News Releases: 2009
Senator Reid shutting down debate
Christus
Medicus Foundation (CMF)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 17, 2009
Senator Reid is shutting down debate in the
Senate on health care reform and specifically the critical discussion on
individual right of conscience and religious liberty.
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 15, 2009, U.S Senator Sam Brownback (KS)
courageously introduced to the Senate an amendment to provide strong
conscience protection for individuals and institutional health care
providers including: health plans, health insurance issuers, purchasers
and plan sponsors.
"Our Nation, America, was founded upon the principles of individual
freedom, including the right to exercise religion and individual
conscience", said Mike O'Dea, Director of Christus Medicus.
Understanding these foundations, and the importance of preserving
individual liberties in any new health care legislation, Senator
Brownback introduced the amendment to protect the rights of conscience
against requiring "an individual or institutional health care provider
to provide, participate in, or refer for an item or service to which
such provider has a moral or religious objection, or require such
conduct as a condition of contracting with a qualified health plan."
The concern is not that Senator Reid does not support the amendment,
but that it should not even be considered, debated or voted upon.
Lasting and equitable health care reform cannot distance itself from
ethical and moral decisions. When morally questionable practices are
federally funded or required, it becomes an issue of religious freedom
and a right of individual conscience.
"As Federal health care reform deals with abortion, end of life and
other moral issues, its implication on religious freedom, as a guarantee
of our Constitution,
must be considered", said O'Dea.
Read the
Brownback amendment.
Contact:
Michael J. O'Dea, Executive Director
Christus Medicus Foundation (CMF)
248-980-8456
mikeodea@christusmedicus.com
The Christus Medicus Foundation (CMF) is a
non-profit organization dedicated to reclaim Christ-centered health care
by educating religious leaders, policy makers and the American public on
the need to reform corporate and public policy to allow God's people a
"conscientious choice" in selecting health insurance.
European Center for Law and Justice
Strasbourg, France
For immediate release
20 November, 2009
(Strasbourg, France) - The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) is
very concerned with a new draft resolution from the Council of Europe aimed
to legally limit the freedom of medical doctors and health care providers
who object to abortion.
This new draft Resolution is the last initiative taken by the
Parliamentary Assemble of the Council of Europe in order to promote abortion
and restrict freedom of religion and conscience. This new resolution,
sponsored Ms Hägg and Ms Mc Cafertty (Doc. 11757 and AS/Soc 2009 15) is
entitled "Women's access to lawful medical care: the problem of unregulated
use of conscientious objection".
This resolution has two main objectives: the first - to push for further
access to abortion as a "Human Right" - the second: to limit the possibility
for individual health care providers and institutions "to refuse to provide
certain health services based on religious, moral or philosophical
objections." The "health services" targeted are mostly abortion, emergency
contraception, assisted suicide and artificial procreation.
At the request of Members of Parliamentary Assemble, the ECLJ is
currently preparing a memorandum in support to "conscientious objection"
that will be submitted to the Parliament in the weeks ahead.
See
here the motion for a resolution by Mrs Hägg and others. (Doc. 11757) (French
here)
Contact:
Grégor PUPPINCK
Director
EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR LAW AND JUSTICE
4, Quai Koch
67000 Strasbourg, France
Phone : + 33 (0)3 88 24 94 40
Cell : + 33 (0)6 09 07 05 94
Fax : + 33 (0)3 88 24 94 47
The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) is an
international non-profit law firm dedicated to protecting human rights
and religious freedom in Europe and worldwide. Attorneys for the ECLJ
have served as counsel in numerous cases before the European Court of
Human Rights. Additionally, the ECLJ has special Consultative Status
with ECOSOC of the United Nations, and is accredited to the European
Parliament.
Christian Medical Association
For immediate release
30 September, 2009
The
16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA ), the nation's largest
association of faith-based physicians, today voiced support for
the
conscience-protecting provisions in the "Empowering Patients First Act,"
bill introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA 6th). CMA contended that the
protections are needed to avoid a potentially catastrophic loss of
faith-based healthcare on which millions of poor patients depend.
In a
letter sent to Rep. Price today regarding the bill (HR 3400), CMA CEO Dr.
David Stevens noted, "The Christian Medical Association is very concerned
that some in Congress and the White House appear to be pursuing a
conscience-hostile approach to healthcare legislation, opposing amendment
after amendment that would provide solid-not rhetorically
deceptive-conscience protections.
"Lawmakers must realize that threatening or minimizing conscience
protections holds the potential to create a catastrophic shortage of
healthcare access, especially for poor patients. Our national polling
(available online at www.Freedom2Care.org) reveals that 95 percent of
faith-based physicians are prepared to leave medicine altogether rather than
violate their conscientiously held ethical convictions."
Dr.
Stevens wrote, "As you know, President Obama has announced plans to rescind
the relatively new federal provider conscience regulation, which also
provides for such a reporting mechanism. It is imperative, therefore, to
enact legislation that protects conscience rights from the whims of any
administration that might minimize the opportunity to address civil rights
violations related to conscience."
Dr.
Stevens thanked Rep. Price for recognizing the need for strong, true and
broad conscience protections."The bill [Sec. 106 Part (d) of HR 3400] also
provides a critical component of conscience protections. Many healthcare
professionals encounter pressure to violate ethical codes on many issues
besides abortion. HR 3400 addresses this reality by offering appropriately
broad conscientious protection 'to accommodate the conscientious objection
of a purchaser or an individual or institutional health care provider when a
procedure is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such
purchaser or provider.'"
In his
letter, Dr. Stevens also noted the benefit of designating the Office of
Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as a
reporting outlet for healthcare professionals experiencing discrimination
for their conscientious stance on ethical issues.
"Besides
protecting any individual or institutional health care entity from
discrimination 'on the basis that the health care entity does not provide,
pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions,' the bill also
provides the crucial implementation avenue needed to make such protection
effective."
Contact: Margie Shealy (423) 844-1047, margie.shealy@cmda.org.
Freedom2Care
For immediate release
15 September, 2009
Washington, DC - As coordinator
of the Freedom2Care
coalition of over 50 organizations, today the
Christian Medical Association (CMA) sent a letter to
President Obama indicating that over 10,000 individuals have signed a
Freedom2Care petition urging the President and Congress to protect
conscience rights and stop abortion mandates.
The letter to the President
noted that "the problem of discrimination in health care and protecting
conscience rights through both law and regulation are key to protecting
patients access to health care now and in the future."
CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens said,
"Our polling demonstrates that the American people by two-to-one margins
support conscience-protecting laws and the conscience-protecting regulation
that President Obama plans to get rid of. Our national survey of nearly
3,000 faith-based healthcare professionals reveals that conscience
protections are vital to continuing the faith-based medical care that
millions of patients depend upon.
"Protecting conscience rights
and stopping abortion mandates are crucial for passing healthcare reform
legislation. The Capps amendment in the House bill, which would publicly
fund abortions, and the Kennedy amendment in the Senate bill, which would
require physicians to perform or refer for abortions, are like lethal
injections to the cause of healthcare reform.
CMA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd, MD, an Obstetrician-Gynecologist,
emphasized the data communicated in the letter to the President:
"Our tri-partisan polling shows
that 88% of American patients said it is either
"very" or "somewhat" important to them that they
share a similar set of morals as their doctors,
nurses, and other healthcare providers. And 87%
believed it is important to "make sure that
healthcare professionals in America are not forced
to participate in procedures and practices to which
they have moral objections.
"It's time that the President and
Congress get in step with the American people, stop
trying to mandate and publicly fund abortions, and
start protecting the conscience rights that are key
to protecting access to healthcare for millions of
poor patients."
Related Links:
Letter to
President |Polling results
| About Freedom2Care
Pharmacists
Score a Win in Long Battle for Their Rights
American
Center for Law and Justice
25 August, 2009
(Washington, DC) - On Friday, the circuit court sitting in
Springfield, Ill. issued a preliminary injunction in the case of two
pharmacy owners, Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog. Both men have
been fighting to protect their conscience rights. The American
Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, is
representing the pharmacists in the case of Morr-Fitz, Inc. v.
Blagojevich.
This is the latest victory in an ongoing effort to protect the
fundamental right of pharmacists to practice their profession without
having to violate their conscience.
"The Attorney General's Office has repeatedly argued that the Health
Care Right of Conscience Act does not apply to the practice of
pharmacy-and they have repeatedly failed," said Francis J. Manion, ACLJ
Senior Counsel. "While this is not a final decision on the merits of our
lawsuit, the writing is on the wall. Our clients are entitled to
run their pharmacies according to the dictates of their moral and
religious beliefs. This is what the law allows; this is what the
court has affirmed."
Serving as co-counsel in the case is Mark Rienzi, a professor of law
at Catholic University of America, who argued the motion on Aug. 6th.
In the court's decision, Judge John W. Belz ruled that "Plaintiffs
have certain and ascertainable rights under state and federal law.
Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm in the form of an ongoing
chill of their free exercise rights and rights of conscience under
federal and state law, as well as unlawful coercion based on their
religious and moral beliefs."
The judge went on to find that the plaintiffs "have a likelihood of
success on the merits of their claims."
As a result of the injunction, the pharmacists will be permitted to
refuse to dispense Plan B and other forms of emergency contraception, if
doing so would violate their religious or moral beliefs.
In Menges v. Blagojevich, the ACLJ represented seven
individual pharmacists who succeeded in having the state amend the
regulation to recognize the conscience rights of individual pharmacists.
In Vandersand v. Walmart and Quayle v. Walgreens, the
ACLJ convinced two other courts that Illinois pharmacists are protected
by the State's Health Care Right of Conscience Act.
