Post, 17 September, 2008
5.   Protection of Conscience Project, Responses to Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code

Postpone vote, says Project
Controversial policy revised before all feedback received

Protection of Conscience Project

17 September, 2008
For Immediate Release

Officials at Ontario's College of Physicians and Surgeons revised a controversial draft policy before the deadline for public consultation had passed, and before receiving major submissions critical of the proposal. They plan to have the College's governing Council approve the changes on 18 September, even though the revised draft continues to be of concern.

Internal evidence indicates that revisions to Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code were made no later than 11 September, the day before public consultation ended.1

While blatantly provocative assertions have been deleted,2 the draft continues to assert that physicians may "in some circumstances" be obliged to help patients make arrangements for morally controversial procedures.3 It continues to link this expectation to the possibility of prosecution for professional misconduct.4 The revised draft does make clear that the principal threat to fundamental freedoms comes from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, not the College.

"One is left to wonder whether College officials are sincerely interested in a full and careful consideration of their proposal," said Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. Like the Ontario Medical Association, the Project has protested the secrecy surrounding the revision, and joins the OMA in asking that College Council postpone a vote on the policy.5  

"Already this is having wide-reaching effects," said Murphy. "The College of Physiotherapists wants to adopt the original problematic draft,6 and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba plans to develop something similar."7

Notes:
1.  Council Briefing Note, p. 2, bullets 2 and 5.
2.  Revised draft policy, lines 219-224
3.  Revised draft policy, lines 227 to 229
4.  Revised draft policy, lines 232-234
5.  "The OMA Responds."  National Post, 17 September, 2008
6.  Council Briefing Note, p. 3, bullet 4
7.  Council Briefing Note, p. 3, bullet 5

Rights Commission threat “blasphemy against the human spirit”
College of Physicians secrecy said unacceptable
 

Protection of Conscience Project

13 September, 2008
For Immediate Release

“Blasphemy against the human spirit.” That is how the Protection of Conscience Project describes a threat by Ontario’s Human Rights Commission to punish doctors who refuse to do what they believe to be wrong. The rebuke is found in a submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Citing writers and philosophers in the democratic tradition, as well as the landmark Morgentaler decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Project argues that to force doctors to act against their conscientious convictions is “to deprive them of their essential humanity.” It calls the proposed policy “profoundly offensive and demeaning.”

“To abandon one’s moral or ethical convictions in order to serve others is prostitution,” states the submission, “not professionalism.”

The brief denies that doctors who refuse to do what they believe is wrong are violating the Human Rights Code. It explains that they are concerned about “complicity in wrongdoing,” not race, sex or other patient characteristics.

The Project submission addresses the College draft policy, Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code. Deadline for comment on the policy was extended to 12 September following protests when news of it became public.

The President of the College told the National Post that the draft has been revised, but refuses to make it public. Project Administrator Sean Murphy finds College secrecy unacceptable.

“At least two substantial briefs reached the College only on Friday,” he said. “The National Post story appeared Saturday. It seems very unlikely that College officials could have considered either submission before revising the draft. This brings into question the validity of the consultation process.”

“But the more important issue,” he said, “is that decision-making that impacts fundamental freedoms should be conducted transparently, not secretly. Why keep the revised draft secret? Is there something to hide?”

-30-

Ontario Human Rights Commission Flexes Muscles

Protection of Conscience Project

31 August, 2008
For Immediate Release

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has been instructed by the province's Human Rights Commission that physicians are to be denied freedom of conscience and religion. The "guidance" is contained in an OHRC submission that appears to have been posted today on the Commission's website.

The helpful and advisory tone introducing the document is misleading.

"This is really an iron fist in a velvet glove," said Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. "These so-called 'recommendations' are backed up with the threat of prosecution before Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal."

"It is the Commission's position," states the submission, "that doctors, as providers of services that are not religious in nature, must essentially "check their personal views at the door" in providing medical care."

Should the College fail to adopt the position demanded by the OHRC, the Commission can formulate policies that impose its ethical views on the medical profession, encouraging activists or others to file complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. The Commission can then intervene in the proceedings and force the Tribunal to consider its policies in applying the Code.

"Even at this point, the Commission's statements suggest that it is open season on physicians," said Murphy. "Activists can now apply to the Tribunal to prosecute physicians who refuse to facilitate abortion or other morally controversial medical procedures, with the assurance that the Tribunal will decide in their favour."

The structure and operation of the Commission and Tribunal are described in the Project publication, The New Inquisitors.

Uphold religious freedom for doctors, League urges

Catholic Civil Rights League (Canada)

18 August, 2008

TORONTO - The Catholic Civil Rights League recently called on the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to ensure freedom of religion and freedom of conscience for physicians in the application of changes to the application of Ontario's Human Rights Code. The call relates to a draft document being circulated by the college to inform doctors of potential implications of these changes, which will see complaints of discrimination filed directly with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.  

