Project Logo

Protection of Conscience Project

www.consciencelaws.org

Service, not Servitude
Subscribe to me on YouTube

News Releases: 2011

Victory for pro-life nurses in lawsuit against NJ hospital
UMDNJ agrees not to force nurses to assist with abortion cases

Alliance Defence Fund

23 December, 2011

NEWARK, N.J. - As a result of a federal court hearing Thursday, a New Jersey hospital has agreed that it will not force nurses to assist with abortion cases. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys represent 12 nurses who filed suit against the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey after the hospital sought to require the nurses to help with abortion cases in violation of federal and state law.

"No pro-life medical personnel should be forced to assist or train in services related to abortions. The hospital has finally done the right thing in agreeing to obey the law and not force our clients to do any work on abortion cases in violation of their beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, who represented the nurses before the court Thursday. "The hospital agreed not to penalize our clients in any way because they choose not to participate in abortion according to their legal rights."

The hospital agreed not to replace the pro-life nurses or reduce their hours. The nurses affirmed that if a woman suffers a true emergency from an abortion, they will help protect her until other staff, such as the emergency team, arrives moments later. Because the abortions are all elective, outpatient surgeries, and the court is requiring the hospital to fully staff all abortion cases with non-objecting medical personnel, the pro-life nurses should never actually be needed in any such case.

At Thursday's hearing, the judge warned the hospital that the nurses can return to the court if the hospital penalizes them, assigns them to work abortion cases, or pretextually attempts to require them to assist with abortions.

Last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order, with the hospital's temporary consent, that prohibited the hospital from coercing the nurses until the court could further consider the case at Thursday's hearing.

Federal law prohibits hospitals that receive certain federal funds from forcing employees to participate in abortions. UMDNJ receives approximately $60 million in federal health funds annually. In addition, New Jersey law states, "No person shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion or sterilization." The lawsuit requests that the hospital be ordered to obey these laws and to return part of the federal taxpayer money it has received in light of its violation of federal conscience laws.

Demetrios K. Stratis, one of nearly 2,100 attorneys in the ADF alliance, is local counsel in the case, Danquah v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Stratis is with the firm Ruta, Soulios & Stratis, LLP.

  • Pronunciation guide: Bowman (BOH'-min), Stratis (STRAH'-tis)

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.


Colorado Christian University First Evangelical University to Fight Abortifacient Mandate
CCU joins monks in fight against Health and Human Services' attack on religious liberty.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

21 December, 2011
For immediate release

Colorado Christian University (CCU) today became the first interdenominational Christian college to challenge in federal court a new "Affordable Care Act" (aka "Obamacare") mandate for abortifacients (drugs which induce abortions). Colorado Christian joins the monks at Belmont Abbey College pushing back against government intrusion into personal religious convictions that is unprecedented in the health care realm. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty represents both colleges in their separate lawsuits.

"If the Administration thought that conscience objections to this HHS mandate would be muted or isolated, Colorado Christian's lawsuit proves otherwise. Evangelical Christians have now joined Catholics to defend their religious rights," said Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

"Abortion is a highly controversial issue in American life," explains CCU President Bill Armstrong. "Some of our fellow citizens believe abortion is a fundamental right while others are equally sincere in the conviction that abortion is morally wrong in all, or almost all circumstances. But that is not the issue raised by the HHS regulations. The question is-may a government agency compel support of abortions by those whose religious convictions forbid them from doing so. The law does not permit such compulsion, in our opinion, nor will the conscience of our fellow citizens, whether abortion proponents or opponents."

The Health and Human Services regulation mandates that all group health insurance plans must provide FDA-approved contraceptives at no charge to consumers, including the abortifacients Plan B (morning-after pill) and ella (week-after pill), and sterilization services. Many Evangelical Christians do not share Catholics' objection to contraception and sterilization, but most-including Colorado Christian-strongly oppose abortion, including abortifacient drugs.

"This mandate forbids us from practicing what we preach," said Armstrong. "How can we train our college students to advocate for limited government and personal freedom-especially religious freedom-if we don't fight this unparalleled attack on those very principles?"

CCU is a non-denominational Evangelical University whose main campus is located in Lakewood, Colorado. Nearly 100 years old, CCU now serves approximately 4200 students. The University is a member of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities.

CCU's lawsuit was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Belmont Abbey's lawsuit was filed on November 10th in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The two lawsuits challenge the HHS regulations as violations of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act.


The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty  is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths.

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Emily Hardman, Communications Director, at ehardman@becketfund.org or call 202.349.7224. To stay updated on this case, please visit our case page.


Trial begins on pharmacists' right of conscience

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Stormans v. Selecky
November 28 to December 1, 2011
US District Court for Western District of Washington

What: Trial in landmark conscience case, Stormans v. Selecky, begins today.

When: November 28 to December 1, 2011

Where: Union Station Courthouse, 1717 Pacific Ave, Tacoma, WA 98402

Who: The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects the religious liberty of all faiths, together with Ellis, Li & McKinstry, a
Seattle-based law firm, will represent the Plaintiff pharmacy and pharmacists at
trial.

Why: This case is about whether the government can force pharmacists out of the health care profession solely because of their religious beliefs-specifically, their beliefs about abortion and human life.

The Plaintiffs are a fourth-generation, family-owned pharmacy ("Ralph's
Thriftway") and two individual pharmacists, who have religious objections to
dispensing Plan B and ella. Their religious beliefs forbid them from dispensing
these drugs because they can operate by preventing the implantation of a
fertilized egg, thus destroying a human embryo.

At the behest of Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups, the State of
Washington recently passed a regulation that forces pharmacies to dispense Plan
B and ella even if they have religious objections to doing so, and even when they
are willing to refer patients to one of dozens of nearby pharmacies that dispense
the drugs in a timely manner.

The pharmacists are challenging the regulation as an unconstitutional restriction
on the free exercise of religion.

For more information visit the case page here.


The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty  is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths.


NJ hospital threatens employment discrimination against pro-life nurses despite court order
Flagrant actions of hospital force ADF attorneys back to court

Alliance Defence Fund

21 November, 2011
For immediate release

ADF attorney sound bite: Matt Bowman

NEWARK, N.J. - Alliance Defense Fund attorneys representing 12 pro-life nurses filed a motion for an emergency court order Friday against the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. In violation of an existing court order, UMDNJ is attempting to force the nurses into meetings that would impose discriminatory job "transfer" and other "changes" to their employment solely because of their objections to helping with abortions.

"These pro-life nurses shouldn't be bullied into employment discrimination that is forbidden both by federal law and a court order," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "The hospital is threatening to impose discriminatory transfers or changes in the employment conditions for these nurses because of their religious and moral objections to abortion. Such discrimination against pro-life nurses violates state and federal law, the court's order in this case, and even the hospital's own public statements saying that no nurse must assist in procedures to which they object."

A letter from the hospital to the nurses requires them to attend mandatory meetings on or before Nov. 23 to discuss potential "changes in duties, changes in scheduling, and/or transfer to another nursing position…." A temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Nov. 3 prohibits the hospital from making discriminatory employment changes until the court has a chance to consider the case. A hearing is scheduled for Dec. 5.

The hospital's letter frames the threatened changes as "reasonable accommodations," but the ADF motion explains that, because conscience rights regarding abortion are paramount in the law, "the underlying laws in this case do not allow employers to negotiate 'reasonable accommodations' in the abortion context, and this Court's Temporary Restraining Order does not either."

ADF attorneys are asking for a new temporary restraining order that will prevent the hospital from forcing the nurses into meetings that impose changes to their employment. In addition, ADF is asking the court to hold the hospital in contempt of the court's existing order.

Demetrios K. Stratis, one of nearly 2,100 attorneys in the ADF alliance is local counsel in the case, Danquah v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Stratis is with the firm Ruta, Soulios & Stratis, LLP.

  • Pronunciation guide: Bowman (BOH'-min), Stratis (STRAH'-tis)

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.


A Victory for Conscience and a Culture of Life

Right To Life New Zealand Inc

21 November 2011

Right to Life welcomes the decision of the New Zealand Medical Council not to proceed with its appeal to the Court of Appeal of the judgment of Justice MacKenzie given in the High Court in Wellington in December 2010. The judgment stated that a medical practioner who was opposed in conscience to abortions was not obliged to refer a woman seeking an abortion to another doctor who would facilitate the abortion.

The Medical Council in withdrawing its appeal is acting in the best interest of the medical profession, the community and indeed women and unborn children. The decision will hopefully result in deterring some women from seeking an abortion and thus saving the life of their unborn child.

