News Releases: 2008
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).
Related Links:
HHS Regulation
| Commentary on Regulation
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;
Related Links:
HHS Regulation |
Commentary on Regulation
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
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."
Related Links:
HHS Regulation |
Commentary on Regulation
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
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).
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
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
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-
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.
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 League416-466-8244 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.
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.
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."
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."
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."
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.