In a letter to the college Aug. 15, the League expressed concern over a draft policy relating to religious and conscientious freedom, noting that some of its provisions would appear to restrict physicians' ability to decline to participate in treatments or referrals that violate their consciences. The League also asked that the deadline for feedback (originally Aug. 15) be extended, a request the college agreed to almost immediately. The new deadline is Sept. 12, 2008.

Portions of the League's letter follow:

"As the draft document states, religious and conscientious beliefs are an integral part of the person. (Therefore) the statement below is somewhat problematic:

Personal beliefs and values and cultural and religious practices are central to the lives of physicians and their patients. However, as a physician's responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical treatment and services they require.

"Canada has an established custom of accommodating sincerely held religious and conscientious convictions as much as possible. The expectation that physicians must set aside their beliefs with regard to treatments or referrals that violate their conscience is unreasonable, and at odds with the CMA's Joint Statement on Preventing and Resolving Ethical Conflicts Involving Health Care Providers and Persons Receiving Care (1998).  

"With two private member's bills favouring euthanasia put before Parliament in the past five years, it's certainly not inconceivable that Canada will have a liberalized law at some future date, which could raise ethical dilemmas even more acute than those we have today. I hope that the review process is extended, and allows the profession to formulate guidelines that offer the best possible protection for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience for all concerned.

For further information:
Joanne McGarry, Executive Director
Catholic Civil Rights League
416-466-8244  joanne.mcgarry@ccrl.ca

About CCRL
Catholic Civil Rights League (www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization and has chapters across Canada. The Catholic Civil Rights League is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.

California Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Medical Care and Religious Freedom, Says Americans United for Life

Americans United for Life

18 August, 2008

CHICAGO - The California Supreme Court today ruled that patient demand for nonessential, elective care trumps the freedom of conscience of physicians and their ability to practice medicine in accordance with their religious or moral beliefs.

Denise Burke, Vice President & Legal Director of Americans United for Life (AUL), said, "This ruling will deny physicians and other professionals the ability to freely exercise their religious convictions."

Added Burke, "By forcing healthcare professionals to choose between conscience and career, we will lose doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who are already in short supply."

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., President and CEO of AUL added, "Medical experts already project that existing shortages of nurses, physicians, and pharmacists will soon worsen, failing to meet future healthcare needs. Legal action to compel healthcare providers to participate in procedures to which they conscientiously object threatens to make the already dangerous situation disastrous."

Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel, said, "It defies common sense that a patient would want a doctor to violate his or her conscience in practicing medicine. A diminished physician population is not good for medical care."

The case -- North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Benitez) - involves a situation where artificial insemination was not provided due to the marital status of the patient (Ms. Benitez).

Ms. Benitez filed suit arguing that she was not provided the procedure because she is a lesbian. However, the physicians testified that the real issue was her marital status, and that they would not have provided artificial insemination to any single woman.

UUltimately, Ms. Benitez received the procedure from another physician after receiving a referral from the objecting physicians (who paid the additional costs she incurred).

AUL filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Physicians for Life, arguing that federal and state law as well as the ethics standards of major medical organizations support the physicians' right to conscientiously object to performing certain nonessential, elective medical procedures that conflict with physicians' religious and moral beliefs.


About Americans United for Life
Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit,public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which every human being is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization inAmerica, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971. The Wall Street Journal has profiled AUL, and PBS's Frontline program chronicled AUL's successful efforts in Mississippi.


Cal. Supreme Court Rejects Doctors' Rights of Conscience

The Pacific Justice Institute

 18 August, 2008

Sacramento, CA - In a major decision likely to re-draw the battle lines of the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court today ruled against two doctors who declined to artificially inseminate a lesbian.

The doctors, who are Christians, strongly believe that children should be raised whenever possible by a mother and father. To that end, they did not want to participate in the deliberate exclusion of a father as sought by Guadalupe Benitez and her partner, Joanne Clark. Instead, the doctors paid for a referral of Ms. Benitez to other fertility specialists who did not have any moral objections to administering the treatment, and she now has three children. Nevertheless, Ms. Benitez was so offended by the doctors' stance that she sued them under California's sweeping civil rights laws.

Today, California's highest court unanimously ruled that the state's civil rights laws offer virtually no exceptions for people of faith. Unless the ruling is eventually overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court - which only hears about one percent of all the cases appealed to it - or is modified by the gay-friendly California legislature, its implications appear to be far-reaching. For instance, the ruling probably means that, regardless of their beliefs, everyone in the state's wedding industry must service gay weddings, California family law attorneys must handle gay adoptions and same-sex divorces, and so on.

