News Releases: 2011
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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."
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
"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
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.
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.
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
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)
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).
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."