The current case, Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, seeks to
ensure that pro-life pharmacy owners - not just individual pharmacists -
receive the legal protection to which they are entitled under state laws
as well as the U.S. Constitution.
The injunction will remain in place until a final ruling in the case
is issued.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American
Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in
Washington, D.C.
American Life League
19 August, 2009
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 /Christian
Newswire/ -- Students at Catholic universities across the
nation are banding together with students at Belmont Abbey College in a
stand for religious liberty and conscience rights.
Students from
the University of Dallas, Franciscan University of Steubenville, De
Sales University and Catholic University of America are fighting back as
one private school in North Carolina is being forced to fund
contraception and chemical abortion under the Obama administration's
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The EEOC ignited the
First Amendment firestorm when it ruled Belmont Abbey College must
include coverage for contraception in its employee health insurance
plan. Hormonal contraceptives often function as abortifacients.
"People need to wake up!" said Michael Barnett, American Life League's
director of leadership development and its LiveCampus college outreach
program. "Under Obama, the federal government is forcing a religious
institution to commit an act that violates its core values. This is
religious persecution and a clear signal of what Obamacare would bring.
This is the government imposing its will against the people's will."
In a letter to the Belmont, the EEOC claimed that it is
discriminating against women by not covering contraceptives: "By denying
prescription contraception drugs, [the college] is discriminating based
on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives. By
denying coverage, men are not affected, only women."
In a letter
subsequently sent to EEOC chairman Stuart Ishimaru, Judie Brown,
president of American Life League, pointed out, "The Catholic Church
teaches that contraception is an evil and certainly not the sort of
'treatment' one would expect to find in a health insurance plan designed
for staff at a Catholic facility. Your discriminatory actions against
the college are unfounded and unconstitutional."
William K.
Thierfelder, Belmont's president, affirmed that rather than provide
contraceptive coverage, "We would close the college." Meanwhile, Belmont
students have been excluded from the fray.
"This debate is part
of an ongoing political struggle between the faculty and the
administration of the school, and it entirely excludes the students and
the monks of the Abbey," commented Ann Visintainer, a senior at Belmont.
"We here at the Abbey pray the conflict may be resolved in a respectful
and peaceful way, and in the meantime, we will continue to support and
cherish human life in all its forms."
Not only are Catholic
schools across the country running to the aid of Belmont, many are
gearing up for First Amendment fights of their own in light of the Obama
health care "reform" plan.
"This is an incursion into private
religious belief," explained Larry Meo, president of De Sales University
Students for Life. "The EEOC is attempting to impose a set of values on
a certain group of colleges, and this is the very thing the president
spoke against during his campaign."
Katie Prejean, a Crusaders
for Life member at another Catholic college, the University of Dallas,
agrees: "True Catholic academies are no longer safe from the Obama
administration's desire to manipulate every citizen's health care,
regardless of religious freedom."
Martha McAdams, a student at
the University of Dallas and president of Texas Students for Life, the
statewide student pro-life organization, summed up the issue at the core
of the standoff between the Obama administration and Catholic
institutions: "At the University of Dallas, as at most Catholic
universities, abortion is purposely not included in the
university-provided health insurance because it goes against a natural
belief that all human life is precious."
Contact: Katie Walker -
kwalker@all.org, 540.659.4942.
American Life League was cofounded in 1979
by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life
organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of
all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death.
Related Links:
NC Register
|
Wall St. Journal
| Catholic Online
ADF attorneys respond to claims
of Mount Sinai Hospital
Alliance
Defense Fund
19 August, 2009
NEW YORK - Alliance Defense Fund
attorneys submitted a brief in federal court Monday
in response to the claim of New York's Mount Sinai
Hospital that a pro-life nurse who sued the hospital
has no right to defend herself in court. ADF filed
suit after the hospital forced senior nurse Cathy
Cenzon-DeCarlo to participate in a late-term
abortion procedure.
"Pro-life nurses shouldn't be forced to assist in
abortions against their beliefs. Nonetheless, Mount
Sinai Hospital is multiplying its injustices against
nurse Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo," said ADF Legal Counsel
Matt Bowman. "First it disregarded Cathy's
conscience; now it argues she can't go to court to
defend her rights. Mount Sinai Hospital does not
have the right to disregard federal law and then
refuse to face the consequences of its actions."
Administrators at Mount Sinai Hospital threatened
Cenzon-DeCarlo with disciplinary measures if she did
not honor a last-minute summons to assist in a
scheduled late-term abortion. Despite the fact that
the patient was apparently not in crisis at the time
of the surgery, the hospital insisted on her
participation in the procedure on the grounds that
it was an "emergency," even though the procedure was
not classified by the hospital as such.
ADF attorneys filed suit on behalf of
Cenzon-DeCarlo in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on July 21.
Attorneys for the hospital submitted a
brief to the court Aug. 10 arguing that the
lawsuit should be dismissed because the federal law
at issue "does not grant individual litigants a
private right of action."
ADF attorneys responded to the brief Monday,
noting, "Mount Sinai's compulsion violates 42 U.S.C.
§ 300a-7(c), 'the Church Amendment' (named after
Senator Frank Church). This law provides that no
recipient of federal health funds may discriminate
in the employment or privileges of its health care
personnel because of their religious objection to
abortion. The law contains no exception letting
Mount Sinai compel assistance based on their
unbridled judgment that abortion is an 'emergency.'
Mount Sinai's actions are a quintessential example
of discriminating in employment and privileges on
condition that Mrs. DeCarlo violate her objection to
abortion."
The ADF brief goes on to explain that "Mount Sinai
compounds its contempt of the law" by denying that
the law allows Cenzon-DeCarlo to defend her
conscience rights. The brief points out that a
federal court just this year "not only recognized an
individual right, but allowed the plaintiff (in that
case an abortion supporter) to seek punitive
damages." It also points out that the federal law
involves all of the factors that the U.S. Supreme
Court has used to recognize such rights and that
Congress obviously intended to protect individuals
from discrimination under the law it created.
New York ADF-allied attorneys Joseph Ruta and Piero
Tozzi are serving as local counsel in the case, Cenzon-DeCarlo v. The Mount Sinai Hospital.
The court will hold a pre-trial conference on Sept.
10.
Contact: ADF MEDIA RELATIONS
(480) 444-0020
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and
like-minded organizations defending the right of people
to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF
employs a unique combination of
strategy,
training, funding, and litigation to protect and
preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life,
marriage, and the family.
Related Links:
New York Post |
NY nurse threatened, forced to assist in late-term
abortion |
Nurse forced to assist in late term abortion |
NY nurse forced to do the unthinkable
Inside the Issues with Alan Sears
Alliance
Defense Fund
August 18, 2009
The administrators at New York City's Mount Sinai Hospital knew at least three
things, that Sunday morning, when they ordered senior nurse Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo,
at the last minute, to assist in a late-term abortion:
- They knew that Cathy, who is a devoted follower of Christ and a
Catholic, was on long-term record with the hospital as opposing abortion for
religious reasons.
- They knew that, despite what some of them were telling Cathy, the
medical situation was not a true emergency, and the mother's life was not at
stake.
- They knew that, under federal law, any hospital receiving federal health
funds - as Mount Sinai does - cannot force its employees to assist in
abortion procedures under any circumstances.
Despite all that, the administrators told Cathy that if she didn't assist in the
procedure, she would face disciplinary action - likely including termination and
loss of her professional license.
"Pro-life nurses shouldn't be forced to assist in abortions against their
beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, who is representing Cathy in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. "Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion
in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of
conscience. Federal law requires that employers who receive funding from tax
dollars must not compel employees to violate their sincerely held religious
beliefs, but this nurse's objections fell on deaf ears."
ADF attorneys are also requesting a
preliminary injunction that would order the hospital to honor
Cenzon-DeCarlo's religious objection against assisting in abortion and refrain
from retaliation against her while the case moves forward. New York ADF-allied
attorneys Joseph Ruta and Piero Tozzi are serving as local counsel in the case.
"Chasing away workers from the health care field is disastrous health care
policy," said Bowman. "An individual's conscience is likely what brought them to
the health care field. Denying or coercing their conscience will likely drive
them right out."
Cathy's case is a clear example of an employer violating an employee's right of
conscience - and violations like this are happening all over the country
everyday to people of sincere religious faith who work in the medical
profession: not only nurses, but doctors and pharmacists as well. Please be in
prayer for those who are trying to blend their medical skills with a Christ-like
compassion and godly reverence for human life - and in particular prayer for our
attorneys as they represent Cathy in this high profile and potentially
nation-shaping case.
Contact: ADF MEDIA RELATIONS
(480) 444-0020
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and
like-minded organizations defending the right of people
to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF
employs a unique combination of
strategy,
training, funding, and litigation to protect and
preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life,
marriage, and the family.
Related Links:
New York Post |
NY nurse threatened, forced to assist in late-term
abortion |
Nurse forced to assist in late term abortion |
ADF rebuts NY hospital's claim that pro-life nurse can't sue
Wisconsin Catholic Conference
17 August, 2009
For Immediate Release
Wisconsin's bishops have called a provision in the
recently enacted state budget that mandates health insurance policies
cover contraceptive services as "blatantly insensitive" to the moral
values of Catholics. The bishops commented on the provision in a letter
to Catholics. The letter is being distributed to the state's diocesan
newspapers.
This mandate takes effect early in 2010, or upon
expiration of any existing contract or agreement. The mandate affects
the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the Green Bay and Madison dioceses
whose employee health insurance policies are the kind that must be
altered to comply with the new law when they are renewed next year. The
mandate does not apply to the self-funded health insurance plans of the
La Crosse and Superior dioceses.