Pacific Justice Institute filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the California Supreme Court on behalf of the doctors and will continue to participate in the case if it is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

PJI President Brad Dacus commented, "This case starkly demonstrates the take-no-prisoners approach of the gay rights movement. They will not stop until they have silenced or bankrupted every voice of conscience who disagrees with them. In light of this and similar rulings, PJI is redoubling its efforts to defend people of faith who will not compromise their moral values."


Proposed policy could severely limit freedom of Ontario physicians

Canadian Physicians for Life

For Immediate Release
August 15, 2008

(Ottawa) - In a letter today to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the president of Canadian Physicians for Life, Dr. Will Johnston, expressed concern over a draft policy relating to freedom of conscience and the lack of sufficient notice given by CPSO to all interested stakeholders that a consultation process, which officially ends today, has been underway since the end of June.
 
Canadian Physicians for Life is asking the College for a 90-day extension on the deadline "due to the importance of the issues at stake and the lack of opportunity interested stakeholders were given to comment on the proposal."
 
The draft policy, that CPL only learned of late yesterday, would appear to severely limit the freedom of Ontario physicians to practice according to their conscientious/religious beliefs. The College apparently posted the draft policy document, "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code" on its website at the end of June and had set a deadline of today for input on the proposal.
 
In his letter, Dr. Johnston expressed surprise that the College would not have been more proactive in soliciting input on a policy that could have profound impact on both individual doctors and on the profession as a whole. CPSO does not appear to have issued a news release on the consultation process, and pro-life physicians have been taken by surprise.
 
Dr. Johnston wrote, "The College must have been aware that groups such as Canadian Physicians for Life -- which represents doctors from across Canada who respect the dignity of all human life, regardless of age or infirmity -- would have concerns with the College's view that "decisions to restrict medical services offered….that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the [Ontario Human Rights] Code, and/or constitute professional misconduct."
 
"Refusal on conscientious or religious grounds to refer a woman for an abortion could be deemed professional misconduct under this new policy," Dr. Johnston said.
 
A similar requirement (that doctors must make abortion referrals regardless of their conscientious beliefs) was put forward in a July 2006 guest editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It triggered such a firestorm of controversy, that the Journal was compelled to publish a letter from CMA's Director of Ethics stating that CMA policy did not require physicians to refer for abortions if it would violate their conscientious or religious beliefs.
 
Dr. Johnston concluded, "There could be serious problems with what the Ontario College is proposing and we need time to study the implications of this policy in detail. If doctors feel coerced into compromising their deepest convictions as a result of this policy, certainly that's a problem-not only for the integrity of physicians, but also for the welfare of their patients."

For further comment, please contact:
Will Johnston, MD, President
Canadian Physicians for Life
ph: 613-728-5433
email: info@physiciansforlife.ca


Canadian Physicians for Life is an educational organization representing physicians who hold that reverence for every human life lies at the root of all medical tradition. Through the ages, this tradition has been expressed in the Oath of Hippocrates. It was rephrased in modern times in the Declaration of Geneva (1948), which says in part, "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity." 

Freedom of Conscience and Religion Not a Defence

Protection of Conscience Project

14 August, 2008
For Immediate Release

Ontario physicians are being advised that they are expected to give up freedom of conscience if they wish to practise medicine in the province. The expectation is set out in "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code," a draft policy document from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The document responds to legislative changes, which, according to the Chair of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, will see a twenty-fold increase in hearings before the Tribunal - from 150 to 3,000 cases per year.

According to the College, the Tribunal may take action against a physician who refuses to provide or refer for procedures that he finds morally objectionable. The College strongly suggests that the physician's freedom of conscience and religion will be ignored because "there is no defence for refusing to provide a service" in such circumstances.

In addition to the possibility of prosecution by the Human Rights Tribunal, the College states that it will consider the Human Rights Code in adjudicating complaints of professional misconduct, even though the College admits that it lacks the expertise and authority in human rights.

The College also plans to force objecting physicians to actively assist patients to obtain morally controversial services. A similar demand - that objectors be forced to refer patients for abortion - generated fierce opposition when it appeared in a 2006 guest editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The College posted the draft policy for consultation near the end of June, with a response deadline of 15 August. The Project, noting that there was no news release about the draft and that "the mid-summer timing of the consultation is less than satisfactory," has asked the College to extend the deadline by 90 days.

"Commentators like Rex Murphy, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have condemned Canadian human rights commissions for suppressing freedom of expression," noted Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. "Perhaps we should not be surprised to see them now being used to suppress freedom of conscience and religion among medical professionals."