Freedom of conscience is important for the practice of medicine. It was the imposition of the state in Nazi Germany that gave us the crimes against humanity perpetrated by doctors whose conscience was subject to the dictates of the Nazi regime. We must remain ever vigilant to protect the conscience of the medical profession. It is our conscience that guides us to do good and to avoid evil. In 1948 the General Assembly of the World Medical Association in Geneva passed a Declaration on the responsibilities of medical practitioners.

It included, "The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration." It also stated, "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity." The Geneva Declaration was made in response to the crimes against humanity that were perpetrated by Nazi Germany.

Thepro-abortion movement supported the assault on the conscience of medical practitioners on the pretext that abortion was an essential health service. Abortion is not a health service, it is the killing of a defenceless and innocent unborn child and a crime against humanity.

The community should be aware that there is an organised international assault on the conscience of medical practitioners to compel doctors to assist and perform abortions. Sustained pressure is also being imposed on hospitals to provide abortions. This is a culture of death that is being strenuously resisted.

Parliament in passing the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1977 provided protection for the conscience of doctors and others under section 46, To perform or assist in the performance of an abortion or any operation undertaken or to be undertaken for the purpose of rendering the patient sterile:..if he objects to doing so on the grounds of conscience.

Right to Life requests that the Medical Council promote a culture of life and oppose a culture of death by amending the draft document to uphold the primacy of conscience and protect women's health and the lives of their unborn children.


"Nurses of Conscience" say NO to abortion coercion at UMDNJ

Rep. Chris Smith

Press Conference with UMDNJ Nurses
UMDNJ, Newark, NJ

14 November, 2011

It is an honor and privilege to join these courageous "nurses of conscience" who at great risk of being fired, demoted or otherwise retaliated against, have asserted their fundamental civil rights guaranteed by both federal and state law by saying "no" to coerced participation in the killing of unborn children at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ).

UMDNJ's coercive anti-conscience policy is not only highly unethical but blatantly illegal.

Federal and state law couldn't be clearer on this matter.

Even the US Supreme Court that handed down Roe vs. Wade-the decision that legalized abortion on demand-said in 1973 in its companion opinion Doe v Bolton that "appropriate protection" was needed in America to ensure that "a physician or any other employee has the right to refrain, for moral or religious reasons, from participating in the abortion procedure" (Doe v Bolton 410 U.S. at 198)

Congress immediately responded to the Supreme Court's engraved invitation with enactment of the 1974 Church Amendment.

The Church Amendment makes absolutely clear that " no entity ( and that includes UMDNJ) which receives a grant, contract, loan or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act, the Community Mental Health Centers Act, or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act may discriminate in the employment, promotion or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel or discriminate in the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel…because he refused to perform or assist in the performance of… abortion on the grounds that his performance or assistance in the performance of …abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions…"

To further protect conscience rights, the U.S. Congress enacted the Hyde-Weldon conscience law in 2005 that bars funds appropriated under the entire Health and Human Services Appropriations Act to any federal agency or program or to a state or local government if they engage in discrimination by violating conscience rights.

It should be noted that the relevant NJ statute states unambiguously that "no person shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of abortion… ."

New Jersey law further states that "the refusal to perform, assist in the performance of, or provide abortion… shall not constitute grounds for civil or criminal liability, disciplinary action or discriminatory treatment."

In pursuit of an illegal and highly unethical policy to coerce its own nurses to participate in abortions including support activities such as pre- and post-procedure complicity in abortion, UMDNJ has not only imposed irreparable harm and suffering on its own nurses, but has willfully and recklessly put federal funding for the institution at risk.

Because the nurses recognize the innate value and dignity and preciousness of the child in the womb and have refused to participate or be complicit in an act of violence against a vulnerable child, they are punished.

Because the nurses have deep religious and moral convictions and believe women deserve better than abortion, they are punished.

Because the nurses are compassionate and care deeply for every human life, regardless of age or condition of dependence, they are punished.

The illegal and highly unethical policy of coercion by UMDNJ must cease immediately.

[Original statement]


Belmont Abbey College sues the federal government over new Obamacare mandate
McDonald's & teachers' unions get exemptions but Catholic and all religious colleges do not

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

10 November, 2011
For immediate release

Today, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Belmont Abbey College over the "Affordable Care Act" (aka "Obamacare"), that forces the College to violate its deeply-held religious beliefs or pay a severe fine. The heart of the lawsuit involves the recently issued Health and Human Services' mandate that requires thousands of religious organizations to provide, against their conscience, contraceptives they consider to be abortifacients-namely Plan B and Ella-and sterilization.

Although the government has already provided thousands of waivers for a variety of special interest groups including McDonald's and teachers' unions, often for reasons of commercial convenience, it refused to accommodate religious organizations. Instead, the government permitted a religious exemption so narrowly defined that it prompted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to note that even Jesus' ministry would not qualify.

"A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government would force the same monk to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounces," said Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "This is much worse than an un-funded mandate; it is a monk-funded mandate."

The current exemption from the mandate excludes only certain religious employers whose purpose is to instill religious values and that employ and serve only individuals of their same faith. Accordingly, many religious colleges and universities will not qualify for the exemption. Belmont Abbey, as a small Catholic liberal arts college, teaches that contraception, sterilization, and abortion are all against God's law. The government mandate forces Belmont Abbey and others to make the Hobson's choice of either violating their deeply-held religious beliefs or paying a heavy fine and terminating their health insurance plans for employees and students.

"The mandate is nothing other than a deliberate attack by the government on the religious beliefs of millions of Americans," added Hannah Smith. "In the end, the government is forcing religious orders and believers to pay for services they find immoral or pay a stiff fine."


The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law.

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Emily Hardman, Communications Director, at ehardman@becketfund.org or call 435.232.3898.


Court temporarily stops NJ hospital from forcing nurses to participate in abortions
ADF represents nurses in lawsuit against Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ

Alliance Defence Fund

3 November, 2011

NEWARK, N.J. - A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday that prohibits a New Jersey hospital from forcing any of 12 nurses that sued the facility to participate in training or services related to abortions. The order, which the hospital agreed to, is in effect until the court decides whether to issue any additional order at a Nov. 18 hearing.

The 12 nurses, represented by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, filed suit Monday against the hospital run by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Federal and state law both protect the nurses from being required to participate in medical activities related to abortions. Prior to the court order, two of the nurses had been scheduled to participate this Friday in training that would include surgical abortions.

"Pro-life nurses shouldn't be forced to assist or train in services related to abortions. Federal and state law both prohibit this," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "These 12 nurses have encountered threats to their jobs at this hospital ever since a policy change required them to participate in the abortion cases regardless of their religious and moral objections. The court's order prevents that until the Nov. 18 hearing, but it is disturbing that the hospital may fight to continue violating laws that clearly protect conscience rights."

The court order states that hospital officials "are restrained from requiring the named Plaintiffs from undergoing any training, procedures or performances relating to abortions pending the Court's determination on the merits regarding the Plaintiffs' Application for a Preliminary Injunction." The order also prohibits any acts of employment discrimination against the nurses until that matter is resolved.

Federal law prohibits hospitals that receive certain federal funds from forcing employees to participate in abortions. UMDNJ receives approximately $60 million in federal health funds annually. In addition, New Jersey law states, "No person shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion or sterilization." The lawsuit requests that the hospital be ordered to obey these laws and to return part of the federal taxpayer money it has received in light of its violation of federal conscience laws.

In September, UMDNJ began telling Same Day Surgery Unit nurses that they must assist abortion cases. The hospital imposed the new policy in October and repeatedly threatened that they must assist abortions or be terminated. When one nurse objected to assisting abortion cases due to her religious beliefs, a supervisor responded that UMDNJ has "no regard for religious beliefs" of nurses who object to participating.

Demetrios K. Stratis, one of nearly 2,100 attorneys in the ADF alliance is local counsel in the case, Danquah v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Stratis is with the firm Ruta, Soulios & Stratis, LLP.

  • Pronunciation guide: Bowman (BOH'-min)

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.


12 nurses sue NJ hospital for forcing them to participate in abortions
ADF represents nurses in lawsuit against Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ

Alliance Defence Fund

1 November, 2011

NEWARK, N.J. - Twelve nurses represented by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed suit Monday against their employer, a hospital run by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, for requiring them to participate in abortions. Federal and state law both protect them from being forced to do so.

"Pro-life nurses shouldn't be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "No less than 12 nurses have encountered threats to their jobs at this hospital ever since a policy change required them to participate in the abortions regardless of their religious objections. That is flatly illegal."

Federal law prohibits hospitals that receive certain federal funds from forcing employees to participate in abortions. UMDNJ receives approximately $60 million in federal funds annually. In addition, New Jersey law states, "No person shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion or sterilization."