Most states that have adopted this type of mandate
include an exception for religious institutions or for certain
employers. However, the provision in the Wisconsin state budget did not
include such an exception.
In their letter, the bishops wrote they would continue
to provide health insurance to employees as they consider their options
for contesting the policy.
Diocesan leaders are assessing how to react to the
mandate. WCC Executive Director John Huebscher noted that dioceses in
other states with similar laws have opted to self fund their health
insurance plans, but he emphasized that no diocese affected by the new
law has made any decisions at this time.
"There is time to review and analyze all the options
carefully and the diocesan leadership is doing just that," he said.
-30-
For more information, contact John Huebscher or Kim Wadas,
608/257-0004.
Related Links:
Bishops' Letter
The
Cardinal Newman Society
For Immediate Release
10 August, 2009
Manassas,
Va. -
The U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ruled that a small Catholic college must
include coverage for artificial contraceptives in its employee health insurance
plan, raising new concerns about the need for conscience protections and
religious exemptions in America's health care policies. The Cardinal Newman Society
(CNS) today sent a letter to EEOC acting chairman Stuart Ishimaru, noting that
"it is ironic that the federal agency responsible for protecting against
discrimination has so blatantly engaged in an inexcusable violation of religious
liberty in its Belmont Abbey ruling."
CNS also is sending a letter
to all Catholic bishops in the United States, informing them of the EEOC action
against Belmont Abbey College and highlighting the dangerous precedent this
ruling sets to force Catholic employers to included contraceptive coverage in
employee health plans.
"No Catholic college or other
institution should be required by government to violate the Catholic Church's
clear moral teachings," said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman
Society. "The apparently increasing insensitivity to religious beliefs
should frighten all employers and employees. We urge religious leaders to stand
in defense of Belmont Abbey College."
In December 2007, Belmont
Abbey College removed coverage for abortion, contraception and voluntary
sterilization after they were accidentally included in the college's insurance
plan. Eight faculty members filed complaints with the EEOC and the North
Carolina Department of Insurance.
"As a Roman Catholic
institution, Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor
subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic
Church," said Belmont Abbey President William Thierfelder. "There was no other
course of action possible if we were to operate in fidelity to our mission and
to our identity as a Catholic college."
The EEOC determined that
Belmont Abbey has discriminated against women by denying coverage of
contraception.
"By denying prescription
contraception drugs, Respondent [Belmont Abbey College] is discriminating based
on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives. By
denying coverage, men are not affected, only women," wrote Reuben Daniels Jr. in
his determination as the EEOC Charlotte District Office Director.
Belmont Abbey College has been
directed by the EEOC to reach an agreeable resolution with faculty. If
this does not happen, Daniels will advise the parties of available enforceable
court alternatives.
Belmont Abbey College is
included in The Newman Guide to Choosing a
Catholic College for its fidelity to Catholic identity and mission.
Published by CNS, The Newman Guide
is now a free online resource at
TheNewmanGuide.com. The next edition will be published in September
2009.
Contact: Adam Wilson at
703/367-0333, ext. 102 or outreach@cardinalnewmansociety.org
ADF attorneys file lawsuit against hospital for
violating Christian nurse's rights of conscience
Alliance
Defense Fund
For immediate release
22 July, 2009
NEW YORK
- Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a
lawsuit Monday against Mount Sinai Hospital on
behalf of a Catholic nurse who was forced to participate
in a late-term abortion under the threat of disciplinary
action, including possible termination and loss of her
license. The hospital has known of her religious
objections to abortion since 2004.
Hospital administrators told the nurse that the
scheduled abortion was an "emergency," though evidence
shows otherwise, and insisted moments before the
procedure that she assist doctors despite her repeated
objections to the procedure, which dismembered
a preborn child in the 22nd week of gestation. By
federal law, hospitals that receive federal funds cannot
force employees to participate in abortion procedures
under any circumstances.
"Pro-life nurses shouldn't be forced to assist in
abortions against their beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel
Matt Bowman. "Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to
participate in a late-term abortion in order to remain
employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights
of conscience. Federal law requires that employers who
receive funding from tax dollars must not compel
employees to violate their sincerely held religious
beliefs, but this nurse's objections fell on deaf ears."
"Chasing away workers from the health care field is
disastrous health care policy," said Bowman. "An
individual's conscience is likely what brought them to
the health care field. Denying or coercing their
conscience will likely drive them right out."
Administrators at Mount Sinai Hospital threatened senior
nurse Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo with disciplinary measures if
she did not honor a last-minute summons to assist in a
scheduled late-term abortion. Despite the fact that the
patient was not in crisis at the time of the surgery,
the hospital insisted on her participation in the
procedure on the grounds that it was an "emergency" even
though the procedure was not classified as such.
"Category I" is the classification reserved for
"patients requiring immediate surgical intervention for
life or limb threatening conditions." The surgery in
this case was classified as "Category II," for
operations needing to take place within six hours,
indicating that the hospital had no reason to insist
upon Cenzon-DeCarlo's assistance in the abortion in
order to protect the patient. Plenty of time existed to
find a different nurse to assist, especially since
evidence indicates that the patient's condition did not
rise even to a Category II. In fact, Cenzon-DeCarlo
observed no indications that the abortion was a medical
emergency while in the operating room.
ADF attorneys filed the
complaint in
Cenzon-DeCarlo v. The Mount Sinai
Hospital with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. They are also
requesting a preliminary injunction that would order
the hospital to honor Cenzon-DeCarlo's religious
objection against assisting in abortion and refrain from
retaliation against her while the case moves
forward. New York ADF-allied attorneys Joseph Ruta and
Piero Tozzi are serving as local counsel in the case.
Fact sheet on
lawsuit, including links to resources
Contact: ADF MEDIA RELATIONS
(480) 444-0020
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and
like-minded organizations defending the right of people
to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF
employs a unique combination of
strategy,
training, funding, and litigation to protect and
preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life,
marriage, and the family.
Related Links:
New York Post |
Nurse forced to assist in late term abortion |
NY nurse forced to do the unthinkable |ADF rebuts NY hospital's claim that pro-life nurse can't sue
Alliance of Catholic Health Care
For Immediate Release
June 9, 2009
SACRAMENTO - William J. Cox,
president of the Alliance of Catholic Health Care,
released the following statement concerning
efforts by the Obama Administration to rescind
regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services to protect hospitals and health care workers
from intimidation and discrimination when
they exercise their rights under the law not to
participate in abortion or other objectionable medical
procedures:
"Since the 1973 US Supreme Court
decision,
Roe v. Wade, abortion has been legal and readily accessible in the United States.
"That same decision also recognized that
the moral or ethical considerations of individual hospitals and health care workers had to
be considered and that 'no physician, hospital or
hospital personnel [could] be required to violate
personally-held moral principles.'
"Nevertheless, the opponents of the
conscience rights laws and regulation believe health
care providers should be compelled by law to
provide or refer for abortion, even if doing so would
violate their deepest moral convictions.
"As a practical matter, using state
power to coerce health care providers to engage in
conduct contrary to their consciences will
diminish access to a host of medical services as health
care providers committed to their moral and religious
beliefs are driven from health care, and other
conscientious objectors are deterred from entering the
health professions in the first place.
"At issue is whether the Obama
administration and Congress intend to protect the civil
rights of health care providers by maintaining and
enforcing the federal laws that prevent them from being compelled to perform services they find
morally objectionable.
"The Administration has taken a step in
the right direction by announcing it would support extending, for at least a year, an
existing federal law that protects the consciences of
health care providers. But doing so at the same time
it proposes the elimination of regulatory protections
sends a mixed signal, at best.
"If the term 'choice' means anything at
all, it must apply equally to those who support abortion and those who conscientiously object to
it."
Contact:
Kevin Eckery(916) 443-2528 | keckery@eckery.com
The Alliance of Catholic Health Care represents four California Catholic health
care systems and their 54 hospitals. It is based in
Sacramento, CA
Related Links:
Conscience
Rights Op ED |
Conscience Protection Q & A |
Primer Federal Conscience Laws |
Rescission Proposal Release |
Rescission Proposal Comments
Medical professionals and lawmakers ask President
Obama not to rescind conscience rule; want Governor Schwarzenegger to
join them
Freedom2Care
For Immediate Release
9 June, 2009
SACRAMENTO, CA - California lawmakers, including Senate
Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth and Senator George Runner, along
with doctors in white coats, nurses and other healthcare professionals,
said this morning on the North Steps of the Capitol that it is
imperative the "conscience clause" rule is not rescinded, as President
Barack Obama as indicated he will do in the near future.
The conscience clause protects those doctors, nurses
and medical students who decline to perform procedures, like abortions,
to which they are morally opposed. The issue of conscience rights for
medical professionals is currently being decided by the Obama
Administration.
How would a lack of conscience protection affect access
to care in California? According a recent survey, 95% of faith-based
doctors said they would stop practicing medicine if forced to choose
between performing an abortion or losing their jobs. A total of
9,381,606 patients in California are cared for by 69 faith-based
hospitals each year. Current projections also indicate a 200,000
physician shortage by 2025.
"In these times of budgetary crisis here in California,
the regulation helps to ensure that our patients will have access to the
doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals they depend on,"
said Dr. Darilyn Falck, an emergency medical physician in Sacramento who
represented the Christian Medical Association at the press conference.
Rescinding the conscience rule will not only have
adverse effects on access to treatment and care in California but will
also exacerbate the budget problems in the state.
"The loss of these faith-based physicians would have a
devastating impact on health care access and would disproportionately
hurt the poor and medically underserved populations, where often
faith-based healthcare is their only option," said Dr. Falck.