Cardinal Rigali Urges Congress To Respect Conscience Rights

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Office of Media Relations 08-106
July 18, 2008
For Immediate Release

[Blog] Responding to objections to anticipated federal HHS regulations protecting health care providers' fundamental rights of conscience, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, today wrote to all members of Congress defending "efforts to reaffirm and implement laws on conscience protection."

The New York Times on July 15 reported that it had obtained an alleged draft of regulations soon to be issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, to clarify and enforce federal laws on respect for the moral and religious convictions of health care personnel in programs receiving federal funds.  Pro-abortion organizations and some members of Congress have already attacked the as-yet-unpublished regulations, saying they are unwarranted and could limit "access" to abortion and birth control.

Reacting to these criticisms, Cardinal Rigali said this "should be a matter of agreement among members who call themselves 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice': the freedom of health care providers to serve the public without violating their most deeply held moral and religious convictions on the sanctity of human life."

"Congress has passed numerous laws protecting rights of conscience in health care, beginning in 1973," said the Cardinal, and these laws address sterilization and other issues in addition to abortion.  "The critics' surprise that conscience protection may apply beyond the specific issue of abortion seems based on a lack of knowledge of existing federal law... If the Administration is preparing regulations along these lines, it would simply be performing its proper task in an area of law where that is long overdue."

Cardinal Rigali said the charge that respect for conscience rights undermines "access" to abortion and other procedures contradicts pro-abortion groups' longstanding claim that only "a tiny minority of religious zealots" object to their agenda.  In any case, he said, "patients with pro-life convictions, including women who require a physician's care for themselves and their unborn children during pregnancy, deserve 'access' to health care professionals who do not have contempt for their religious and moral convictions or for the lives of their children."

"This issue," he said, "provides self-described 'pro-choice' advocates with an opportunity to demonstrate their true convictions... [I]s the 'pro-choice' label a misleading mask for an agenda of actively promoting and even imposing morally controversial procedures on those who conscientiously hold different views?"

[Full Text of Letter from Justin Cardinal Rigali to Members of U.S. Congress]

CMA physicians call on HHS to protect patients with regulations upholding healthcare professionals' rights

Christian Medical Association

July 15, 2008
For Immediate Release

[Blog] Washington, D.C.--July 15, 2008-- Responding to a story published this morning by the New York Times , physicians of the Christian Medical Association called on Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael O. Leavitt to publish regulations in accord with federal laws protecting patients and healthcare professionals in decisions relating to controversial procedures and prescriptions. The New York Times indicated that the Department has drafted regulations "to ensure that federal money does not 'support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.'"

"It's high time that the will of the people, as expressed over the past 35 years through laws passed by Congress, finally be translated into practical healthcare regulations," noted Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the 13,000-member faith-based professional organization of doctors, in a letter today to the Secretary. "Americans on all sides of controversial issues such as abortion, reproductive technologies and assisted suicide can appreciate the need to protect everyone's First Amendment rights of free speech and religious exercise. That means that healthcare professionals must be free to follow their individual conscientious convictions on these life-and-death matters. The CMA letter also noted, "An informal survey of Christian Medical Association members found that over 41 percent of respondents had been "pressured to compromise Biblical or ethical convictions."

Anecdotal accounts suggest that few persecuted healthcare professionals actually know their conscience rights and that they typically simply submit to pressure by resigning. Unless pro-life professionals are equipped to know and apply their conscience rights, they actually stand at risk of being weeded out from the profession altogether .

Dr. Gene Rudd, Executive Vice President of the CMA, noted, "From the 1973 Church Amendment to the more recent Hyde-Weldon Amendment, Congress has recognized the importance of protecting patients and their healthcare professionals from political pressures on these vital issues."Patients are protected when physicians follow objective ethical codes, such as those expressed in the Hippocratic Oath and the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. We recognize that some individuals choose to refuse to follow these principles, and under current law, that is their choice. "The regulations reportedly under consideration at Health and Human Services apparently would simply protect the right for all healthcare professionals to make professional judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards. Protecting this right also protects patients who choose their physicians based on life-affirming values."

Contact: Becky Gerber 
Telephone: 888-231-2637   
E-mail: becky.gerber@cmda.org
The Christian Medical Association is equipped with Ku Band Digital Uplink satellite and ISDN lines.
CCWA Applauds HHS for Upholding Healthcare Providers' Rights

Concerned Women for America

15 July, 2008

[Blog]WASHINGTON - -  According to The New York Times, the Bush administration plans to propose regulations to comply with federal laws to protect patients and healthcare professionals from being forced to provide controversial drugs and procedures such as abortion.  The newspaper reports that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has drafted regulations "to ensure that federal money does not 'support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.'" Recipients of federal health programs (such as hospitals and clinics) would have to certify that they will not refuse to hire healthcare providers who object to abortion or abortifacients (drugs or devices that can cause an early abortion).  The regulation defines abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

"For over 35 years, federal laws have protected the conscientious rights of healthcare professionals, but they were not fully implemented for lack of thorough regulations to enforce them," stated Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA).  "As more controversial drugs and procedures get introduced, and additional pressure is put on healthcare providers to either compromise their moral commitments or lose their jobs, the need has become greater for regulations to catch up with the law."