In September, UMDNJ initiated a policy change and began telling Same Day Surgery Unit nurses that they must assist abortions. The hospital imposed the policy on the nurses in October and repeatedly threatened that they must assist abortions or be terminated.

When one nurse objected to assisting abortions on the grounds of her religious beliefs, a supervisor responded that UMDNJ has "no regard for religious beliefs" of nurses who object to participating in abortions.

The hospital scheduled the nurses to begin training to assist abortions on Oct. 14. The training involves actually assisting surgical abortions, which the nurses believe is, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, "an act of violence against innocent human life."

If the court does not issue an order requested by ADF attorneys that stops the training sessions while the lawsuit moves forward, the nurses and their colleagues will continue to be scheduled one by one to undergo the training and then to assist abortions on a regular basis. The lawsuit also requests that the hospital be ordered to return part of the federal taxpayer money it has received in light of its violation of federal law.

Demetrios K. Stratis, one of nearly 2,100 attorneys in the ADF alliance is local counsel in the case, Danquah v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. ADF is currently involved in a similar lawsuit in New York state court involving a nurse at Mt. Sinai Hospital.

  • Photo of nurse Lorna Jose-Mendoza, who is scheduled to assist with abortions Nov. 4 against her religious objections
  • Pronunciation guide: Bowman (BOH'-min)

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.


Cardinal Calls For Greater Conscience Protection In Health Care Reform On Eve Of Subcommittee Hearing

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

1 November, 2011

WASHINGTON-Congress should strengthen conscience protections for health care providers and ensure that health care reform measures do not impede religious liberty, said the U.S. bishops' chairman of Pro-Life Activities on the eve of a hearing by the House Subcommittee on Health, "Do New Health Law Mandates Threaten Conscience Rights and Access to Care?"

In a November 1 letter to subcommittee chairman Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-Pennsylvania), Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston urged support for the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179/S. 1467) and other measures to address flaws in health care reform.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) "excluded longstanding protections for conscience rights on abortion, by failing to apply the annual Hyde/Weldon amendment to the billions of dollars newly appropriated by the Act," Cardinal DiNardo wrote."And it created new open-ended mandates for 'essential health benefits' and 'preventive services' to be included in almost all private health plans, without any provision for individuals or institutions that may have a moral or religious objection to particular items or procedures."

Cardinal DiNardo added that the preventive service mandate has been exploited by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force almost all private insurers to cover contraceptives-including some that can cause early abortions-and sterilizations. This mandate comes with a religious exemption that narrowly defines religious employers as those who employ and serve members of their own religion for the purpose of teaching religious doctrine.

"Jesus and the apostles would not be 'religious enough' under such a test, as they served and healed people of different religions," wrote Cardinal DiNardo. "Catholic organizations committed to their moral and religious teaching will have no choice but to stop providing health care and other services to the needy who are not Catholic, or stop providing health coverage to their own employees.This is an intolerable dilemma, and either choice will mean reduced access to health care."

Cardinal DiNardo said it was troubling that this reduction in care would occur merely as a result of mandated contraception. "Is the drive to maximize contraceptive coverage, even among those who do not want it, such an urgent national priority that it transcends concerns about religious liberty, our nation's 'First Freedom,' as well as concerns about women's health and about access to basic health care for men and women alike?" he asked.

He included with his letter an advertisement appearing in Politico, The Hill, Roll Call and CQ Today signed by 22 leaders of Catholic organizations objecting to the "preventive services" mandate.


Abortion committee upholds right of conscience

Right to Life New Zealand

19 October, 2011

Right to Life commends the Abortion Supervisory Committee for promoting protection for clinicians who refuse to perform or assist in abortions on the grounds of conscience.

The Committee has recently written to all of the district health boards in New Zealand reminding them of their duty to allow doctors, nurses and others to refuse to perform abortions or assist in them when it is contrary to their conscience.

Right to Life believes that there may be many nurses working in Public Hospitals that provide abortions who are assisting in abortions against their conscience who are unaware of the legal protection provided for them.

Parliament provided protection for the conscience of clinicians when passing the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1977. Section 46 reads,

Conscientious Objection- [1] Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, or any rule of law, or the terms of an oath or of any contract [whether of employment or otherwise], no registered medical practitioner, registered nurse, or other person shall be under any obligation-[a] To perform or assist in the performance of an abortion or any operation undertaken or to be undertaken for the purpose of rendering the patient sterile:

[b] To fit or assist in the fitting, or supply or administer or assist in the supply or administering, of any contraceptive, or to offer or give any advice relating to contraception,- The section goes on to state that no person shall be denied employment, accommodation, goods or any other privilege or benefit merely because the employee refuses on conscience to perform any act referred to in this section.

Recently a technician employed by the Canterbury District Health Board approached Right to Life seeking help.

She had been summoned by her employer to a disciplinary meeting and threatened with dismissal if she did not perform the duty of assisting in preparing instruments to be used for abortions.

The technician refused to perform the duty as she was totally opposed to the killing of unborn children.

Right to Life advised the complainant that she had protection under section 46 of the Act.

Her employer subsequently withdrew the threat of dismissal and respected her right to refuse the duty on conscience grounds.

Right to Life brought this distressing incident to the attention of the Committee requesting that the Committee take action by writing to all District Health Boards, which they subsequently did.

Right to Life contends that all District Health Boards have a duty to inform all employees in writing at the commencement of their service of their rights provided by section 46.

Legal protection for our right not to be involved in the killing of unborn children must be valued and protected.

In the United States, Europe and at the United Nations there is a concerted attack on the right of clinicians to refuse on conscience grounds to perform or assist in abortions.

Our conscience is the voice of God, we have a duty to avoid evil and to do good. It is always wrong to kill the innocent. If all Doctors acted on an informed conscience there would be no abortions in New Zealand.


Support access to health care?  Protect conscience rights.
Catholic Organizations Respond to HHS "Preventive Services" Mandate

Original Poster Ad

We, the undersigned, strongly support access to life-affirming health care for all, and the ability of secular and religious groups and individuals to provide and receive such care. That is why we have raised objections to a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services forcing almost all private health plans to cover sterilization procedures and contraceptive drugs, including drugs that may cause an early abortion.

As written, the rule will force Catholic organizations that play a vital role in providing health care and other needed services either to violate their conscience or severely curtail those services. This would harm both religious freedom and access to health care.

The HHS mandate puts many faith-based organizations and individuals in an untenable position. But it also harms society as a whole by undermining a long American tradition of respect for religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In a pluralistic society, our health care system should respect the religious and ethical convictions of all. We ask Congress, the Administration, and our fellow Americans to acknowledge this truth and work with us to reform the law accordingly.

Robert B. Aguirre, President
Catholic Association of Latino Leaders

Carl A. Anderson, Supreme Knight
Knights of Columbus

F. DeKarlos Blackmon, OblSB, Supreme Knight/CEO
Knights of Peter Claver

William J. Cox, President/CEO
Alliance of Catholic Health Care

Michael Galligan-Stierle, PhD, President/CEO
Association of Catholic Colleges
and Universities

John Garvey, JD, President
The Catholic University of America

Sheila Gilbert, President
National Council of the U.S. Society of
St. Vincent de Paul

John M. Haas, PhD, STL, President
National Catholic Bioethics Center

Ken Hackett, President
Catholic Relief Services

Jan R. Hemstad, MD, President
Catholic Medical Association

Rev. John Jenkins, CSC, President
University of Notre Dame

Patty Johnson, President
National Council of Catholic Women

James G. Lindsay, Executive Director
Catholic Volunteer Network

Stephen L. Mikochik, JD, Chair
National Catholic Partnership on Disability

Karen M. Ristau, EdD, President
National Catholic Educational Association

Geralyn C. Shelvin, Supreme Lady
Knights of Peter Claver Ladies Auxiliary

Rev. Larry Snyder, President
Catholic Charities USA

Joanne Tomassi, National Regent
Catholic Daughters of the Americas

The Most Rev. José Gomez
Archbishop of Los Angeles
Chairman , Migration and Refugee Services

The Most Rev. Timothy Dolan
Archbishop of New York
President
United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops


Ron Paul Statement on New Obamacare/HHS Regulation
Rights of faithful eroded by 'preventative care'

Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

 6 October 2011
1:57 p.m. EDT

LAKE JACKSON, Texas.  2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul released the following statement concerning recently-discussed Obamacare regulation that forces all health-care plans to cover so-called "preventive" services, which include sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives--including those that cause abortions. The provision, coupled with Obamacare's individual mandate, essentially forces Americans to buy health plans that cover things they find objectionable, while offering inauthentic opportunities to seek an exemption.

