Proposed Regulation: 80 Fed. Reg. 54172 (Sept. 8, 2015).
Re: Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities RIN 0945-AA02
Joint letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Category: United States
Pope Francis must defend religious liberty in America
New York Post
Thirty years ago, I slid a piece of paper across a table at a secret meeting with the fabled French maritime explorer Jacques Cousteau. In it were dozens of names, all political prisoners in Fidel Castro’s gulags where I spent 22 years of my life. Months later, when Cousteau visited Cuba for research and Castro wanted to scuba dive with him, Cousteau leveraged the release of 80 of those prisoners in exchange. Cousteau used the gift of his fame to change the lives of Cubans for generations to come.
When Pope Francis arrives in the United States this month, he will not barter pictures and backslaps for political prisoners. America is still a nation where its citizens can publicly oppose their political leaders without fear of incarceration. At least for now. But in his unprecedented address to a joint session of Congress, he should protest against the ongoing creation of a new class of prisoners in our society: religious conscientious objectors. [Full Text]
Odd Wisconsin: Soldier’s conscience trumped direct orders
Wisconsin State Journal
Society depends on people obeying rules for the common good, but sometimes conscience is stronger than conformity.
This happened twice in 1862 to Col. Halbert Paine of Wisconsin’s 4th Cavalry, who disobeyed orders to return fugitive slaves to their owners and to burn the city of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. . .
On June 5, 1862, Paine was ordered to send African-American slaves who’d taken refuge among his troops back to their owners. . . [Full text]
Does an Illinois bill threaten doctors’ conscience rights? Depends on whom you ask
Catholic News Agency
Springfield, Ill., May 29, 2015 / 03:13 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- An Illinois bill that some say threatens the conscience rights of medical providers is currently under consideration in the state’s general assembly.
Catholics and pro-lifers are divided among themselves over the implications of SB 1564 for the conscience rights of medical providers.
While the state’s Catholic Conference is neutral on the bill, the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom states that it “would force medical facilities and physicians who conscientiously object to involvement in abortions (and other procedures) to refer for, make arrangements for someone else to perform, or arrange referral information that lists willing providers, for abortions.” . . . [Full text]
Illinois controversy about legislative overreach
Catholic bishops withdraw opposition, others remain opposed
Confrontation centres on complicity
Introduction
Among American states, Illinois has the most comprehensive protection of conscience legislation, the Health Care Right of Conscience Act (HCRCA). In 2009 an attempt was made to nullify the Act with respect to abortion, contraception and related procedures by introducing HB 2354 (Reproductive Health and Access Act), but the bill died in committee two years later.1 Now it appears that the HRCA may be changed by Senate Bill 1564. Critics say the bill tramples upon physician freedom of conscience,2 while the bill’s supporters, like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), claim that the bill is “about making sure no one is withholding information from the patient.”3
SB 1564 was actually drafted by the ACLU,3 but it was introduced by Illinois Senator Daniel Biss. He said that the amendments were partly in response to the case of a woman who was miscarrying over several weeks, but who was refused “diagnosis or options” in the hospital where she had sought treatment.4 Senator Bliss was apparently referring to the story of Mindy Swank, who testified before a Senate legislative panel about her experience. The Illinois Times reported that she suffered “a dangerous, weeks-long miscarriage” because of the refusal of Catholic hospitals to provide abortions.5
Unfortunately, the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee does not record or transcribe its hearings, and conflicting news reports make it difficult to determine exactly what happened at some critical points in her story. Moreover, it appears that the Committee did not hear from the hospitals and physicians who were involved with Ms. Swank, so we are left with a one-sided account of what took place.6
Nonetheless, as a first step in considering the particulars of the bill and the controversy it has engendered, it is appropriate to review the evidence offered to support it. We will begin with Mindy Swank’s testimony, even if some details are lacking, and then examine the experience of Angela Valavanis, a second case put forward by the ACLU to justify SB 1564.7 [Full Text]