The group of doctors, under the Freedom2Care
organization, also released a letter to President Barack Obama asking
him to keep in place the conscience clause. Another letter went to
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, asking for his public support
for the conscience clause and to join with the doctors and other
healthcare professionals in asking the President to not rescind the
rule.
"Many of the patients visiting faith-based hospitals,
clinics and practices are uninsured or have Medicaid. Given the current
crisis, in which millions of adults and children are losing coverage,
California cannot afford to allow the Federal government to rescind the
conscience clause. If it is rescinded, a healthcare crisis of greatest
proportions would arise," reads the letter to Governor Schwarzenegger.
"If the term 'choice' means anything at all, it must
apply equally to those who support abortion and those who
conscientiously object to it," said William J. Cox, president of the
Alliance of Catholic Health Care, in a statement released today.
Contact: Kristina Hernandez 703-683-5005
Hospital wanted court to rule against nurse; instead, she will get her
day in court
Alliance
Defence Fund
20 May, 2009
NEW ORLEANS - The Louisiana Supreme Court Friday declined to hear an appeal
by St. Tammany Parish Hospital in a nurse's lawsuit filed by ADF attorneys and
an ADF-allied attorney. A trial judge had ruled against issuing summary
judgment in favor of the hospital, so that decision will stand. The nurse,
Toni Lemly, sued the hospital in 2005 after it refused to grant a reasonable
accommodation for her religious beliefs.
"Pro-life medical personnel shouldn't be penalized for their beliefs," said
ADF-allied attorney Brian Arabie of Lake Charles. "The hospital acted
unlawfully when it refused to make a reasonable accommodation for Ms. Lemly and
instead terminated her full-time position."
Lemly informed hospital staff that she objected to administering the "morning
after" abortion pill because of her religious beliefs. In response, St.
Tammany Parish Hospital fired Lemly from her full-time position and reduced her
to part-time status, working only three days a week. Her demotion resulted
in a significant reduction in pay and the loss of employee benefits. The
hospital declined several reasonable suggestions made by Lemly, a nurse for 23
years, that would have enabled the facility to continue administering the pill
while allowing her to abstain from dispensing it herself. The hospital
chose not to act on any of her suggestions.
The lawsuit, Lemly v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital District No. 1, was
filed in the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany in June
2005.
The court
denied the hospital's motion for summary judgment in Januar"Toni provided St. Tammany Parish Hospital with options that would have
accommodated both her full-time position and their wish to distribute the
morning-after abortion pill," Arabie said. "Instead, the hospital chose to
engage in discrimination based on her courageous commitment to the unborn.
We are hopeful that the hospital will change course, do what's right for a
dedicated nurse and her constitutional rights, and discontinue the need for any
further litigation."
H.B. 517, a bill that would protect health care providers' rights of
conscience, passed the Louisiana House of Representatives Tuesday and now goes
to the Senate. Also awaiting Senate approval, after overwhelming approval
by the House, is
H.B. 340, a constitutional amendment that would protect religious liberty
rights from violation by the government.
• Opposition
to application for writ of review filed on behalf of Toni Lemly
• Writ
denial issued by the Louisiana Supreme Court
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded
organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.
Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of
strategy, training, funding, and litigation
to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and
the family.
Rescinding the conscience
clause will force thousands of doctors to choose
between their jobs or their moral values
Freedom2Care.org
For immediate release
18 May, 2009
WASHINGTON, DC - President
Obama gave specific attention to the "conscience
clause" in yesterday's commencement speech at
Notre Dame. He said he wants to "honor the
conscience of those who disagree with abortion,
and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make
sure that all of our health care policies are
grounded not only in sound science, but also in
clear ethics, as well as respect for the
equality of women."
The president is poised to rescind
the regulation at any time. Dr. David Stevens,
president of the Christian Medical Association and a
member of Freedom2Care, an umbrella coalition of
over 45 organizations representing 6 million
constituents, released the following statement on
Obama's comments:
"Since present laws regarding
conscience have no enforcement provision, the
conscience clause is a needed regulation to
protect doctors, nurses and other healthcare
professionals from discrimination based upon
their desire to practice life medicine and
decline medical procedures which are violate
their conscience or ethical convictions. The
President has falsely asserted that merely
"educating" on the issue of conscience rights
would suffice. No amount of education would have
changed the discrimination against African
Americans in the sixties, enforceable laws were
needed.
And I doubt if the President
would find it fair to force conscientious
objectors to fight in a war that that they
believed violated their beliefs, so why should
our nation's health care professionals, on the
front lines of our nation's health care crisis,
be forced to violate their conscience.
"Even though President Obama
said he wants to 'honor the conscience of those
who disagree with abortion', his actions clearly
state he has no intention of doing so. You don't
honor someone by forcing them to violate their
conscience.
"The current regulation is
reasonable and sensible and should not be repealed.
When the choice of whether to violate one's
conscience or leave their practice was posed to the
nation's faith-based healthcare professionals, 95%
of those surveyed say they will leave medicine.
That's not advancing healthcare reform; that's
creating a healthcare crisis. The healthcare crisis
created by removing conscience protections will
leave poor patients and those in medically
underserved areas without the compassionate and
conscientious faith-based health care they depend
upon.
"So once you blow away the
smokescreen of 'fair-minded' rhetoric, what remains
is a radical, intolerant approach to health care
that sees abortion not as a choice but a mandate.
And by trashing the conscience regulation that
implements existing civil rights law, the message to
healthcare professionals is clear: either perform or
refer for abortions or get drummed out of medicine."
"We have specifically requested a
meeting with President Obama or his staff and have
not received any response. If the president is truly
concerned about finding common ground, he should
meet with doctors and patients who would be affected
by the rescission of the conscience clause, rather
than spout meaningless rhetoric in name of unity."
Contact: Arina Grossu at
703-683-5004.
Christian Medical Association and Christian
Legal Society File Brief in Baxter v. Montana on
Threat to Conscience Rights of Medical Professionals
That Object to Assisting in Suicide
Christian
Legal Society
May 1, 2009
For Immediate Release
HELENA, MONTANA - The Christian Legal Society
and Christian Medical Association asked the Montana
Supreme Court yesterday to protect the conscience
rights of healthcare professionals who object to
assisting in suicides. In a
friend of the
court brief filed in Baxter v. Montana, the
organizations, together comprising over 18,000
Christian medical and legal professionals, urged the
Court to reverse a decision finding a state
constitutional right to assisted suicide or,
alternatively, asked the Court to recognize a
parallel right not to participate.
"The trial court's decision to create a
constitutional right to 'obtain assistance from a
medical care provider in the form of obtaining a
prescription for lethal drugs' threatens the rights
of healthcare professionals and institutions that
hold sincere ethical, moral, and religious
objections to participating in the intentional
killing of their patients," said Casey Mattox,
litigation counsel with CLS' Center for Law &
Religious Freedom. "Medical professionals
should not be coerced to violate the Hippocratic
Oath in order to practice in Montana."
Noting that Montana law contains no protection of
the right of a medical professional not to assist in
suicides, the brief urges the Court to reverse the
district court's decision finding a state
constitutional right, permitting the legislative
process to work. The brief notes that unlike
with Montana's judicially imposed "right," when
Oregon and Washington created a "right to die" they
explicitly protected the rights of objecting medical
professionals not to participate.not to participate.
The brief explains that forcing medical
professionals to assist in suicides could jeopardize
Montana's healthcare system by undermining the
trusting relationship between doctors and patients
and making Montana the only state in the union where
a physician may be compelled to help a patient kill
themselves, encouraging medical professionals to
seek to practice elsewhere.
"At a time when states are experiencing a healthcare
shortage, making Montana the only state in the union
to coerce professionals to assist in suicides could
jeopardize the state's healthcare system," Mattox
said.
Jeffrey Davidson and Nathan Chapman of Wilmer,
Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr assisted the Center
for Law & Religious Freedom in drafting this
brief.
CONTACT M. Casey
Mattox: (703) 642-1070 x3505
The Center for Law & Religious Freedom is the advocacy division of
the Christian Legal Society, a nationwide association of Christian
attorneys, law students, law professors, and judges. The
Center is among the most respected voices in the religious liberty
arena.
Michigan Catholic Conference
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
(Lansing)- Earlier this year the Obama administration announced plans
to rescind a recently implemented regulation that
provides conscience protections for individual and
institutional health care providers, and today the
Michigan Catholic Conference welcomed a state Senate
resolution expressing the body's opposition to the
administration's plan.
"Democrats
and Republicans who voted to support today's resolution are
to be praised for lending their voices to a critical policy
matter that affects every individual who works in and
benefits from the services provided by our health care
professionals and institutions," said MCC Vice President for
Public Policy Paul Long.
According to
Senate Resolution 43
: "The recent move by the Obama
administration to rescind the conscience clause regulations
jeopardizes the right of a health care professional to
follow his or her personal or religious convictions. This
regulation was carefully designed to safeguard against
forced violations of conscience in federally funded health
care programs."
The resolution goes on to state: "If
conscientiously opposed individuals and institutions were
forced to make a choice between performing abortions and
facing punishment, they will still not perform abortions
but, instead, face the punishment - whether this means loss
of a job, loss of participation in a government program, or
even civil or criminal penalties. This results in the
provider being punished for heeding the voice of
conscience."
In 2008 the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services proposed, then later
implemented, a regulation enforcing three longstanding
federal laws that protect individual and institutional
health care providers from being forced to participate in
procedures to which they have a moral or religious
objection. The first law was enacted by Congress in 1973,
called the Church amendment, which helps to ensure that
health care personnel with moral or religious objections to
abortion, sterilization or other medical or research
activities are not discriminated against. The second law,
called the Coats/Snowe amendment, was enacted in 1996 and
forbids federal agencies, and state or local governments
receiving federal funds, to discriminate against health care
providers and health training programs because they do not
provide abortions or abortion training. Third is the Weldon
amendment, which has been included in the Labor/Health and
Human Services appropriations bill every year since 2004,
and forbids federal funding for government bodies which
discriminate against health care providers and insurers that
are not involved in abortion.