See comments from Rep. Paul below:

"I am deeply troubled by the flippancy with which President Obama recently discussed regulations that are alarming and troublesome for many Americans.

"Not all Americans are comfortable with the Obama administration's decision to mandate coverage of birth control and morning-after pills, and the considerations of these people, many of them Christian conservatives, are worthy of careful consideration -- not mockery.

"Many, like me, view this rigid regulatory overstep from which there is inadequate opportunity to self-exempt as payback to Planned Parenthood and big pharmaceutical companies for their support of Obamacare.

"Many others oppose it out of strict moral conviction and their voices should be heard at least to the extent that an authentic opportunity to exempt be provided. That is, until Obamacare is repealed in its entirety.

"As this mandate violates the conscience of millions of pro-life Americans, I have introduced in Congress H.R. 1099, the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act, which removes all federal funding for domestic and international family planning.

"As President, I plan to defund Obamacare and all federal programs that use tax money taken from the American people to promote abortion and provide abortion services domestically and globally.

"I pledge also to veto any bill with funding for Planned Parenthood or any other international family planning regimes."

Authorized and paid for by Ron Paul 2012 PCC Inc.


Hatch, Johanns Spearhead Letter To HHS On Women's Preventive Services Mandates
28 Senators Write to Secretary Sebelius to Ask that Coverage Guidelines Respect "Human Life, Individual Liberties, and Personal Conscience"

Senator Orrin Hatch Press Release

6 October, 2011

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska), and 26 of their Senate colleagues have written to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to press her on the constitutional concerns associated with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) implementation of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) recommendations for preventive health services mandates. The action is a follow-up to a letter Sebelius received in July on this issue in which she failed to sufficiently address the questions asked.

In July, IOM issued a report entitled "Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps," which recommended which preventive services should be mandated for "all health insurance plans. These mandates are an affront to the rights to life, religious liberty, and personal conscience.

In the letter, the Senators wrote that they are concerned "with the lack of due consideration given by [Sebelius] and your Department to the adverse impact that IOM's recommendations would have on our core constitutional value of religious liberty." The Senators added that "[t]hough the IFRs' 'religious exemption' purports to protect religious organizations, health care professionals, and health care plans, it is clear that this protection falls well short of securing this constitutional right."

In addition to Sens. Hatch and Johanns, the letter to Secretary Sebelius was signed by Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Roy Blunt (R-Missouri), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), Dan Coats (R-Indiana), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John McCain (R-Arizona), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), and Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), John Thune (R-South Dakota), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma).

Text of letter


Cardinal Reaffirms Support for Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, Cites HHS Mandate as Cause for Urgency

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

September 7, 2011

WASHINGTON-Congress should support a bill (H.R. 1179, S. 1467) that will close gaps in protection of conscience rights in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), especially in light of the threat to conscience rights posed by a new mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston in a September 7 letter to Congress.

"I urge you to support and co-sponsor the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, to help preserve respect in federal law for the freedom to follow the dictates of one's conscience," wrote Cardinal DiNardo, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Cardinal DiNardo noted that passage of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act is more urgent now that HHS has mandated that all private insurance plans cover contraceptives and sterilization.

The HHS rule has an "incredibly narrow" exemption for religious employers which "protects almost no one," since organizations that employ or serve people of another religion would not qualify.

"For example, a Catholic institution serving the poor and needy would have to fire its non-Catholic staff, refuse life-affirming care to non-Catholic people in need, and devote itself instead to 'the inculcation of religious values' to qualify for the exemption," Cardinal DiNardo wrote. "Individuals, insurers, and the sponsors of non-employee health plans (e.g., student health plans in Catholic schools) would have no exemption at all. This effort to corral religion exclusively into the sanctuaries of houses of worship betrays a complete ignorance of the role of religion in American life, and of Congress's long tradition of far more helpful laws on religious freedom."

"Those who sponsor, purchase and issue health plans should not be forced to violate their deeply held moral and religious convictions in order to take part in the health care system or provide for the needs of their families, their employees or those most in need," Cardinal DiNardo wrote. "To force such an unacceptable choice would be as much a threat to universal access to health care as it is to freedom of conscience."


Obama Plays Catch 22 with Religious Groups

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

August 2, 2011

[Blog] Catholic League president Bill Donohue addresses the dilemma that the Obama administration has created for religious employers:

Yesterday, the Obama administration mandated that all health insurance plans cover contraceptives and sterilization for women, though it made an exception for religious employers. But did it? Not really. To wit: a religious employer is defined, in part, as one that primarily employs, and serves, persons who share its religious tenets.

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo said this means that "our institutions would be free to act in accord with Catholic teaching on life and procreation only if they were to stop hiring and serving non-Catholics." He's right: Catholic schools, hospitals and social service agencies have a long and distinguished record of serving everyone, regardless of religious affiliation; most even employ non-Catholics. However, there are matters, like foster care programs, where same-religion requisites make sense.

The situation is even more pernicious than it looks. Consider that three years ago, then presidential candidate Barack Obama said he opposes allowing faith-based programs to hire only their own people. Since becoming president, he has authorized his administration to consider this issue on a case-by-case basis, and just recently many of his allies lobbied him to gut the religious liberty provision in hiring altogether.

In other words, the Obama administration is playing Catch-22 with religious employers. If they are too religious, Catholic social service agencies risk losing federal funds, but if Catholic hospitals are not sufficiently religious, they cannot be exempt from carrying health insurance policies that transgress their religious tenets.

The Obama administration knows exactly what it is doing, and what it is doing is burning religious institutions at both ends. This is a pretty sick game. But it is one where there is plenty of time left on the clock.


The Catholic League is the nation's largest Catholic civil rights organization. Founded in 1973 by the late Father Virgil C. Blum, S.J., the Catholic League defends the right of Catholics - lay and clergy alike - to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.


Catholic Health Association Response to Women's Preventive Services Regulations

Catholic Health Association of the United States

2 August, 2011

[Blog] WASHINGTON, D.C. - The following statement is being released by Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, president and chief executive office of the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA):

The Catholic Health Association is both pleased and concerned by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services' (HHS) recent actions on preventive services for women.

We are delighted that health insurance coverage must include critical screening services without any cost-sharing. What to some may seem like small amounts as co-pays for mammograms, pap smears, etc., has proven to be an effective barrier to care for women who have low incomes.

Our hope is that eliminating this barrier will result in earlier diagnosis at a treatable stage of many diseases such as cancer and diabetes. We applaud this aspect of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine and their affirmation by the Health Resources and Services Administration.

However, CHA is very concerned about the inadequacy of the conscience protections with respect to the coverage of contraception. As it stands, the language is not broad enough to protect our Catholic health providers. Catholic hospitals are a significant part of this nation's health care, especially in the care of the most vulnerable. It is critical that we be allowed to serve our nation without compromising our conscience.

HHS is accepting comments on its definition of religious employer and has invited alternative definitions. We will be submitting written comments to HHS and will continue our dialogue with government officials on the essential need for adequate conscience protections.

We appreciate that the Administration does not intend to include abortifacient drugs as covered contraception. Our comments will address our concerns about the mechanism of action of certain FDA-approved contraceptive drugs.


The Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA), founded in 1915, supports the Catholic health ministry's commitment to improve the health status of communities and create quality and compassionate health care that works for everyone. The Catholic health ministry is the nation's largest group of not-for-profit health systems and facilities that, along with their sponsoring organizations, employ more than 750,000 women and men who deliver services combining advanced technology with the Catholic caring tradition.


USCCB: HHS Mandate for Contraceptive and Abortifacient Drugs Violates Conscience Rights

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

1 August, 2011

[Blog]WASHINGTON-The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sharply criticized a new HHS "preventive services" mandate requiring private health plans to cover female surgical sterilization and all drugs and devices approved by the FDA as contraceptives, including drugs which can attack a developing unborn child before and after implantation in the mother's womb.

"Although this new rule gives the agency the discretion to authorize a 'religious' exemption, it is so narrow as to exclude most Catholic social service agencies and healthcare providers," said Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

"For example, under the new rule our institutions would be free to act in accord with Catholic teaching on life and procreation only if they were to stop hiring and serving non-Catholics," Cardinal DiNardo continued."Could the federal government possibly intend to pressure Catholic institutions to cease providing health care, education and charitable services to the general public?Health care reform should expand access to basic health care for all, not undermine that goal."

"The Administration's failure to create a meaningful conscience exemption to the preventive services mandate underscores the need for Congress to approve the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act," the Cardinal said.That bill (H.R. 1179), introduced by Reps. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) and Dan Boren (D-OK), would prevent mandates under the new health reform law from undermining rights of conscience.