"As patients, we rely on healthcare professionals to provide ethical advice and treatments. Patients will lose trust in the healthcare field if professionals are gagged from giving ethical and well-informed advice or forced to commit procedures or provide drugs that take an innocent life.  If healthcare professionals are denied the right to live out their moral beliefs, patients will suffer the consequences."  Abortion proponents reportedly oppose the proposed regulations.  "Clearly, abortion advocates do not believe in the 'right to choose' if the choice is not to participate in abortion or provide drugs that can take the life of a human being.  The regulation applies to abortion, which is clearly defined as an action that terminates a human life before or after implantation.  When abortion advocates claim this regulation would discourage providing 'contraception' it reveals that their definition of 'contraception' includes drugs that would cause abortion."

Contact: Natalie Bell, Concerned Women for America,   202-488-7000  ext. 126
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.

CMA Physicians Laud HHS Secretary Leavitt for Protecting Physicians and Patients on Abortion and Conscience Issue 

Christian Medical Association
June 27, 2008
For Immediate Release

Washington--June 27, 2008--The Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org), the nation's largest faith-based organization of physicians, today lauded U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt for encouraging the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) to clearly publish assurances that it will not decertify or otherwise penalize physicians who do not perform or refer for abortions. 

CMA CEO David Stevens said, "Secretary Leavitt is serving America's physicians and patients well by prodding ABOG to provide assurances that it will uphold fundamental principles of conscience protections in healthcare. Protecting the right for physicians to abide by longstanding ethical codes such as the Hippocratic Oath is one of the best ways to protect patients-by insuring that their physicians follow time-tested objective standards and not ideological whims or politically motivated pressures." 

Secretary Leavitt's letter addresses ABOG's written guidance, published in December, that links its physician certification procedures with the ethics positions of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Those ACOG positions include a controversial official position issued in November that called upon conscience-objecting obstetricians to refer patients for abortions-an act which many such physicians consider unethical. 

Dr. Stevens noted, "As Secretary Leavitt has pointed out, forcing physicians to refer for abortions not only violates ethical standards; it may also violate federal laws such as the Weldon amendment, which prohibits discrimination in certain cases from forcing physicians and institutions to 'provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.'" Stevens said, " An informal survey of our membership revealed that over 41 percent have been 'pressured to compromise Biblical or ethical convictions.' Over 46 percent "know of a colleague in medicine who has experienced' such pressure. We have been working hard to raise awareness of and counter the attack on conscience rights in healthcare-not just to protect our members and their patients, but also to protect physicians and patients of conscience nationwide." 

Dr. Gene Rudd, an obstetrician and CMA Senior Vice President, said, "It's one thing for ACOG to allow for differences of opinion on abortion, and quite another to require its members to submit to the ACOG leadership's decidedly partisan position on abortion."

Dr. Rudd canceled his ACOG membership as a result of the organization's abortion referral mandate. Leavitt's letter of June 20 to ABOG notes, "Amending current and future ABOG Bulletins to clarify specifically which ACOG rules and principles the Bulletin refers to would reduce potential future confusion over this issue. So too would amending the Bulletin, or another appropriate ABOG document, to reflect your statement that physicians' refusal to perform or refer for services that violate their ethical or moral standards is not a consideration in certification." 

On March 14, Secretary Leavitt sent a letter to the Board that noted, "It appears that the interaction of the [ABOG Bulletin for 2008 Maintenance of Certification] with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification."  

Contact: Margie Shealy 
Telephone: 888-230-2637;
Mobile: 423-341-4254 
E-mail: margie.shealy@cmda.org
The Christian Medical Association is equipped with Ku Band Digital Uplink satellite and ISDN lines. 
CCoast Guard relents, allows officer to refuse vaccine from aborted baby

Alliance Defence Fund

Washington, DC, USA
May 12, 2008, 2:45 PM (MST)

U.S. Coast Guard officials who initially refused to excuse an officer from being injected with a vaccine derived from an aborted child have relented in the wake of a lawsuit filed on behalf of the officer by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys [Healy v. United States Coast Guard ].  The U.S. Coast Guard had refused to grant an exemption for Officer Joseph J. Healy, who is Catholic, even though it allows exemptions based on other religious beliefs.