In
March of this year, under the new administration, the
Department of Health and Human Services began the process of
rescinding the federal conscience regulation that was
implemented in December 2008 to safeguard the
above-mentioned laws. The public was given until April 9 to
provide comment on the proposal and a final decision on the
rescission of the regulation has yet to be made. Several
hundred messages were sent from the Michigan Catholic
Conference's grassroots advocacy tool, the Catholic
Legislative Advocacy Network, in opposition to the proposed
rescission. The United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops also invited public comments through its sister
organization, the National Committee for a Human Life
Amendment, and
posted several
videos on YouTube featuring doctors and nurses
from across the country opposed to the proposal.
Threats to conscience protection have been
greatly increasing in recent years as states such as New
York and California have considered laws to force Catholic
hospitals to provide abortions and other "services" against
Catholic teaching. In Michigan,
legislation
that would have specifically prohibited individuals from
invoking their conscience rights in the delivery of
prescription medication passed out of committee last
session.
"Despite the presence of
federal laws, the conscience protection regulation
implemented last year is necessary because some elected
officials, supported by various advocacy groups, are taking
radical steps to actually prohibit health care providers and
individuals from invoking their right to conscience," said
Long. "The presence of the conscience regulations helps to
protect those workers who do not want to be forced into
performing a medical procedure they find morally
objectionable."
Senate Resolution 43, which passed the chamber 23-12, is sponsored by Senator
Tom George (R-Kalamazoo) and will be transmitted to the
Office of the President of the United States, the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives, and members of
the Michigan congressional delegation.
Michigan Catholic Conference is the official public
policy voice of the Catholic Church in this state.
Contact: Paul
Long (517) 372.9310
plong@micatholicconference.org
Advocates International
10 April, 2009
WASHINGTON, DC - Representing a coalition of medical and legal professionals, attorneys for
Advocates International
(AI) and and the Christian Legal Society (CLS) today warned the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) against rescinding protections for healthcare professionals' freedom of conscience currently set forth in federal regulations (45 C.F.R., Part 88) as HHS proposed to do on March 10 (74 Fed. Reg. 10207).
In addition to AI and CLS, the Coalition includes the thousands of faith-based health care professionals represented by Christian Medical Association, Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants, Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International, Heartbeat International, and CareNet.
The HHS has proposed to rescind regulations the previous administration enacted to protect freedom of conscience. The regulations prohibit federal grantees from discriminating against medical professionals and institutions for exercising their conscience rights. These victims of discrimination include doctors, physician assistants, and nurses that decline to perform or refer for abortions and medical students that do not wish to train in the performance of abortions. HHS accepted comments on the proposed rescission through midnight last night.
"Our comments let Planned Parenthood, other abortion advocates, and the states challenging these laws demonstrate with their own words that they are uninformed about their obligations as federal grantees under 35 years of conscience protection statutes," said both Sam Casey, General Counsel of Advocates International and Casey Mattox, Litigation Counsel for CLS' Center for Law & Religious Freedom.
"These regulations simply require recipients of federal funds to certify that they will obey existing federal laws barring non-discrimination against health care providers and entities who exercise their rights of conscience. Sadly, rescission is being proposed by the most abortion-friendly administration simply to make it harder for health care professionals to enforce their conscience rights to stand for life. We are asking the Obama administration to relent in their potentially unconstitutional and surely un-American proposal."
The comments also provide testimonies of discrimination against dozens of medical professionals because they refused to participate in abortions, and point to recent polls conducted by coalition member Christian Medical Association which reveal 87% of Americans believe conscience rights should be protected.
The coalition has produced evidence that over 90% of pro-life healthcare professionals would sooner leave the field than violate their conscience. This would result in reduced access to medical care, particularly for women. For further information see
Freedom2Care.org.
"The abortion lobby calls this a 'midnight regulation,' but if they had their way it would be the 11th hour for conscience in the medical profession," said Casey and Mattox.
The coalition's comments
and
Appendix A and
Appendix B to them are available as
hyperlinked here.
Contact:
Samuel B. Casey,
sbcasey@advocatesinternational.org
Advocates International is an
international organization of attorneys in over 150
nations who seek to do justice with compassion,
including through its Global Task Forces on the Law of
Life protecting the inalienable and sacred right to
human life from biological conception to natural death.
CMA physicians unveil new polls: Obama plan to scrap
conscience rule panned by the public and a threat to
patients
Christian Medical Association
For Immediate Release
8 April, 2009
Washington, DC--
The Christian Medical Association, the nation's largest
association of faith-based physicians, today warned that the
Obama administration's plan to scrap a conscience-protecting
healthcare regulation is very unpopular and threatens to cut
off patient access to healthcare professionals and
institutions nationwide, especially imperiling the poor and
medically underserved populations.
Speaking at the National Press Club, CMA CEO Dr. David
Stevens unveiled a new
national poll, commissioned by CMA and conducted by The
Polling Company, Inc., that shows that 87% of American
adults surveyed said it is important to "make sure that
healthcare professionals in America are not forced to
participate in procedures and practices to which they have
moral objections."
The national telephone
survey of the public also showed that 63% support the
existing conscience protection regulation and 62% oppose the
Obama administration's proposal to get rid of it. Public
comments on Obama's proposal end April 9.
A new
online poll of faith-based healthcare professionals,
also conducted by The Polling Company, Inc., found that 95%
of physicians agreed, "I would rather stop practicing
medicine altogether than be forced to violate my
conscience."
Dr. Stevens said, "Rescinding these regulations is
dangerous for patients. They may soon find a sign hanging on
the door of their doctor's office or hospital stating, 'Out
of business--wouldn't do abortions.'" The public poll found
that fully 88% of American adults surveyed said it is either
"very" or "somewhat" important to them that they enjoy a
similar set of morals as their doctors, nurses and other
healthcare providers. Dr. Stevens noted, "Patients have a
right to choose a healthcare professional who shares their
moral views. No reasonable patient wants a doctor doing a
procedure on them with which they are not only uncomfortable
but morally opposed to.
"These regulations put teeth into the law and insure
patients have the doctors and nurses they need. Removing
them sends a clear message, 'It is open season on healthcare
professionals of conscience. Discriminate at will.'"
CMA has organized
Freedom2Care, a coalition of 35 organizations
representing over five million constituents, to advance
conscience protections. Individuals have used the
Freedom2Care web site to send over 34,000 comments to
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Contact:Margie Shealy
Telephone: 888-230-2637;
mobile: 423-341-4254
E-mail:
margie.shealy@cmda.org
Americans
United for Life
7 April, 2009
CHICAGO -- Americans United for Life (AUL) today filed
comments with the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) supporting the retention of a
December 2008 rule providing a much-needed
enforcement mechanism for federal laws protecting healthcare
freedom of conscience.
Dr.
Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO
stated, "Congress has a 36-year history of passing laws to
protect healthcare freedom of conscience. This rule simply
provides HHS and the Administration with the means to
fulfill their sworn constitutional duty to properly enforce
these laws."
On
March 10, 2009
, HHS announced its intention
to rescind the rule enacted in the final months of the Bush
Administration. The rule is opposed by pro-abortion groups,
who included a demand for its repeal in a 55-page memorandum
to the Obama Transition Team in December 2008--arguing it
limits access to the full range of reproductive healthcare.
AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs
Denise Burke remarked, "Comprehensive
conscience protections and proper enforcement of existing
federal laws will help ensure access to quality medical care
for all Americans."
Burke continued, "While the majority of federal
conscience laws are intended to protect those who decline to
participate in abortions, some also protect those who choose
to perform them. It is, therefore, incredibly short-sighted
for abortion advocates to actively lobby against the
enforcement of these protections."
Americans United for Life (AUL)
is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization
whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in
life and protected in law. The first national pro-life
organization in America, 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' Frontline program chronicled AUL's successful efforts
in Mississippi
Liberty
Counsel
April 7, 2009
Washington, D.C. - Liberty Counsel has
filed a public comment with the United States Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) opposing President Barack
Obama's proposed repeal of the Provider Conscience
Regulation (73 Fed. Reg. 50,274). If the regulation is
repealed, then healthcare providers could be forced to
participate in abortions and other ethically controversial
practices in violation of their moral or religious beliefs
at the risk of losing their jobs or board certifications.
The purpose of the Conscience Regulation is to protect
healthcare providers from invidious discrimination when they
rely upon their moral or religious beliefs, particularly
when confronted with a request to perform an abortion. The
idea of a conscience regulation is not new. The Conscience
Regulation merely makes healthcare providers aware of their
rights, enforces already-existing federal laws, and gives
healthcare providers a remedy when they face discrimination
based upon their moral or religious beliefs.
The Conscience Regulation is vitally important to any
healthcare provider who feels compelled not to perform
abortions or refer patients to receive abortions. Without
the Regulation, healthcare providers will be forced to
either perform abortions or leave the medical field.
Overturning the Regulation will also have the effect of
worsening existing healthcare shortages and robbing women of
the ability to choose pro-life healthcare.
Repealing the Conscience Regulation will affect not only
individual healthcare providers, but also many religiously
affiliated hospitals. A number of Roman Catholic bishops
have threatened to engage in civil disobedience or to close
healthcare facilities rather than perform abortions. Other
religiously affiliated hospitals may likewise cease
operations. Thus, repealing the Conscience Regulation would
have a negative impact on the provision of healthcare even
beyond the realm of abortion. No person should be forced to
be involved in medical practices that go against the strong
dictates of conscience.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "No provision in our
Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which
protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of
the civil authority."