Cardinal DiNardo added: "Catholics are not alone in conscientiously objecting to this mandate.The drugs that Americans would be forced to subsidize under the new rule include Ella, which was approved by the FDA as an 'emergency contraceptive' but can act like the abortion drug RU-486. It can abort an established pregnancy weeks after conception. The pro-life majority of Americans - Catholics and others - would be outraged to learn that their premiums must be used for this purpose."

"HHS says the intent of its 'preventive services' mandate is to help 'stop health problems before they start,' said Cardinal DiNardo. "But pregnancy is not a disease, and children are not a 'health problem' - they are the next generation of Americans."

"It's now more vital than ever that Congress pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act to close the gaps in conscience protection in the new health care reform act, so employers and employees alike will have the freedom to choose health plans in accordance with their deeply held moral and religious beliefs."

In a July 22 letter supporting the bill, Cardinal DiNardo wrote: "Those who sponsor, purchase and issue health plans should not be forced to violate their deeply held moral and religious convictions in order to take part in the health care system or provide for the needs of their families or their employees.To force such an unacceptable choice would be as much a threat to universal access to health care as it is to freedom of conscience."

Cardinal DiNardo also addressed the Institute of Medicine's recommendations on preventive services for women in a July 19 statement.


In Wake of Proposed Contraceptive Mandate, Cardinal DiNardo Urges Congress to Support Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

July 22, 2011

WASHINGTON-Responding to a proposal from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) that private health plans be required to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the U.S. bishops urged Congress to support the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179).

In a July 22 letter, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), said the legislation, introduced by Reps. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) and Dan Boren (D-OK), would prevent any new mandates under health care reform from being used to disregard Americans' freedom of conscience.

"Those who sponsor, purchase and issue health plans should not be forced to violate their deeply held moral and religious convictions in order to take part in the health care system or provide for the needs of their families or their employees," wrote Cardinal DiNardo. "To force such an unacceptable choice would be as much a threat to universal access to health care as it is to freedom of conscience."

Cardinal DiNardo said that respect for conscience rights in health care has received bipartisan support for decades. He cited examples such as the Church amendment, which protects participants in federal health programs from being discriminated against for their objection to abortion, sterilization and other procedures, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which exempts religiously affiliated health plans from any contraceptive mandate.

The full text of Cardinal DiNardo's letter is available online.

 Cardinal DiNardo also addressed the Institute of Medicine proposal in a July 19 statement


CMA Criticizes IOM Recommendation on Mandating Contraceptive Coverage

Catholic Medical Association

20 July, 2011
Bala Cynwyd, PA

The Catholic Medical Association released the following statement after the Institute of Medicine effectively recommended, on July 19, 2011, that insurance companies and plans be forced to subsidize "the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods":

The Institute of Medicine's (IOM) recommendation that "the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods" be designated a "preventive care service for women" and thus covered by all insurance plans without any co-pay from patients under the terms of ObamaCare threatens substantial harm to the health of women and to the civil rights of millions of Americans. It is imperative that the Secretary of Health and Human Services reject this recommendation.

There are several reasons why the IOM Recommendation 5.5, contained in Clinical Preventive Services for Women Closing the Gaps (7/19/2011), is wrong in principle and could cause significant harms to women's health and to the rights of all Americans forced to subsidize this "service."

  • Designating contraceptives as "preventive services" fails the tests of logic and sound science since "preventive services" prevent serious disease, dysfunction and/or injury which would require treatment to restore health or function. Fertility is a natural feature of human nature, and pregnancy is a natural human condition, even if not always planned or desired.
  • Designating contraceptives as "preventive services" does not constitute good clinical medicine. An extensive body of evidence shows hormonal contraceptives pose substantial threats to women, including myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, depression, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary emboli, cervical cancer, and liver cancer. The relationship between OC use and breast cancer-and in particular the disturbing connection between OC use and triple-negative breast cancer (for which OCs raise the risk by 2.5 to 4.2 times)-should cause caution and concern. Designating contraceptives as "preventive services" would give the false impression that these are safe and standard medications.
  • Promoting contraceptives in order to reduce unplanned pregnancies has failed in the past and will fail in the future. Despite decades of such advocacy and millions, if not billions, of dollars spent in the effort, and despite the fact that 35 states mandate contraceptive coverage as a part of prescription drug coverage, the Guttmacher Institute still reports that nearly half of all pregnancies among American women are unintended and that 54% of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
  • Mandating insurance coverage of contraceptives is not only a failed strategy, as noted above, it is also unfair and unethical public policy. Such a mandate will force people to subsidize specific interest groups and businesses, including Planned Parenthood, who would benefit from having contraceptive coverage mandated; it will force people to subsidize contraceptives and the behaviors they enable even if they have ethical objections, including providers who object to dispensing contraceptive services based on religious beliefs or moral convictions. This will be true not only for individuals forced to pay extra for health-insurance premiums, but also for institutions forced to violate their ethical convictions.
  • Such ethical conflicts will be exacerbated intolerably by the improper designation of certain abortifacients as contraceptives- above all, HRA Pharma's ulipristal acetate, known as "ella," which was designated as an "emergency contraception" by the FDA despite the fact that it is essentially similar in chemical structure and modes of efficacy to the abortion drug RU-486. If the Secretary of HHS follows through on the IOM recommendation to mandate the "the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods," it will violate the letter and spirit of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the express terms and legislative history of which exclude abortion and abortifacients. Worse, it will force individuals and institutions to become complicit in the financing of abortion.

To protect the health of American women and the rights of all Americans, it is imperative that the Secretary of Health and Human Services reject IOM Recommendation 5.5.

CONTACT: John Brehany, Ph.D., S.T.L. Executive Director & Ethicist

Founded in 1932, the Catholic Medical Association is the largest association of Catholic physicians in North America.


Bishops' Pro-Life Chair Strongly Opposes Recommended Mandate for Birth Control, Sterilization in Private Health Plans

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

July 19, 2011

WASHINGTON-Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, strongly opposed the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate coverage of surgical sterilization and all FDA-approved birth control in private health insurance plans nationwide.

The full text of the statement follows:

I strongly oppose the Institute of Medicine's recommendation today that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate coverage of three particular practices in almost all private health plans: surgical sterilization; all FDA-approved birth control (including the IUD, "morning-after" pills, and the abortion-inducing drug Ella); and "education and counseling" promoting these among all "women of reproductive capacity."

Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed by any means technically possible. The IOM report claims it would have good reason to recommend mandatory coverage for surgical abortions as well, if such a mandate were not prevented by law. But most Americans surely see that abortion is not healthy or therapeutic for unborn children, and has physical and mental health risks for women which can be extremely serious. I can only conclude that there is an ideology at work in these recommendations that goes beyond any objective assessment of the health needs of women and children.

The single largest abortion provider in the United States, Planned Parenthood, is celebrating the IOM's report. If the HHS does likewise and implements its recommendations, these controversial practices will be mandated for all insurance plans - public and private - without co-pay from anyone receiving them. The considerable cost of these practices will be paid by all who participate in health coverage, employers and employees alike, including those who conscientiously object to Planned Parenthood's agenda.

Without sufficient legal protection for rights of conscience, such a mandate would force all men, women and children to carry health coverage that violates the deeply-held moral and religious convictions of many. This new threat to conscience makes it especially critical for Congress to pass the "Respect for Rights of Conscience Act" introduced by Reps. Jeff Fortenberry and Dan Boren (HR 1179). I am writing to all members of Congress to urge their co-sponsorship.

The IOM missed an opportunity to promote better health care for women that is life-affirming and truly compassionate. I once again urge the Department of Health and Human Services to focus on the need of all Americans, including immigrants and the poor, for basic life-saving health coverage - not on mandating controversial elective practices in ways that undermine the good of women and children, the consciences of employers, employees and health plan providers, and the common good.


Christian Medical Association Sends Over 61,000 Petitions to President Obama, Urges More Americans to Join Drive for Conscience Protections in Health Care

Christian Medical Association

6 July, 2011

WASHINGTON, July 6, 2011.  The Christian Medical Association (CMA, ) today sent to President Obama a letter on behalf of 61,154 individuals who signed a petition urging the President to uphold and enforce conscience rights in health care.

The issue is especially important for faith-based physicians who say they will leave medicine if forced to compromise their life-affirming ethical convictions.

In a letter to President Obama, CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens wrote, "I write to urge your support of conscience-protecting measures in law and in regulation -- to help put a stop to discrimination against life-affirming healthcare professionals, and to protect healthcare access for the millions of patients who depend upon their often charitable services."

A total of 61,154 individuals (listed here) signed a petition to President Obama through the CMA-managed Freedom2Care coalition, urging him to preserve the only federal regulation protecting conscience rights in health care.