"Christians shouldn't be punished for abiding by their beliefs against abortion.  The Coast Guard has done the right thing in recognizing that those who lay their life on the line to defend our shores are entitled to the same freedom as anyone else not to have their particular beliefs disregarded," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman.

"Members of the U.S. military should never be forced to make an unconstitutional choice between honoring their country and adhering to the belief that health and medicine can prosper without exploiting the killing of preborn children," Bowman said.

In May 2006, the Coast Guard, which requires its personnel to be vaccinated against a variety of diseases, ordered all active-duty personnel to receive one of two vaccines against Hepatitis A or show proof of immunity.  The vaccines are derived from cells taken from the lung tissue of a child who was electively aborted at 14 weeks gestation and then dissected.  The Coast Guard allows religious exemptions for those who hold a "religious tenet or belief contrary to immunization."

In compliance with Coast Guard requirements, Healy, a lieutenant commander, submitted a memo requesting religious exemption based on his Catholic faith and strong opposition to abortion.  In response, a higher ranking officer denied the request because he disagreed with Healy's theology, claiming that Catholic teaching "does not state that these immunizations are against the religious tenets of the Catholic Church."

Friday, the Coast Guard notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that it will grant Healy a religious exemption.  As a result, ADF attorneys plan to file a motion to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit they filed Jan. 2.


ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
 


9th Circuit thwarts Wash. state's attempt to stall conscience rights

Alliance Defence Fund

Tacoma, Washington, USA
May 02, 2008, 11:15 AM (MST)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled Thursday that Washington pharmacists' rights of conscience will be protected while an appeal by state officials who oppose those rights moves forward.  The ruling means that a court order requested by ADF and ADF-allied attorneys to suspend newly-passed state regulations will remain in place.  The regulations forced pharmacies and pharmacists to stock or distribute abortion-inducing drugs regardless of their religious or moral opposition.

"Pharmacists and other health-care workers shouldn't be punished for abiding by their beliefs. They should never be forced to abandon their pro-life convictions in order to appease a government agenda, even while an appeal moves forward in court," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley.  "No one should ever be forced to choose between keeping their career and honoring their faith."

In November, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a preliminary injunction against the regulations while a lawsuit filed against state officials proceeds.  The state then asked the 9th Circuit to stay the injunction so the regulations would remain in effect during the appeal, but a 9th Circuit panel rejected that request Thursday.

In its decision, the 9th Circuit said the state did not sufficiently demonstrate a lack of availability of abortion-inducing drugs, including the so-called "Plan B" drug, for any woman who wants them.

ADF-allied attorney Kristen Waggoner of the Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry is lead counsel in the case.


ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.


Pharmacist's Rights of Conscience Goes to Wisconsin Supreme Court
Thomas More Society Files an Appeal for Noesen v. State of Wisconsin Department of Regulation & Licensing, Pharmacy Examining Board
 

Thomas More Society

Madison, Wisconsin, USA
23 April, 2008

Today the Thomas More Society filed an appeal with the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of Neil T. Noesen. Noesen is a registered pharmacist, who refused to fill a prescription for oral contraceptives at a K-Mart in Menominee, Wisconsin, because of conscientious objections. In 2005, he was disciplined by the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board for refusing to transfer the prescription.

Both a Wisconsin Circuit Court and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the order of the Pharmacy Examining Board imposing discipline on Mr. Noesen (a reprimand and limitations on his license).

Prior to refusing to fill or transfer the prescription, Mr. Noesen notified his employer of his conscientious objection to contraceptives. The employer had adopted a procedure for accommodating Mr. Noesen's beliefs without losing customers but it was not followed in this particular case. As Mr. Noesen explained to the Court: "...with good conscience, I can't aid, abet, encourage, refer, transfer, or participate in any way with something that I feel would be impairing the fertility of a human being." The customer's prescription was ultimately filled and she did not become pregnant from missing a single dose of her prescription.

According to Paul Linton, Thomas More Society Special Counsel, "Mr. Noesen is being punished for refusing to compromise his beliefs. The Pharmacy Examining Board's action violates his rights of conscience, clearly protected by the Wisconsin Constitution (art. I, s. 18). We hope the Wisconsin Supreme Court will restore Mr. Noesen's right to express his deeply held beliefs. Being tolerant of what others believe is the definition of a free society."

Contact: Tom Ciesielka, TC Public Relations, ; Denise Mackura, Executive Director & General Counsel, Thomas More Society


The Thomas More Society is a public interest law firm which provides legal counsel and defense for those who work to protect innocent human life.