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of
Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Protecting
conscience from the heavy hand of the law is the very
essence of liberty. Rather than reducing abortion or the
so-called culture war, President Barack Obama has funded
abortion and now seeks to force conscientious objectors to
participate in abortion. If we fail to protect healthcare
providers, the consequences will be far reaching. When civil
government tramples upon a person's conscience, tyranny
cannot be far away."
American
Center for Law and Justice
6
April, 2009
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS
WIRE)--The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ),
focusing on constitutional law, said today it's pleased with
an important victory in its ongoing litigation to protect
the conscience rights of pharmacists in the State of
Illinois. On Friday, April 3, 2009, the Circuit Court in
Springfield, Illinois issued a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) against the Governor of Illinois and other state
officials, ordering them not to enforce a 2005
administrative regulation that required all pharmacies to
dispense Plan B and other forms of abortion producing drugs.
"This is yet another step on the road to full protection
for the rights of conscience of all health care workers,"
said Francis J. Manion, ACLJ Senior Counsel who argued the
motion for the TRO on behalf of the pharmacists. "In ruling
in favor of our clients, the court rejected the attempt of
Illinois officials to trample on the rights of our clients
and disregard existing laws passed by the legislature for
the very purpose of protecting those rights. We will
continue to press this issue until we have obtained full
protection for the conscience rights of these professionals
who should not have to choose between their deeply held
religious beliefs and license revocation and other
penalties."
In issuing the Order, Judge John Belz found that the
regulation posed a real threat of irreparable harm to
pharmacists with religious objections to selling such drugs
and that the ACLJ's clients -- Luke VanderBleek and Glenn
Kosirog -- two pharmacists who own five pharmacies between
them -- were "likely to succeed" on the merits of their
claim that the regulation violates the Illinois Health Care
Right of Conscience Act. A hearing on the pharmacists'
request for a permanent injunction will be held sometime in
June.
This case is one of a number of lawsuits the ACLJ has
been involved in Illinois since 2005 when then-Governor Rod
Blagojevich, at the urging of Planned Parenthood, NARAL and
other pro-abortion groups, issued an Executive Order that
targeted pro-life pharmacists who objected to dispensing
abortion causing drugs.
In Menges v. Blagojevich, et al., the ACLJ
represented seven individual pharmacists who succeeded in
having the state amend the regulation to recognize the
conscience rights of individual pharmacists. In Vandersand v. Walmart and
Quayle, et al. v. Walgreens,
the ACLJ convinced two other courts that Illinois
pharmacists are protected by the State's Health Care Right
of Conscience Act. The current case, Morr-Fitz et al. v.
Blagojevich, et al., seeks to ensure that pro-life
pharmacy owners -- not just individual pharmacists --
receive the legal protection to which they are entitled
under state laws as well as the U.S. Constitution. The ACLJ
is co-counsel in the Morr-Fitz case with Mark Rienzi
of Wilmer Hale in Washington, D.C.
"All the conscience laws in the world will only be
effective if those whose rights are endangered are ready to
fight attempts by government and private entities to ignore
them," said Manion. "We will continue to fight for pro-life
health care workers to ensure that existing laws have the
teeth in them needed to be effective."
This legal victory comes as the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services continues to solicit public comment on
President Obama's plan to rescind Conscience Clause
protections at the federal level that have been in place to
protect the rights of pro-life medical personnel. The ACLJ
has heard from more than 200,000 Americans urging President
Obama to reconsider and keep the Conscience Clause
protections in place. The HHS public comment period ends
this week.
The ACLJ has been and remains at the forefront of
litigation to protect the religious freedom and conscience
rights of health care professionals.
Media Contacts: For Print: Gene Kapp,
For Broadcast: Christy Lynn Wilson or Todd Shearer,770-813-0000
ACLJ Newsroom:Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the
American Center for Law and Justice focuses on
constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ
is online at
www.aclj.org
Dr. Coburn Offers Amendment to Protect Freedom of
Conscience of Health Care Providers and Patients
Office of Senator Coburn
April 3, 2009
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), a
practicing physicians who has delivered more than 4,000
babies, offered an amendment to the 2010 budget resolution
to ensure that funds made available through the budget's
$634 billion health care reserve fund will not be used to
violate the conscience of health care providers or coerce
patients into seeing pre-selected doctors or enroll in a
particular health care plan.
The amendment was
an effort to preserve the conscience protection rule which
guarantees the freedom of health care providers, including
physicians, hospitals and insurance providers, to serve the
public without violating their moral and religious
convictions. The Obama administration has taken steps to
rescind the rule. The amendment failed by a vote of 41 to
56.
"Like many pro-life doctors, I would go to
jail before being forced to perform procedures, such as
abortion, that violate my deepest held convictions. Medical
ethics is based on the principle of 'First, do no harm.' I
will fight to protect this Constitutional right as a
physician and as a senator. Discriminating against health
care providers by requiring them to disregard their deeply
held beliefs is assault on liberty," Dr. Coburn said.
More background on Dr. Coburn's conscience clause
amendment is available
here.
Cite Need to Enforce Civil Rights
Laws, Protect Religious Freedom Under Bill of Rights
Alliance of Catholic Health Care
1 April, 2009
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Apr 01, 2009 -- The Alliance of
Catholic Health Care is asking the Obama Administration to
stop efforts to repeal federal conscience clause protection
for hospitals and health care workers and keep in place the
existing regulation, citing the need to enforce civil rights
laws and protect religious freedom.
"The conscience protections contained in federal law are
a civil right for all hospitals and health care workers,"
said William J. Cox, president and CEO of the Alliance of
Catholic Health Care. "The regulation that the
Administration seeks to repeal is necessary for preserving
those rights and making sure that health care workers can
perform their duties without fear or intimidation."
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the
"Provider Conscience Regulation" (73 Fed. Reg. 78072) not
only to enforce existing federal conscience rights laws, but
also to fulfill the Executive Branch's constitutional duty
to ensure all laws are faithfully executed.
The regulation's purpose is to:
-- Raise awareness in the public, in the health care
community, among the recipients of federal funds, and among
protected individuals and institutions of their rights and
responsibilities under the above statutes;
-- Ensure that federal funds do not support coercive or
discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal
law; and
-- Establish regulatory enforcement measures to ensure
compliance with the statutes.
The regulation is similar to other HHS regulations that
raise awareness of and enforce other important federal civil
rights laws. For example, under Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, when an entity elects to receive any amount of
federal funds, that entity certifies that it will follow all
federal conditions and rules that apply to the use of those
funds.
In a similar manner, the HHS "Provider Conscience
Regulation" coordinates and incorporates the various
statutory requirements related to conscience rights, allows
for greater clarity and awareness of the statutory
protections, greater ease of administration, and a uniform
mechanism for investigating complaints, resulting in greater
compliance with the law.
The regulation and the federal laws on which it is based
are consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's acknowledgement
in Roe v Wade of the right of physicians, hospitals, and
other health care providers not to be discriminated against
on the basis of their moral convictions against performing
or facilitating abortion.
"Our members provide health care services in accordance with
the religious and moral tenets of the Catholic faith," said
Cox. "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," continued Cox, "but we do
hold ourselves accountable, as health care providers, to
Catholic ethical and moral standards."
When HHS promulgated the regulations last year, they
considered the regulations necessary because certain
provisions of various federal laws - the Church Amendments
(42 USC 300a-7), the Coats-Snowe Amendment (42 USC 238n, the
Public Health Service Act), and the Weldon Amendment (PL
110-161) - that would otherwise prevent discrimination
against hospitals and health care workers were 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, refer for 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.
"Repealing this regulation will send a clear message that
the government considers these civil rights unimportant and
all but invite new instances of discrimination," said Cox.
"We urge the Obama Administration to retain the 'Provider
Conscience Regulation' in its current form."
Contact: Kevin Eckery, 916-443-2528 keckery@eckery.com
Protection of Conscience Project
For Immediate Release
24 March, 2009
The Obama administration has directed the Department of
Health and Human Services to revoke a protection of
conscience
regulation. The regulation, finalized in December,
2009, has raised awareness of existing federal
protection of conscience laws. It has also strengthened them
by providing recourse for conscientious objectors who have
been the victims of discrimination.
As a first step in revoking this protection, the
Department is accepting comment from the American public for
a thirty day period that will end 9 April, 2009.
A
website has been
set up by
Freedom2Care.org to allow Americans who support freedom
of conscience in health care to register their comments
through a portal to HHS. Visitors can make use of 1)
a prewritten comment crafted for healthcare providers,
2) a prewritten comment for patients, or 3) the option of
writing a personal comment.
Freedom2Care.org
is also collecting stories of discrimination to demonstrate
the need for protection of conscience legislation and the
importance of the existing HHS rule. Visitors can ask that
their stories or comments be forwarded to lawyers who
perform
pro-bono work.
The Protection of Conscience Project supports the efforts
of Freedom2Care.org
and applauds its advocacy of freedom of conscience for
health care workers.
Urges enforcement of existing laws
that protect conscience rights - Protections needed in
climate hostile to religious freedom
USCCB- Conscience Protection Home
For immediate release
March 23, 2009
USCCB Calls on Administration to Retain HHS Regulation
on Conscience Protection
WASHINGTON-The Obama
Administration has a constitutional duty to enforce laws
protecting religious freedom and the right of conscience,
according to comments by Anthony Picarello and Michael Moses
of the Office of General Counsel of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
The comments were filed with the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) March 23 in response to the proposed
rescinding of an HHS regulation protecting the conscience
rights of health care professionals.