Stevens noted, "Unfortunately, your administration recently gutted that regulation. That decision leaves many healthcare professionals wide open to discrimination -- you can read their personal stories at www.freedom2care.org/learn/personal_stories.asp. The gutting of the regulation also threatens the healthcare access of the many life-affirming patients who value the freedom to choose professionals who share their moral values.

"I urge you to consider the voices and values of these many Americans and (a) restore a strong conscience-protecting regulation and (b) support and sign into law strong conscience-protecting legislation."

The conscience petition campaign continues and has expanded to include legislators, as Congress considers several conscience-protecting bills.

"We urge all life-affirming patients and healthcare professionals in America to join this petition to help secure the legal protections needed to continue ethical, faith-based medicine," Dr. Stevens said.

In his letter, Dr. Stevens also called on the President to have his administration educate the healthcare community accurately about existing legal protections.

Stevens noted that the "broad legal protections afforded by the federal Church Amendment, part (d) should be widely promoted and consistently enforced: 'No individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.'"

A recent poll conducted by the polling company, inc. found strong public support across partisan and ideological lines for the conscience protections in the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act H.R. 3, recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

A nationwide poll commissioned in 2009 by the Freedom2Care coalition found that over nine in ten faith-based physicians indicated they would leave medicine if denied the ability to practice according to their moral beliefs.

Contact: Margie Shealy, , 423-844-1047, margie.shealy@cmda.org


HHS Responds to Pro-life Letter, Defends Conscience Recission

Medical Students for Life of America

For immediate release

10 May, 2011

Arlington, VA- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has officially responded to pro-life concerns over the recent conscience rescissions for medical students and medical professionals. The response comes after Students for Life of America, Medical Students for Life of America, Christian Medical Association, Catholic Medical Association, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius expressing concerns over the Obama administration's latest attempt to discriminate against medical professionals of faith and conscience.

View the original letter sent to HHS here and view the response letter from HHS here.

Upon receipt of Health and Human Services' response, Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life of America commented, "While the Obama administration may not define life as beginning at fertilization, many Americans and medical professionals do. Conscience rights should be extended to health care providers who refuse to participate in actions which terminate the life of a human being after fertilization. The current U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations are inadequate to protect those rights of conscience as abortionifacent drugs like ella and Plan B are falling through the administration's loophole."

ella was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in August of 2010 for sale within the United States. The pill is both a contraceptive and abortificant, but the FDA chose only to label it as a contraceptive, deceiving millions of American women and forcing pro-life medical professionals to dispense the life-ending drug. Learn more about ella here: www.ellacausesabortions.com.

This February, the Obama administration rescinded the right of conscience to dispense drugs labeled as contraceptives. This action forces pro-life medical professionals to prescribe ella, Plan B, and other life-ending drugs even if doing so is a direct violation of the professional's conscience.

The HHS response comes as the Christian Medical Association (CMA) released new polling data on May 3rd showing that 77% of American adults believe that it is important to "make sure that health care professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections." A poll released previously by CMA revealed that 62% opposed a revocation of the conscience protection rule for medical professionals.

For interviews or questions about the HHS response,

Media Contact: Mary Powers
Email: mpowers@studentsforlife.org
Phone: 703-351-6280


USCCB Welcomes House Passage of 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act'
House took "decisive step" toward protecting life
'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act' reflects will of the people

Conscience protection essential for access to life-saving health care

  U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities

5 May, 2011

The Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) welcomed passage of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (H.R. 3) by the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill codifies a permanent, government-wide policy against taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage, improves federal conscience protection for health care providers and entities, and closes various loopholes that give tax-preferred status to abortion. Co-sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), the pro-life bill passed with bipartisan support by a vote of 251-175 on May 4.

"By passing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, the House has taken a decisive step toward protecting human life, reflecting the will of the American people," Deirdre McQuade, assistant director for policy and communications of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, had written to Congress on January 21 urging support for H.R. 3, saying that it will "write into permanent law a policy on which there has been strong popular and congressional agreement for over 35 years: The federal government should not use taxpayers' money to support and promote elective abortion... While Congress' policy has been remarkably consistent for decades, implementation of that policy in practice has been piecemeal, confusing and sometimes sadly inadequate."

"H.R. 3 also protects the civil rights of health care providers who conscientiously object to involvement in abortion," McQuade said. The bill updates and codifies the Weldon conscience protection amendment to Labor/HHS appropriations bills approved by Congress every year since 2004, ensuring that federal agencies and state and local governments receiving federal funds do not discriminate against health care providers that do not perform or provide abortions.

"Robust protection of conscience rights is essential for Americans' access to life-saving health care," McQuade said. "The great majority of doctors, nurses and hospitals do not perform elective abortions; Catholic health care, the largest and highest quality nonprofit health care network in the country, rejects all direct abortions. To penalize these providers or push them out of the system would cause great harm to patients most in need."


Alliance of Catholic Health Care Hails House Passage of Legislation to Protect Civil Rights of Health Care Providers

Alliance of Catholic Health Care

4 May, 2011
06:50 PM EDT

SACRAMENTO, Calif.-The Alliance of Catholic Health Care ("the Alliance") applauded the House of Representatives for passing legislation today that will provide strong, unambiguous and permanent civil rights conscience protections to health care providers.

The bill, H.R. 3 - "The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act" - enjoyed strong bipartisan support and passed by a vote of 251 to 175.

"For nearly two decades, various California state agencies have threatened to compel California hospitals and health care workers to violate their consciences by forcing them to perform, participate in, pay for or refer for abortions. If passed by the Senate and signed by the president, H.R. 3 would end this discriminatory practice in California and other states," said Bill Cox, President & CEO of the Alliance, which represents California's four state-based Catholic health care systems and their 53 hospitals.

"I would like to thank especially House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy for shepherding this important piece of legislation through the House," Cox added

The bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) includes important provisions to strengthen existing conscience protections by making them permanent under law and more enforceable. The civil rights protections are similar to those contained in another bill, H.R. 361, the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which the Alliance strongly supports as well.

"This legislation is urgently needed in many states, particularly here in California as health care providers find themselves under increasingly hostile and intolerant attacks to choose between violating their conscience or giving up their vocation to care for others. No one should be forced to make such a choice," Cox said.

The bill now moves to the Senate.

Contacts

For Alliance of Catholic Health Care
Kevin Eckery, 916-443-2528
keckery@eckery.com

 


CMA physicians: National Poll Shows Majority Support Conscience Protections in House Bill Slated for Debate Wednesday

Christian Medical & Dental Associations

For Immediate Release
3 May, 2011

Washington, DC - May 3, 2011: A just-released national poll demonstrates that a majority of the public support for the conscience protections for healthcare professionals included in a bill to be debated Wednesday in the U.S. House of Representatives, announced Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA).

The nationwide scientific poll, conducted by the polling company, inc. and commissioned by CMA and the Freedom2Care coalition, found strong public support across partisan and ideological lines for the conscience protections in the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act ( H.R. 3 ). That bill is slated for debate Wednesday in the House.

Fully half (50 percent) of survey respondents voiced support for "a law under which federal agencies and other government bodies that receive federal funds could not discriminate against hospitals and health care professionals who decline to participate in abortions." Only 35 percent voiced opposition.

The poll also found that 77 percent of Americans said it is important to them "to make sure that healthcare professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures or practices to which they have moral objections." CMA CEO Dr. Stevens noted, "Americans recognize that since the founding of our country, one of our most cherished ideals has been the freedom to follow our conscience. By protecting the conscience rights of healthcare professionals who practice medicine according to life-affirming standards, we not only uphold this ideal; we also protect patients who want physicians who share their life-affirming moral values."

Donald Thompson, MD, Director of CMA's Global Health Outreach, said, "Ob-Gyn physicians are already leaving the field in droves due to soaring medical malpractice insurance premiums and frustration with the increasing bureaucratization of medicine. Conscience protections are essential to keep the many life-affirming, faith-based obstetricians depended upon by millions of needy patients and by women who share their values."

A nationwide poll commissioned in 2009 by the CMA-led Freedom2Care coalition found that 88% of American adults surveyed 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. Over nine in ten faith-based physicians who were also polled indicated they would leave medicine if denied the ability to practice according to their moral beliefs.

Kellyanne Conway, CEO of the polling company, inc. , noted, "Conscience protections for health professionals enjoy broad support, spanning gender, age, race, geographic region, political party affiliation and even position on abortion. Every major demographic group proved more likely to support than oppose conscience protection laws for healthcare professionals. Congress has an easy path to do the will of the people."