League pleased that Bill on conscience protection is re-introduced

CCatholic Civil Rights League (Canada)

17 April, 2008

OTTAWA - The Catholic Civil Rights League welcomed the introduction of Private Member's Bill C-537, April 16 by MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon - Wanuskewin) to protect conscience rights of health care workers.

Introducing the motion in Parliament, Mr. Vellacott said it "would prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human life is inviolable. The bill seeks to ensure that health care providers will never be forced to participate against their will in procedures such as abortions or acts of euthanasia." Private members' bills do not often become law. This is the third Parliament in which Mr. Vellacott has introduced a bill on this topic.

While freedom of conscience and religion is a Charter right, health care providers and students sometimes find themselves in situations where they are expected to participate in procedures such as abortion or certain types of research that conflict with their beliefs at a serious level. While some institutions address conscientious objection through policies on reasonable accommodation (usually by assigning the employee to alternate duties), the League knows of numerous cases where such requests have not been honoured. The League therefore welcomes the attempt to establish conscience protection for health care workers in federal law.  It is hoped the continued pursuit of this objective may also be taken up at the provincial level, where such employment protection is also needed.

For further information:
Joanne McGarry, Executive Director
Catholic Civil Rights League
416-466-8244  joanne.mcgarry@ccrl.ca


About CCRL
The Catholic Civil Rights League (www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization and has chapters across Canada. The Catholic Civil Rights League is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.


Vellacott re-introduces Private Member's Bill to protect conscience rights of health care workers

Ottawa, Canada
For Immediate Release
April 16, 2008

OTTAWA - Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) today re-introduced his Private Member's Bill that would protect the conscience rights of Canada's health care workers. This is the third Parliament in which Vellacott has introduced a bill to protect health care workers' conscience rights.

"I hope that the Canadian Parliament will eventually pass this kind of a common sense measure that would protect the freedom of choice for all health care workers," said Vellacott.

Introducing the bill in Parliament this afternoon, Vellacott said:

Mr. Speaker, the bill would prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human life is inviolable. The bill seeks to ensure that health care providers will never be forced to participate against their will in procedures such as abortions or acts of euthanasia.

Canada has a long history of recognizing the rights of freedom of religion and of conscience in our country. Yet health care workers and those seeking to be educated for the health care system have often been denied those rights in medical facilities and educational institutions. Some have even been wrongfully dismissed.

The bill would make those conscience rights explicit in law and would safeguard health care workers' fundamental human rights.

For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or 297-2249
 
Court rejects California's challenge to healthcare conscience rights

Alliance Defence Fund

San Francisco, California, USA
March 19, 2008, 3:20 PM (MST)

A federal court Tuesday rejected California's challenge to the "Weldon Amendment."  The federal statute forbids state and local governments that receive federal funds from discriminating against healthcare providers that refuse to perform or refer patients for abortions.  The court sided with three groups of pro-life medical professionals and others, including the federal government, in rejecting California's challenge [State of California v. United States of America].

"Pro-life medical professionals shouldn't be discriminated against for abiding by their beliefs," said Litigation Counsel M. Casey Mattox of CLS's Center for Law & Religious Freedom.  "This ruling means that California will remain prohibited from fining and criminally prosecuting pro-life doctors because they refuse to perform abortions.  The Weldon Amendment remains a critical protection for the rights of conscience of pro-life healthcare workers."

Bill Lockyer, the former attorney general of California, filed suit against the U.S. government in 2005, claiming the amendment is unconstitutional because it interferes with California's enforcement of a state law.  That law provides for criminal and civil penalties against healthcare workers if they do not perform or refer for abortions in some circumstances.

Attorneys with CLS and ADF represented members of the Christian Medical Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3777).


ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth.  The CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom is a team of Christian attorneys allied with ADF to defend religious liberty and human life.


HHS Secretary Calls on Certification Group to Protect Conscience Rights

14 March, 2008

Unless changes are made, physicians could be forced to refer patients for abortions even if it violates their conscience

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt today expressed disappointment in a new policy put forth by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). He also called on the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) to reject this policy and protect the conscience rights of physicians.

In a letter sent to ABOG Executive Director Dr. Norman Gant today asking for clarification, Secretary Leavitt notes, "It appears that the interaction of the [ABOG Bulletin for 2008 Maintenance of Certification] with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification."

In particular, the Secretary expressed concern that enforcement of this ACOG policy by certain federally-funded entities would violate federal laws against discrimination.

Secretary Leavitt continues, "As you know, Congress has protected the rights of physicians and other health care professionals by passing two non-discrimination laws and annually renewing an appropriations rider that protect the rights, including conscience rights, of health care professionals in programs or facilities conducted or supported by federal funds."

