Category: Religious Freedom

Atticus Finch Teaches a Lesson in Conscience Rights

“The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule,” he says in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, “is a person’s conscience.”

National Catholic Register

Andrea Piciotti-Bayer

Atticus Finch Teaches a Lesson in Conscience Rights

When my dearest friend asked me to join her virtual book club, I said “Sure!” She’s the kind of friend for whom I’d walk over broken glass — but, moments after I said yes, I thought to myself: “What was I thinking? I’ve got seven school-aged kids still at home, mountains of laundry to do every day, and a full-time job.”

But, because our friendship means so much to me and I am not one to walk away from a “Sure!”, I’ve stayed in the book club. And I’m glad I did.

Thank goodness for audiobooks. I’ve been able to keep up with the “reading” as I walk the family black Labrador puppy. (Again, what was I thinking?) The third book in our list is To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. I know everybody’s supposed to have read this in high school, but I can’t honestly remember whether I did. For me, Atticus Finch had always been the irresistible Gregory Peck. . . [Full text]

Federal Court Upholds Conscience Protections for Doctors

The Daily Signal

Nicole Russell

Amid a flurry of activity and controversy with the incoming Biden administration, there was still a major victory for religious freedom and conscience protection last week.

On Jan. 19, a federal court, citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, upheld conscience protections for physicians and struck down the transgender mandate that ordered doctors to perform transgender interventions when doing so violated the provider’s sincerely held religious beliefs. 

The case, Sisters of Mercy v. Azar, is hardly well-known, but no less newsworthy. The plaintiffs are an order of Catholic nuns, a Catholic university, and Catholic health care organizations. They sued the government, challenging Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which forced doctors to perform transgender interventions against their sincerely held religious beliefs or even sound, medical advice. . . [Full text]

Court blocks mandate forcing doctors to perform controversial gender transition procedures

Federal court upholds conscience rights for doctors and protects welfare of patients

News Release

Becket Law

WASHINGTON – A federal court in North Dakota just blocked a requirement known as the Transgender Mandate that would force medical professionals and religious hospitals to perform gender transition procedures on their patients—including children—even when the procedures are potentially harmful. In Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Azar, an order of Catholic nuns, a Catholic university, and Catholic healthcare organizations sued the federal government challenging a provision of the Affordable Care Act that would have forced doctors to perform gender transition procedures even if doing so would violate their religious beliefs and medical judgment. Becket represented the plaintiffs, arguing that sensitive medical decisions should be kept between patients and their doctors without government interference, and that no one should be required by law to disregard their conscience or their professional medical judgment.

“Now more than ever, Americans are grateful for the sacrifices of our medical professionals who serve on the front lines and use their training and expertise to serve the vulnerable,” said Luke Goodrich, senior counsel at Becket. “The court’s decision recognizes our medical heroes’ right to practice medicine in line with their conscience and without politically motivated interference from government bureaucrats.”

In 2016, the federal government issued a mandate, applicable to nearly every doctor in the country, interpreting the Affordable Care Act to require them to perform gender transition procedures on any patient, including children, even if the doctor believed the procedure could harm the patient. Doctors who refused to violate their medical judgment would have faced severe consequences, including financial penalties and private lawsuits. Immediately, religious organizations and states sued, challenging the legality of the mandate in multiple courts. In 2016, a federal court in North Dakota put the rule on hold, and in 2019 another federal court in Texas struck it down. In June 2020, HHS passed a new rule aimed at walking back the requirement, but other courts have blocked that new rule. Today’s ruling is the second ruling from a federal court blocking the Transgender Mandate. The ruling protects patients, aligns with current medical research, and ensures doctors aren’t forced to violate their religious beliefs and medical judgment.

“These religious doctors and hospitals provide top-notch medical care to all patients for everything from cancer to the common cold,” said Goodrich. “All they’re asking is that they be allowed to continue serving their patients as they’ve done for decades, without being forced to perform controversial, medically unsupported procedures that are against their religious beliefs and potentially harmful to their patients. The Constitution and federal law require no less.”

Contact: Ryan Colby 202-349-7219 media@becketlaw.org

Christian Medical Association Physicians Gain Support from Congress and States in Court Fight Against Discriminatory Firing

States and Members of Congress file brief supporting conscience rule protections

News Release

For immediate release

Christian Medical and Dental Associations (USA)

Washington, DC—May 26, 2020 – Christian Medical Association physicians (CMA*, www.cmda.org) received support from states, Members of Congress, minority groups, medical affiliate organizations, and legal experts who recently filed legal briefs in a case regarding a federal conscience protection rule for health professionals.

In New York v. HHS, CMA and Dr. Regina Frost are defending against attempts by states that want to discriminate against doctors and nurses who refuse to violate their consciences and medical judgment by performing procedures such as abortions or physician-assisted suicide. This case is now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

CMA CEO Dr. Mike Chupp noted, “As a general surgeon who did patient care for over 30 years, my professional judgment has been based upon available medical evidence, training and experience, and a deep sense of obligation to care for my patients in a way that best benefits their health. The conscientious practice of medicine depends upon the integration of these factors by a healthcare professional. The informed conscience of every healthcare professional serves as an inner compass for the best kind of patient care. The HHS conscience rule affirms that our CMA members must be protected from violating their deeply held beliefs as they seek to serve all patients with excellence and compassion.”

