Category: Lawsuits

Philippines government demands referral by objecting physicians even if not “right”

In the closing hearings into the controversial Reproductive Health Law, judges of the Philippines Supreme Court questioned a provision in the law that makes it a crime to provide “incorrect information” about contraceptives.  When Senior State Solicitor Florin Hilbay explained that the Philippines Food and Drug Administration will determine what is “correct,” a judge pointed out that this would mean that no dissent from that would be allowed.  Another judge raised the possibility  of the imprisonment of physicians who disagree with the FDA about the safety of a drug.

Hilbay also claimed that objecting physicians have a “professional obligation” to facilitate the provision of the services to which they object by referral, asserting that refusal to refer makes a patient a “victim.” He insisted on this even though he admitted that referral might not be “right.” The court gave lawyers for both sides 60 days to submit memoranda concerning their arguments. [Manila Standard] [Philippine Daily Inquirer] [Inquirer.net]

Philippines Supreme Court hearings on the Reproductive Health Law

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has resumed a hearing into the constitutionality of the controversial Reproductive Health law (the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012) .  The operation of the law was suspended by the Court pending the outcome of litigation against it.  Luisito Liban, a lawyer representing some of those opposed to the bill, told the court that his clients were “speaking on behalf of true Catholics” who do not use contraceptives.   He also criticized the section of the law that requires objecting physicians to refer patients for morally contested services. [GMA (Philippines); ABS-CBN News (Philippines)]

Update on American HHS controversy

The Department of Health and Human Services has confirmed a regulation that will require businesses with over 50 employees to provide health insurance for birth control and surgical sterilization, even if they object to doing so for reasons of conscience.  The regulations includes exemptions for objecting “religious employers” (largely limited to houses of worship) and objecting religious non-profit organizations.  However, the continued demand that objecting business owners be forced to comply and the nature of the exemptions remain unacceptable to many religious organizations.  Speaking for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel, said:  

When it comes to religious liberty, the Department of Health and Human Services is acting like a kid who doesn’t want to eat his lima beans. Our Constitution and laws require them to protect religious exercise, but they really don’t want to, so they are trying every trick in the book to avoid doing so. But we will keep suing until the courts make HHS comply with its obligations. [Becket Fund News Release]

The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Committee has issued a report accusing the Obama administration and Department of Health and Human Services of “unprecedented abuse” of religious liberty.

There are now 61 civil suits filed against the regulation, with over 200 plaintiffs. [Becket Fund, HHS Information Central].  In one of them, a unanimous decision by the10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has directed a lower court allow a civil suit brought by Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts and crafts stores.  The owners of the company object to being forced to provide embryocidal forms of birth control.  They are seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the regulation [The Tennessean].  A Largo, Florida, company with the same objections has been granted a preliminary injunction [Tampa Tribune], as has Geneva College, a Christian college in Pennsylvania [NCR].

American Catholic bishops have been adamant that the HHS regulation is unacceptable, once again declaring a “Fortnight for Freedom” from 21 June to 4 July to encourage opposition to it and support for freedom of religion.  Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York, has been one of the leading opponents of the law.  The Archdiocese of New York is among the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the regulation.  However, the Archdiocese of New York has, for years, been indirectly paying for health insurance for employees of the Catholic Health Care System that includes coverage for contraception and abortion.  The arrangement was approved by Cardinal Dolan’s predecessor, Archbishop John O’Connor, who died in 2000.  A spokesman for the Archdiocese stated that the coverage is provided “under protest.”  [New York Times]

Philippines Supreme Court identifies issues to be addressed in hearing

In order to simplify and expedite the hearing scheduled for 9 July to review the controversial Reproductive Health law, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has proposed that the petitioners for and against the bill concentrate on three constitutional themes during their oral submissions:

  • proscription of involuntary servitude *
  • equal protection clause (right to life, freedom of religion, natural law) **
  • freedom of speech (academic freedom) ***

Sections of the Bill of Rights (Constitution of the Philippines) relevant to these proposals are:

  • * Bill of Rights, Section 18(2): No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
  • **Constitution, Section 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
  • ***Bill of Rights, Section 4:  No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
    • ***Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

[GMA News online]