ADF attorneys assist Montana pro-life pharmacist

Alliance Defence Fund

Helena, Montana, USA
March 10, 2008, 10:52 AM (MST)

The Montana Board of Pharmacy has dropped all complaints against a pharmacist who declined to dispense contraceptives and the so-called "morning after pill" because of his sincerely-held religious beliefs.  An ADF-allied attorney represented the pharmacist before a screening panel of the Montana Board of Pharmacy Wednesday.

"Pro-life pharmacists shouldn't be penalized for abiding by their beliefs," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Byron Babione.  "Respecting the right to not sell these items doesn't impose an ideology on anyone.  Forcing a pharmacist to sell them does."

John Lane, a pharmacist in the town of Broadus, had 11 complaints filed against him with the Montana Board of Pharmacy because of his decision not to sell contraceptives and the so-called "morning after pill" at his store.  On March 5, the pharmacy board met to decide if it would further investigate the complaints, which can result in an official reprimand or the revoking of a pharmacist's license.  At the meeting, the board dismissed the complaints against Lane, stating he had not violated the law.

Lane was represented at the hearing by ADF-allied attorney Matthew Monforton, of Mark Bryan, P.C., in Bozeman.  Monforton was assisted by Babione and ADF Litigation Counsel David Sheasby.

"Neither the government nor an employer should make people choose between their faith and their job," said Monforton.  "The board did the right thing by recognizing that Mr. Lane did nothing to violate the law."


ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.  


ADF: American Counseling Association must honor freedom of conscience, religion

Alliance Defence Fund

Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
February 15, 2008, 12:00 AM (MST)

ADF attorneys sent a letter to the American Counseling Association Wednesday, asking the organization to reconsider a policy which stigmatizes counselors and clients who hold to biblically based religious beliefs regarding homosexual behavior.  According to the ACA's Ethics Committee, working with counselors or referring clients to counselors who respect such views may violate the organization's "ethical rules."

"Christian counselors and the people who receive their counseling shouldn't be penalized for abiding by their beliefs.  People have the right to choose the counselor they want, and counselors have the right to suggest what they believe will help," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum.  "Professional freedom of conscience is a crucial element in ensuring that clients receive the help they need."

Dr. Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor of psychology and fellow for psychology and public policy at Grove City College, sent a letter of complaint to the ACA on behalf of nearly 400 mental health professionals.  The letter expresses concern that the ACA's policy on "sexual-identity therapy" could jeopardize the rights of both clients and counselors.

In a 2006 Ethics Committee memorandum, the ACA condemned approaches to therapy which attempt to change sexual orientation.  However, in doing so, the ACA also disregarded clients who wish to avoid homosexual behavior on religious grounds.  The ACA stated that working with or referring such clients to counselors who will assist them may violate the ACA's code of ethics.  The memo also indicated that religious perspectives which affirm homosexual behavior are the proper ethical approach when working with clients who have religious conflicts over their same-sex attractions.

ADF attorneys representing Throckmorton wrote a letter to the ACA asking it to change the policy, noting that it is "imperative" that the "religious beliefs of both clients and counselors be respected and protected."


ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.  


ADF: U.S. Coast Guard officers should not be forced to violate conscience in order to serve country

Alliance Defence Fund

Washington, DC, USA

January 04, 2008, 12:00 AM (MST)

On Wednesday, ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of a U.S. Coast Guard officer told he must be injected with a vaccine derived from an aborted child, even though it conflicts with his Catholic beliefs [Healy v. United States Coast Guard] .  The U.S. Coast Guard refused to grant an exemption for Officer Joseph J. Healy, who is Catholic, even though it allows exemptions based on other religious beliefs.

"Those who lay their life on the line to defend our shores are entitled to the same religious freedoms as anyone else," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman.  "Members of the U.S. military should never be forced to make an unconstitutional choice between honoring their country and honoring their faith."

In May 2006, the Coast Guard, which requires its personnel to be vaccinated against a variety of diseases, ordered all active-duty personnel to receive one of two vaccines against Hepatitis A or show proof of immunity.  The vaccines are derived from cells taken from the lung tissue of a child who was electively aborted at 14 weeks gestation and then dissected.  The U.S. Coast Guard allows religious exemptions for those who hold a "religious tenet or belief contrary to immunization."

In compliance with Coast Guard requirements, Healy, a lieutenant commander, submitted a memo requesting religious exemption based on his Catholic faith and strong opposition to abortion.  In response, Capt. Brent Pennington denied the request because he disagreed with Healy's theology, claiming that Catholic teaching "does not state that these immunizations are against the religious tenets of the Catholic Church."

Because of the denial, Healy may be forced, under threat of severe penalty, to receive the immunization against his will.  ADF attorneys have filed a motion along with the lawsuit asking the court to prevent that from happening while the case moves forward in court.


ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.