CMA Senior Vice President for Bioethics and Public Policy and Obstetrician-Gynecologist, Dr. Jeffrey Barrows noted, “As an Ob-Gyn physician, I have delivered many babies of mothers and fathers who specifically sought a life-affirming physician for their care. The conscience rule not only upholds and enforces decades of federal law passed on a bipartisan basis; it also helps ensure that patients will have a choice of life-affirming physicians who match their values.

“All health care professionals must have the freedom to practice medicine without being forced to violate their conscience. The updated conscience rule released by HHS in 2019 ensures this freedom, establishing conscience protections for all health care professionals, regardless of faith background.”

Evidence indicates that conscience protections help ensure patient access to healthcare at a time of physician shortages nationally. National polling commissioned by CMA and conducted in 2019 by an independent polling firm found that while faith-based health professional respondents overwhelmingly said that they care for all patients regardless of agreement with patients’ choices, none of ten said that being required to violate their consciences would force them to leave the practice of medicine.

For more information on the court case and access to the amicus briefs, see https://www.becketlaw.org/case/new-york-v-hhs/.

For legal perspectives and attorney interviews, contact Ryan Colby: media@becketlaw.org, 202-349-7219.

*The Christian Medical Association serves approximately 19,000 members and, along with the Christian Dental Association, forms the Christian Medical & Dental Associations.

Broad support to protect doctors, nurses from discriminatory firing

Medical groups, minorities, legal experts line up against New York’s attempt to block healthcare anti-discrimination law

News Release

For immediate release

Becket Law

WASHINGTON – A diverse group of states, Members of Congress, minority groups, medical affiliate organizations, and legal experts recently filed half-a-dozen briefs supporting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) Conscience Rule, which provides federal conscience protections for medical professionals. In New York v. HHS, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is defending Dr. Regina Frost and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) from attempts by states to discriminate against doctors and nurses who refuse to violate their consciences and medical judgment by performing procedures such as abortions or physician-assisted suicide.  This case is now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Highlights from the friend-of-the-court filings in New York v. HHS:

  • A congressional brief filed by dozens of Members of Congress explained why the new rule’s provisions flowed directly from unchallenged—and bipartisan—statutory protections for medical conscience that have been on the books for decades.
  • Former Senator Coats and former Representative Weldon (the named sponsors of two key statutory conscience protections for healthcare providers) filed their own brief in support, explaining why conscience protections are important for health care providers and how the government’s new regulation supports key bipartisan statutory protections that have long been on the books.
  • The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty and the Coalition for Jewish Values also highlighted the disproportionate impact that New York’s lawsuit would have on medical professionals of minority faiths.
  • The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence explained why this new rule helps the government better enforce existing federal conscience protections.
  • A coalition of medical professional organizations—including the American College Of Pediatricians, the Catholic Medical Association, and the National Catholic Bioethics Center—filed a brief highlighting ongoing threats to medical professionals of faith and explaining why this rule will help ensure medical providers cannot be coerced by employers to either violate their conscience or lose their job.

“Healthcare is one area where protecting conscience is particularly vital,” said Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, in a brief on behalf of sixteen states. “That is why Congress has routinely enacted laws to ensure that these professionals can provide care without violating their beliefs.”

Polling from last year shows that religious healthcare professionals are committed to serving all patients, but face increasing pressures to engage in procedures such as abortions that violate their faith, which could force over ninety percent of religious doctors out of the medical field.  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Conscience Rule last year to better enforce bipartisan laws that, for decades, have promised to allow religious doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals to serve patients without facing employment discrimination directed against their consciences. The Rule simply clarifies and enforces existing federal statutes designed to ensure religious health professionals won’t be forced out of the practice of medicine by entities that voluntarily choose to accept federal tax money. But, led by the State of New York, several states and abortion providers are suing to keep the federal funds while preventing the government from enforcing the conscience protections that they agreed to when they accepted the funds.

“It is encouraging to see this broad coalition stand up in support of conscience rights,” said Dr. Regina Frost. “I hope the Court will recognize that the Rule simply enforces common-sense, bipartisan protections that protect both medical professionals from unjust discrimination and patients from losing their doctors.”

Dr. Frost is an OB-GYN and one of nearly 19,000 medical professionals in CMDA serving the sick and vulnerable in the United States and abroad. CMDA members serve the homeless, prisoners living with HIV, and victims of opioid addiction, sex trafficking, and gang violence. Overseas, CMDA members serve in war zones, refugee clinics, and remote areas without quality healthcare. New York’s lawsuit needlessly threatens the health and well-being of at-risk, underserved populations across the globe.

Dr. Frost and CMDA are also represented by Allyson Ho and Daniel Nowicki of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219.Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, or Spanish.

Additional Information

Case Page: New York v. HHS

Link: Friend-of-the-Court Briefs in New York v. HHS

Legal Doc: Order in New York v. HHS 11/06/2019

Link: Media Kit