Poll details: http://www.freedom2care.org/learn/page/surveys

Interview contacts:

Donald Thompson, MD: communications@cmda.org

the polling company, inc. CEO Kellyanne Conway: kellyanne@pollingcompany.com or 202-667-6557

CMDA Contact: Margie Shealy
Telephone: 423-844-1047
E-mail: margie.shealy@cmda.org
Website: www.cmda.org


Victory for Religious Freedom Six Years in the Making

American Center for Law and Justice

6 April, 2011

WASHINGTON, April 6, 2011-The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) this week secured a sweeping victory for pro-life pharmacy owners in Illinois after a legal battle lasting six years. A state court in Illinois this week issued a decision striking down a state law that compels pharmacy owners to dispense Plan B and other forms of emergency contraception, even if doing so violates their religious or moral beliefs.

In August 2009, a state judge granted the ACLJ's request for a preliminary injunction in the case of two pharmacy owners, Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog in the case of Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich.

The case went to trial in March 2010 and a decision today by Judge John W. Belz of the circuit court sitting in Springfield declared that the state law violates the state's Health Care Right of Conscience Act, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The decision can be viewed online.

"This decision is a major victory for the rights of conscience," said Senior Counsel for the ACLJ and plaintiffs co-counsel Francis J. Manion.

 After six long years of litigation, our clients have finally prevailed against a state government determined to coerce them and all pro-life pharmacists into violating their deeply held religious beliefs or give up their livelihoods. Judge Belz's decision makes clear that both Illinois state law and the First Amendment will not permit this. This country was founded by people with a strong commitment to religious freedom. That's why freedom of religion is the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights. For government at any level to try to run roughshod over that freedom is to abdicate the government's primary responsibility.

Mark Rienzi of Catholic University's Columbus School of Law served as co-counsel in the case.

"Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog are competent and caring professionals who have been diligently serving the public for decades," Rienzi said.

They happen to have a religious objection to one discreet kind of drugs - drugs that they believe interfere with human life at its earliest stages. In a pluralistic society that honors diversity there ought to be room for people like our clients to practice their professions without the threat of government sanctions. It's significant that the court in this case found that Illinois officials produced no evidence whatsoever of anyone ever being unable to obtain the drugs at issue and that there is no realistic threat of danger to anyone's health posed by allowing objecting pharmacists to step out of the way. The state's arguments to the contrary simply did not hold up to scrutiny.

In his ruling, Judge Belz noted that "The government asserts that this Rule serves a compelling interest in timely access to drugs. Yet the government concedes that it had never done anything to advance its asserted interest prior to April 2010. Even as to emergency contraception, the Court heard no evidence of a single person who ever was unable to obtain emergency contraception because of a religious objection."

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.


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.


AULA Calls for strong conscience clause protection for medical professionals
"No longer should the civil rights of medical professionals be held hostage to political interests," said Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

Americans United for Life

18 February, 2011

[Blog]WASHINGTON, D.C. - Americans United for Life president and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest noted that the Obama Administration had rescinded almost all of the regulation protecting conscience rights for medical professionals - except the provision to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.

"AUL predicted that the rights of conscience of medical professionals could be violated without stronger protections," said Dr. Yoest. "This must come to an end. No longer should the civil rights of medical professionals be held hostage to political interests." She continued: "Today the Obama Administration acknowledged that it is a civil right not to participate in an abortion, but in the same breath weakened federal regulations designed to protect that right. This underscores the necessity for Congressional action; health care providers must have an effective means to enforce their rights written in the law. The protection of the basic civil right to provide care without participating in life-destructive activities must not be dependent on the whims of an Administration that has made expanding abortion central to its mission."

The Obama Administration received more than 300,000 comments when it announced in 2009 that it intended to rescind regulations enacted under the Bush Administration to uphold federal conscience protection laws. Nearly two-thirds of those comments expressed opposition to rescinding the conscience-protecting regulations.

For more information or interviews, contact Kristi Hamrick press@aul.org


CMA Physicians, former HHS Asst. Secretary decry Obama administration's regulatory action on conscience and discrimination.

Christian Medical Association

[Blog] Washington, DC, February 18, 2011 -- The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) today protested the decision of the Obama administration to weaken the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in health care.

Dr. J. Scott Ries, a board-certified family physician and CMA's vice president for Campus & Community Ministries, said, "The administration has made changes in a vital civil rights regulation without evidence or justification. The administration presented no evidence of any problems in healthcare access, prescriptions or procedures that have occurred in the two years since the original regulation's enactment that would justify any change in this protective regulation.

"The administration, for example, contends that a rule change is necessary to protect access to contraception, but absolutely no evidence is presented to justify any such concern. In the process, the administration blatantly ignores the scientific evidence that certain controversial prescriptions that abortion advocates promote as contraception are actually potential abortifacients, ending the life of a living, developing human embryo. This is a critical concern for pro-life patients, healthcare professionals and institutions."

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicated in 2008 in its final rule, "We have found no evidence that these regulations will create new barriers in accessing contraception unless those contraceptives are currently delivered over the religious or moral objections of the provider in such programs or research activities."

Dr. Ries added, "The Obama administration's regulatory action today diminishes the civil rights that protect conscientious physicians and other healthcare professionals against discrimination. Any weakening of protections against discrimination against life-affirming healthcare professionals ultimately threatens to severely worsen patient access to health care.

"Losing conscientious healthcare professionals and faith-based institutions to discrimination and job loss especially imperils the poor and patients in medically underserved areas. We are already facing critical shortages of primary care physicians, and the Obama administration's decision now threatens to make the situation far worse for patients across the country who depend on faith-based health care."

National survey results show that over nine of ten faith-based physicians, who are among the most likely to be serving the poor and those in medically underserved areas, indicate they would rather leave the profession if denied the ability to practice medicine according to conscientiously held ethical standards. Survey results also indicate that 20% of faith-based medical students say they are "not pursuing a career in Obstetrics or Gynecology" because of perceived discrimination and coercion in that field.

Dr. Ries added, "Stories told to me by medical students across the country indicate that the threat of being forced to participate in abortion procedures and violate their moral integrity is enough to steer them in the opposite direction. That means even fewer physicians for women in the future in this specialty that is already facing critical shortages.

Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health Dr. Joxel Garcia noted, "Especially in physician shortage states such as Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Delaware, losing just one physician can erase healthcare access for thousands of patients.

"Pushing conscientious physicians out of medicine is a significant step toward a healthcare system controlled by the state that moves away from the ethical roots of medicine. In the new governmental utilitarian model, the 'common good' defined by the state supersedes any moral, religious or ethical principle such as embodied in the Hippocratic Oath, which has protected patients for millennia."

As the second-in-command under Sec. Mike Leavitt at the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS), Dr. Garcia oversaw the development and implementation of the conscience regulation and continues to work closely with the CMA and others to protect conscience rights. He currently serves as President and Dean at the Ponce School of Medicine & Health Sciences, where CMA provides a medical student ministry, as it does on over 90 percent of the nation's medical and dental school campuses.

Dr. Ries' clinical career has included faculty appointments at Indiana University School of Medicine and Butler University; he has also served as medical consultant to NBC, CBS, FOX and ABC network affiliates.


USCCB Finds Weakening of Health Care Conscience Rule a 'Disappointment,'
Affirms Some Positive Elements

USCCB News Release 11-036

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 18, 2011

[Blog] WASHINGTON (February 18, 2011)-The Obama administration's final rule rescinding important elements of a federal regulation protecting the conscience rights of health care providers is a disappointment, but there are also reasons for hope, said Deirdre McQuade of the Pro-Life Secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

"The Administration's action today is cause for disappointment, but also offers reasons for hope regarding an emerging consensus in Washington on the need for clear conscience protections for health care providers," said McQuade.

"It is very disappointing that the Administration has chosen to eliminate much of the existing regulation on conscience issued in December 2008. Among other things, the final rule issued today eliminates important clarifications that would have helped in interpreting and enforcing longstanding federal statutes protecting the conscience rights of health care providers. It also eliminates a regulatory requirement that recipients of federal funds certify compliance with those statutes.

"However, it is welcome news that the Administration says it will take initiative to increase awareness of the conscience statutes, work to ensure compliance with them, and require that government grants make clear that compliance is required. We look forward to working with the Administration and Congress to ensure that these endeavors are carried out, so providers receive the full conscience protection they are due.

"We also hope that the Administration will place its full support behind efforts in Congress to clarify conscience protections and make them more secure, by endorsing such initiatives as the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3), and the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 361)."

  • Past USCCB letters supporting the Bush administration regulation, and opposing efforts to rescind it.