Picarello and Moses cited the numerous laws enacted by
Congress over thirty-five years-including the Church
Amendment, the Coats-Snowe Amendment and the Weldon
Amendment-aimed at protecting health care providers and
professionals from being coerced into participating in
abortions and emphasized the constitutional duty of the
executive branch to "take care that the laws be faithfully
executed," and to avoid contradicting or undercutting those
laws.
The need for enforcement of these laws is also evident in
the "growing hostility on the part of some professional
organizations and advocacy groups to rights of conscience in
health care," Picarello and Moses noted. They listed
examples of recent statements and reports by the American
Civil Liberties Union, NARAL Pro-Choice America and
Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and even
state and local governments that were hostile toward
conscience rights.
"Because the Administration holds itself out as one
committed to a policy of 'choice' regarding abortion, the
Administration cannot, consistent with that policy, remove
the choice of nurses, doctors, clinics, or hospitals not to
provide or facilitate abortions," Picarello and Moses said.
They added that removing conscience protections for the
purpose of increasing access to abortion would also be
inconsistent with the stated policy of the Obama
Administration to reduce the number of abortions.
The USCCB's comments can be found in full
online.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy
For immediate release
19 March, 2009
CINCINNACINCINNATI, March 2009 - A recent commentary concludes
that pharmacists require freedom of conscience in order to
provide the best patient care. "The 'Hijacking' of Moral
Conscience from Pharmacy Practice: A Canadian Perspective"
by pharmacist and ethicist Cristina Alarcon, clinical
instructor at the University of British Columbia, is
available online from The Annals of Pharmacotherapy and will appear in
the April 2009 issue. The article's release coincides with
recent plans to remove a federal rule that clarifies and
protects US healthcare workers' conscience rights.
In the wake of ongoing medical developments, pharmacists
increasingly face involvement with controversial procedures
such as assisted suicide and abortion. Laws, policies, and
professional guidelines exist to promote professional
integrity. Yet some can require pharmacists to provide
services contrary to their ethical beliefs, potentially
interfering with their professional judgment and their
abilities to provide patient care with integrity and a full
sense of responsibility.
AlthoughAlthough written from the perspective of Canadian laws
and practice standards, the article applies to healthcare
workers in all settings. Arguing that conscience rights are
neither arbitrary nor subject to removal, Alarcon explains
they are a natural and necessary part of all public life.
"Protection of conscience is crucial if we are to foster
a society where citizens are free to dissent from popular
opinion," she explains. "This is especially true in modern
Western democracies, where the concept of majority rule can
lead to the mistaken notion that 'might' makes 'right'."
Early onEarly online publication of Alarcon's article coincides
with the US Department of Health and Human Services'
proposal to overturn the regulation entitled "Ensuring that
Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support
Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in
Violation of Federal Law." The regulation clarifies and
strengthens laws that protect the rights and freedoms of
healthcare providers, including pharmacists, when they
choose to not participate in ethically controversial medical
procedures. A 30-day comment period was opened on March 10
to seek public input on the rule and its pending reversal.
Interested parties may comment to the Department of Health
and Human Services by April 9, 2009, at
proposedrescission@hhs.gov. [The Protection of
Conscience Project recommends the use of the portal to the
Department at Freedom2Care.orgdministrator]
Contact:
Stanley J. Lloyd PharmD
Telephone: 513/793-3555
Fax: 513/793-3600
E-mail:
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy
now in its 43rd year of publication, is a leading
peer-reviewed, international pharmacotherapy journal for
physicians, pharmacists, and other healthcare practitioners.
CardinalCardinal George Urges Catholics to
Tell Administration: Keep Conscience Protections for Health
Care Workers
USCCB- Conscience Protection Home
For Immediate Release [En Español]
16
March, 2009
WASHINGTON-Cardinal Francis George is urging Catholics in
the United States to tell the Obama Administration to retain
Health and Human Services regulations governing conscience
protections for health care workers.
This is
vital to keep the government from "moving our country from
democracy to despotism," said Cardinal George, President of
the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. He
delivered the message via
video
available on the Web at and on
YouTube.
Those who want to protect conscience rights can speak out
through an
"action
alert".
"Respect for personal conscience and freedom of religion
as such ensures our basic freedom from government
oppression. No government should come between an
individual person and God-that's what America is supposed to
be about," Cardinal Francis George said. "This is the true
common ground for us as Americans. We therefore need legal
protection for freedom of conscience and of
religion-including freedom for religious health care
institutions to be true to themselves."
"I ask
you please to let the government know that you want
conscience protections to remain strongly in place. In
particular, let the Department of Health and Human Services
in Washington know that you stand for the protection of
conscience, especially now for those who provide the health
care services so necessary for a good society," he said.
CardinalCardinal Francis George taped the message after the
Obama Administration announced in early March that it was
rescinding the regulations which guarantee that health
workers cannot be forced to provide services that violate
their consciences, including abortions. [Full
text of statement"/
Pharmacy Regulators
Favour Mandatory Referral for Euthanasia
Protection of Conscience Project
For Immediate Release
27 February, 2009
Alberta pharmacists may be forced to "enhance access" to
euthanasia, assisted suicide, post-coital interception, etc.
and other morally controversial services if a new pharmacy
Code of Ethics is adopted. Even pharmacists with strong
ethical or religious objections may be compelled to refer or
otherwise facilitate patient access to such services.
The criticism of the Alberta College of Pharmacists
Draft Code of Ethics is made in a
submission to the College by the Protection of
Conscience Project.
"To impose this requirement," the submission warns, "
would effectively close the profession of pharmacy to anyone
who finds such conduct morally unacceptable."
The warning reflects concern that Canada's pharmacy
regulatory establishment supports mandatory referral for
euthanasia and assisted suicide, even as a bill is pending
in the House of Commons to legalize such procedures.1
The Canadian Pharmacy Association maintains that
pharmacists, physicians and nurses who object to euthanasia
or assisted suicide should have to refer for such services
if they are legalized.2
The policy of the National Association of Pharmacy
Regulatory Authorities (NAPRA) is that "objecting
pharmacists have a responsibility to participate" in systems
designed to deliver "pharmacy products and services" - like
"prescribed drugs for emergency contraception and
euthanasia."3
The Project's submission notes that the NAPRA statement,
including its explicit reference to euthanasia, has been
adopted in New Brunswick4
and Prince Edward Island.5
The Project argues that an objecting pharmacist should
not be charged for professional misconduct for refusing to
refer patients or assist them in obtaining euthanasia,
assisted suicide, post-coital interception, etc. Instead,
the submission asks the College to institute "an unambiguous
policy of accommodating freedom of conscience."
-30-
Care
Net
For immediate release
27 February, 2009
LANSDOWNE, VA - Care
Net President Melinda Delahoyde responded to news Friday
that President Obama has directed the Department of Health
and Human Services to overturn regulations that protect
medical professionals from being forced to perform or refer
for abortion. "Our nation's physicians, nurses, and other
healthcare providers have the right to practice medicine
without violating their conscience. To remove these
protections is to ultimately remove these individuals of
integrity from the field of medicine entirely," Delahoyde
said. "That's not an action that we as Americans
should be willing to accept."
Delahoyde said
that her network of 1,160 pregnancy center affiliates will
feel the damaging blow of this action, if implemented.
"Pregnancy centers empower women facing unplanned pregnancy
to choose abortion alternatives," Delahoyde said. "To
accomplish this, we offer critical, free medical services,
such as limited obstetrical ultrasounds and STD testing.
Because of our commitment to providing alternatives to
abortion, we rely on the availability of pro-life medical
professionals - nurses, OB-GYNs, nurse practitioners,
sonographers, and others. If the rights of these
individuals are violated, then they will simply leave the
field of practice or not enter it altogether. With more than
470 pregnancy centers in the Care Net network that offer
medical services, we're simply not willing to take that
risk."
Care Net will be mobilizing its network
and supporters to provide comment to the Department of
Health and Human Services on the Administration's proposal
to overturn the regulations. In addition, Care Net has
filed as an intervenor in a lawsuit filed by state attorney
generals and Planned Parenthood that challenges the federal
regulations protecting the right of conscience.
Care Net's National Medical Consultant Sandy
Christiansen, MD was interviewed by CNN to share her story
of discrimination during her residency. Dr.
Christiansen now serves as the medical director of Care Net
Pregnancy Center of Frederick, MD. Dr. Christiansen's
story is
available on the Care Net website.
For interviews with Melinda Delahoyde or Dr. Sandy
Christiansen, contact the Care Net press office.
Contact:
Kristin Hansen, (703) 554-8742
Family Research Council
For
Immediate Release
February 27, 2009
Washington D.C. -
-
Today, the Family Research Council (FRC) responded to
President Obama's expected action to stop the implementation
of regulations to enforce the Church, Coats, and Weldon
Amendments that protect health care providers' right of
conscience. These regulations would have increased public
awareness of, and ensured governmental enforcement of, these
vital statutes.
Tony Perkins, President of Family
Research Council, released the following statement:
"For President Obama to do this would be a huge blow
to religious freedom and First Amendment rights. No one
should be forced to have an abortion, and no one should be
forced to be an abortionist in violation of their religious
or ethical convictions. However, President Obama intends to
stop regulations to enforce conscience protection statutes.
In doing so, he will open the door to discrimination against
the choice of healthcare workers who do not want to be
complicit in abortion or other controversial practices.
These regulations would have ensured that healthcare workers
are not forced to participate in the performance or
promotion of abortion against their will.
"Despite current law that has protected conscience rights
for over 30 years, the lack of regulations resulted in
confusion and a lack of awareness within the health care
community, leaving health care personnel vulnerable to
discrimination and forcing them to drop their specialties at
a crucial time of health care scarcity. Protecting the right
of all health care providers to make professional judgments
based on moral convictions and ethical standards is
foundational to federal law and is necessary to ensure that
access to healthcare is not diminished, which will occur if
healthcare workers are forced out of their jobs because of
their ethical stances. President Obama's intention to change
the language of these protections would result in the
government becoming the conscience and not the individual.
It is a person's right to exercise their moral judgment, not
the government's to decide it for them.
"It is
unfortunate that President Obama is planning to bow down to
pro-abortion forces and stop enforcement of laws enacted to
protect the choice of healthcare providers not to
participate in abortion or other controversial practices.
Family Research Council urges President Obama to change
course and defend the conscience laws for healthcare workers
by keeping these much-needed regulations in place."
Contact:
J.P. Duffy or Maria Donovan, (866) FRC-NEWS
Christian
Medical Association
For
Immediate Release
February 27, 2009
Washington, DC-David
Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association, today
issued the following statement responding to today's news,
reported in the
Los Angeles Times, that the Obama administration is
moving to rescind a U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services regulation protecting civil rights and the exercise
of conscience in healthcare:
"The move to rescind the healthcare provider conscience
regulation imperils women's healthcare access, threatens
healthcare professionals' freedom to practice medicine
according to ethical standards, and exposes the myth of
moderation in Obama's abortion policy.
"The Obama administration claims, without offering a
shred of statistical evidence, that the regulation has
'created confusion' and will somehow hinder access to
healthcare. What can be clearer than not using federal funds
to force healthcare professionals to violate longstanding
principles of medical ethics like the Hippocratic Oath,
which guided medicine for over two millennia? The real
threat to healthcare access is driving out every healthcare
professional who conscientiously practices medicine
according to life-affirming ethical standards.
"Thousands of conscientious and compassionate physicians,
nurses, hospitals and clinics currently serve poor women and
those who live in medically underserved areas. Many of these
professionals and institutions are motivated and guided by
longstanding Hippocratic ethics and biblical principles that
preclude participation in abortion and other controversial
procedures. Infringing on their right to practice medicine
according to these life-affirming ethical standards will
force them to leave the profession and to shut down the
hospitals and clinics.
"An informal survey of our members showed that over 40
percent report being pressured to violate ethical standards.
Physicians report losing positions and promotions because of
their life-affirming views. Residents report losing training
privileges because they refused to do abortions. Medical
students report changing career tracks away from obstetrics
for fear of pressure to do abortions. The American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has officially asserted
that it expects every obstetrician to participate in
abortions, either through procedure or referral.
"We hear a lot of rhetoric from abortion advocates about
the government not interfering with the physician-patient
relationship. Why is this argument no longer employed when
the physician and the patient disagree with abortion on
demand? It would appear that for all the abortion "choice"
rhetoric, "choice" is really a one-way street. When it comes
to pro-life individuals, abortion choice quickly turns into
abortion mandate.
"President Obama and other abortion advocates would like
to maintain the myth of their moderation on abortion,
talking much about 'reducing the need for abortion.' Yet
they have no tolerance for moderate abortion policies like
informing parents when their children seek an abortion,
banning the essentially infanticidal partial-birth
abortions, or protecting the civil rights of healthcare
professionals who follow the Hippocratic Oath.
"This latest move against pro-life principles in
healthcare comes on the heels of Obama's recent lifting of
the Mexico City policy, which now lets taxpayer funds prop
up abortion groups, and his declaration that he will fund
the UNFPA-the United Nations population program found by the
U.S. State Department to aid and abet China's coercive
abortion policy. These policy moves indicate with increasing
clarity what a radically pro-abortion agenda this
administration intends to impose."
Contact:
Margie
Shealy
Telephone: 423-341-4254
E-mail:
margie.shealy@cmda.org
Advocates International
3 February, 2009
HARTFORDHARTFORD, Conn., Feb. 3 /Christian Newswire Representing Concerned Women for America,
America's largest women's advocacy group and four other
groups of pro-life medical professionals, attorneys with
Advocates International filed a motion to intervene
yesterday in three lawsuits commenced on January 15 that
seek to invalidate a federal law protecting medical
professionals from discrimination because they refuse to
participate in abortions. Advocates International is
seeking to defend the law against challenges by some state
officials, Planned Parenthood, and the National Family
Planning and Reproductive Health Association, represented by
the American Civil Liberties Union.
"As"As we face the most pro-abortion Congress and
administration in American history, medical professionals
can no longer depend on government to protect their rights
not to be forced to perform abortions against their
conscience. Despite the well-established laws
protecting the health care right of conscience,
Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and their pro-abortion allies
are now hoping for the cooperation of the Obama
administration as they again seek to punish pro-life medical
professionals for their beliefs," said Samuel B. Casey,
General Counsel of Advocates International's Law of Life
Project. "Our clients are opposing these lawsuits because
they wrongfully seek to compel health care workers to
perform abortions against their ethical and professional
judgment or face dire consequences."
"For over three decades, federal law has prohibited
recipients of federal grants from forcing medical
professionals to participate in abortions. The
arguments in the lawsuits themselves demonstrate lack of
compliance with these laws and the necessity of the fair
non-discrimination Health and Human Services (HHS)
regulations these pro-abortion groups are challenging," said
attorney Howard Wood, of Manchester who is assisting as
Advocates International's lead local counsel in the case.
Concerned Woman for America (CWA), Christian Pharmacists
Fellowship International, Care Net, Heartbeat International
and the New Jersey Physicians Resource Council, Advocates
International attorneys, are asking to be allowed to
intervene and defend the law, 45 CFR Part 88, enacted in
December 2008 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Noting a pattern of grant recipients unaware
of or flouting existing laws protecting medical
professionals' rights of conscience, HHS enacted the new law
to require grantees to certify compliance with them in order
to receive funds. The three long-standing statutes are
the Church Amendment, the Coats-Snowe Amendment, and the
Weldon Amendment.
Many of the plaintiffs challenging the HHS law in this
case failed in previous efforts to have the Weldon Amendment
struck down.
Most of the clients represented by Advocates
International filed testimony in support of their
intervention motion pointing out that denying rights of
conscience could harm access to healthcare for all by
forcing medical professionals who refuse to perform
abortions to either relocate from jurisdictions that force
them to do so or leave the profession altogether.
Advocates International's brief in support of CWA et
al.'s motion to intervene in the case:
Connecticut et al. v. United States, 3:09 CV 54 (RNC) (D.
CT.)
Last week, The Christian Medical Association, Catholic
Medical Association, and American Association of Pro-Life
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, represented by attorneys
from the Alliance Defense
Fund and Christian Legal
Society also intervened and asked the court to be
allowed to defend the law.
Contact:Samuel B. Casey, 703-624-4092
Howard Wood, 860-712-3420
(Both of Advocates International)
Advocates
International is an international organization of attorneys
in over 150 nations who seek to do justice with compassion,
including through its Global Task Forces on the Law of Life
and Religious Freedom protecting the right of health care
professionals not to perform or refer for elective
abortions.
Alliance Defence Fund
22 January, 2009
CLS, ADF attorneys seek to defend federal law that
protects medical professionals from mandatory participation
in abortion
HARTFORD, Conn. - Attorneys with the
Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund filed
motions to intervene Wednesday in three lawsuits that seek
to invalidate a federal law protecting medical professionals
from discrimination because they refuse to participate in
abortions. Three pro-life medical associations are
seeking to defend the law against challenges by some state
officials, Planned Parenthood, and the National Family
Planning and Reproductive Health Association, represented by
the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Medical
professionals should not be forced to perform abortions
against their conscience. Planned Parenthood, the
ACLU, and their pro-abortion allies are seeking to punish
pro-life medical professionals for their beliefs," said
Litigation Counsel Casey Mattox with CLS's Center for Law &
Religious Freedom. "Far from arguing for 'choice,'
these lawsuits seek to compel health care workers to perform
abortions or face dire consequences."
"For over
three decades, federal law has prohibited recipients of
federal grants from forcing medical professionals to
participate in abortions. The arguments in the
lawsuits themselves demonstrate lack of compliance with
these laws and the necessity of the regulation they are
challenging," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman.
Attorney Andrew Knott of Cheshire is assisting as local
counsel.
The Christian Medical Association,
Catholic Medical Association, and American Association of
Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, represented by CLS
and ADF attorneys, are asking to be allowed to defend the
law, 45 CFR Part 88, enacted in December 2008 by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Noting a
pattern of grant recipients unaware of or flouting existing
laws protecting medical professionals' rights of conscience,
HHS enacted the new law to require grantees to certify
compliance with them in order to receive funds. The
three long-standing statutes are the Church Amendment, the
Coats-Snowe Amendment, and the Weldon Amendment.
The three pro-life medical groups point out that denying
rights of conscience could harm access to healthcare for all
by forcing medical professionals who refuse to perform
abortions to either relocate from jurisdictions that force
them to do so or leave the profession altogether.
Many of those challenging the HHS law failed in
previous efforts to have the Weldon Amendment struck down.
CLS and ADF attorneys representing the Christian Medical
Association and American Association of Pro-Life
Obstetricians and Gynecologists successfully defended that
law (http://ww.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4432,
http://ww.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3918, and
http://ww.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3542).
The briefs in support of the motions to intervene in
Connecticut v. United States, National Family Planning &
Reproductive Health Association v. Leavitt, and Planned Parenthood of America v. Leavitt filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut are
available at
http://ww.telladf.org/UserDocs/HHSinterventions.pdf.
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian
attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right
of people to freely live out their faith. The CLS Center
for Law & Religious Freedom is a team of Christian attorneys
allied with ADF to defend religious liberty and human life.