Statement from the Department of Health and Human Services
Regulation for the Enforcement of Federal Health Care Conscience Protections

HHS Press Office

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, February 18, 2011

The administration strongly supports provider conscience laws that protect and support the rights of health care providers, and also recognizes and supports the rights of patients. Strong conscience laws make it clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion. Many of these strong conscience laws have been in existence for more than 30 years. The rule being issued today builds on these laws by providing a clear enforcement process.

To underscore its support, HHS is beginning a new awareness initiative for our grantees through the HHS Office for Civil Rights, to ensure they understand the statutory conscience protections, and the enforcement process for those who believe their rights have been violated.

The final conscience protection rule being issued today by HHS reaffirms the Department's commitment to longstanding federal conscience statutes by maintaining and building upon provisions of the Bush administration rule that established an enforcement process for federal conscience laws, while rescinding the definitions and terms of the previous rule that caused confusion and could be taken as overly broad.

Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343


ADF cases prompt House members to seek rationale from Sebelius over attack on conscience protections
Letter signed by 46 members of House cites DeCarlo, Vanderbilt cases

Alliance Defence Fund

For immediate release
14 February, 2011

WASHINGTON - A letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius signed by 46 members of the U.S. House of Representatives Friday asks her to explain why her department is seeking to repeal conscience protections for health care workers in light of known attacks on such workers. The two situations cited in the letter involve clients represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund.

"Medical professionals should not be punished for holding to their beliefs, and they should not be forced to perform abortions against their conscience," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "Members of the House are justified in asking why the Obama administration would be seeking to repeal such protections, especially in light of the recent examples of abuse involving ADF clients."

One of the situations cited involves a nurse forced against her conscience by New York's Mt. Sinai Hospital to participate in an abortion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the dismissal of her federal lawsuit filed by ADF attorneys, leaving only an ongoing investigation by HHS as the means to defend her federally protected rights while her New York state lawsuit continues.

Planned Parenthood and other plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit State of Connecticut v. United States of America are seeking to tear down the regulation that enables HHS to conduct investigations. ADF attorneys filed a motion to intervene in that case on behalf of Cenzon-DeCarlo in December. Because the defendants, Sebelius and the Obama administration, want to dismantle the regulation as the plaintiffs desire, little adequate defense exists for the regulation and for health care workers protected by a federal law known as the Church Amendment. The Church Amendment prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating against pro-life health care workers but its enforcement may be limited without the implementing regulation that directs HHS to conduct investigations.

Another situation cited by the House letter to Sebelius involves Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. In January, ADF attorneys filed complaints with HHS over problematic language on the applications for Vanderbilt's nurse residency program which included a pledge to participate in abortions. The university changed the language, but only after ADF filed the complaints.

"Both of these situations are precisely the type of discrimination against health care providers that federal conscience statutes were meant to redress," the letter from House members explains. "We strongly oppose any action that would undermine or eliminate the responsibility of HHS to enforce conscience laws that have been enacted by Congress for nearly four decades. The Implementing Regulations did not add to the substance of existing law, but required fund recipients to certify compliance with the law and more specifically committed HHS to enforce those laws as written."


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. (www.adfmedia.org | twitter.com/adfmedia)


CA Alliance of Catholic Health Care Applauds Effort to Protect Hospitals, Clinics and Health Care Workers from Coercive Measures that Violate Conscience

Alliance of Catholic Health Care

25 January, 2011

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The Alliance of Catholic Health Care applauded the introduction of new bipartisan federal civil rights legislation that would protect all hospitals, clinics and health care workers from being forced to perform or support abortions in violation of their rights of conscience.

"Government should never force health care workers to choose between violating their consciences or losing their jobs, and hospitals should never have to choose between violating their mission or closing their doors," said Bill Cox, President & CEO of the Alliance, which represents all four California-based Catholic health care systems and their 53 hospitals.

The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2011 (H.R. 361) is sponsored by Rep. John Fleming (R- LA), a Shreveport physician, and Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK). The bill covers health care entities across the board - ranging from hospitals, doctors and nurses to insurance payers. Its comprehensive language protects entities from being forced by government agencies to perform or participate in abortions, provide abortion training, pay for abortions, or make referrals for abortions or abortion training.

"This bill is about tolerance. Most Americans have long believed the government should not use its power to force conscientious objectors to participate in combat, to compel doctors opposed to capital punishment to participate in state-sanctioned executions, or to force health care institutions and providers of any kind - Catholic, non-Catholic or non-sectarian - to violate their rights of conscience by performing or paying for abortions," Cox added.

The legislation seeks to strengthen existing protections by making them permanent under statute and by providing remedies, such as the private right to legal action, that are more enforceable. The urgent need for enhanced federal protection is underscored by threats that include:

  • A federal court filing by the Obama Administration late last year indicating that the Department of Health and Human Services may rescind existing conscience protections as early as January 2011.
  • Ongoing efforts by public officials in California to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or pay for abortions. These include a lawsuit by the California attorney general (Lockyer v. United States of America) to have a federal conscience-rights law declared unconstitutional, and proposals (in 2008 & 2010) by the California Department of Managed Health Care to compel Catholic and other health care employers to cover abortions in their health insurance plans.
  • A requirement by Vanderbilt University's nurse residency program to require nurses in the women's health track to participate in abortions. The policy was rescinded this past week, but no effective federal protection exists for nurse trainees' ability to defend their rights in court should it be reinstated or replicated.
  • The suspension of nine nurses at Nassau County Medical Center on Long Island for failure to participate in a non-emergency abortion, even though each nurse had a letter in their personnel file giving them an exemption from participating in an abortion.
  • A New York City requirement that gynecology residents training in the city's public hospitals be forced to train in abortions.
  • A decision by the Alaska Supreme Court forcing a private, non-sectarian hospital to perform abortions.
  • The state of Connecticut's refusal to grant a Certificate of Need to a surgical center because it refused to perform abortions.

"It's fitting that this legislation be introduced after we recently paused to celebrate the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. For more than 40 years, the nation has amassed a history of civil rights protections and a spirit of tolerance to guard against discriminatory acts by individuals and governments. Civil rights protections and government respect for health care entities and their fundamental rights of conscience must be an important aspect of this struggle," Cox said.


The Alliance of Catholic Health Care represents California's Catholic health care systems and hospitals. There are 53 California Catholic and community-based affiliated hospitals providing nearly 16 percent of all California in-patient acute care. The Catholic health care systems participating in the Alliance include Catholic Healthcare West (San Francisco), Daughters of Charity Health System (Los Altos Hills), Providence Health and Services (Southern California), and the St. Joseph Health System (Orange).


Bishops Support Three Bills to Strengthen Protections for Life and Conscience

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

11-021

24 January, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON-Three bills currently in the U.S. House of Representatives would help ensure that adequate protections are in place for the consciences of taxpayers and health care providers and against federal funding of abortion. In three letters, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), urged House members to support the bills.

The Protect Life Act, H.R. 358, Cardinal DiNardo wrote in a January 20 letter, would address flaws in the new health care reform law and  bring it "into line with policies on abortion and conscience rights that have long prevailed in other federal health programs." It would do so by preventing funds under the new law from subsidizing abortion or health care plans that cover abortion, protecting the consciences of health care providers who decline to participate in an abortion, and ensuring that the law doesn't override state laws on abortion and conscience.

In a second letter January 20, Cardinal DiNardo urged support for the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA), H.R. 361, which will codify into law the longstanding policy of the Hyde/Weldon amendment and give health care entities that do not provide abortions legal recourse when faced with government-sponsored discrimination. The Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services would be designated to investigate complaints.       

"Passage of ANDA is urgently needed to protect the civil rights of health professionals and other health care entities," the cardinal wrote. "This bill reaffirms a basic principle: No health care entity should be forced by government to perform or participate in abortions."       

 In a January 21 letter, Cardinal DiNardo also voiced his support for the bipartisan No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, H.R. 3, which would "write into permanent law a policy on which there has been strong popular and congressional agreement for over 35 years: The federal government should not use taxpayers' money to support and promote elective abortion." The cardinal wrote, "Even public officials who take a 'pro-choice' stand on abortion, and courts that have insisted on the validity of a constitutional 'right' to abortion, have agreed that the government can validly use its funding power to encourage childbirth over abortion."    

 Cardinal DiNardo noted that this agreement is so longstanding that, during the recent health care debate, many assumed it was already in place at all levels of the federal government, when in fact the Hyde amendment is only a rider to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bill and only governs funds under that act.  

 The cardinal noted, "The benefit of H.R. 3 is that it would prevent problems and confusions on abortion funding in future legislation. Federal health bills could be debated in terms of their ability to promote the goal of universal health care, instead of being mired in debates about one lethal procedure that most Americans know is not truly 'health care' at all."