Equality legislation used to defend conscientious objection to abortion

 (United Kingdom: 2011)

  • John Smeaton* | The two nurses . . .were employed at a hospital for ordinary nursing duties. They were then allocated to work once a week at an abortion clinic in the hospital. The abortion process did not involve surgical abortion but the increasingly common process of “early medical abortion” . . .When they became aware that they were participating in abortion they told their management that they did not want to continue but were then told that they had no choice in the matter. . . Full Text

Obama Administration Rejects Conscience Protections

The Heartland Institute

30 March, 2011
Reproduced with permission

William Saunders and Anna Franzonello

An issue of paramount importance for medical professionals is the protection of their right to conscience—their freedom to refuse or decline to do practices they oppose on religious or moral grounds. A February decision by the Obama administration, however, sweeps aside conscience protections instituted under President Bush.

The decision is not unexpected—the Obama administration initiated the process to rescind the Bush regulations on March 10, 2009. Unfortunately, it comes at a time when pressure to violate one’s conscience or leave the medical profession is not theoretical but very real.

Obama Rejects ‘Conscientious Refusal’

One such recent threat comes from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), which reviewed and reaffirmed its 2007 Ethics Committee Number 385, titled “The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine” in November 2010.

Rule number 385 categorizes a conscience objection as a “refusal,” describing elective abortion and other controversial reproductive medical procedures and services as “standard.” The opinion states, “In some circumstances, respect for conscience must be weighed against respect for particular social values.”

On balance, according to ACOG’s rule, abortion is a social value that outweighs any conscientious objection. It requires prolife physicians to refer individual for abortions and even suggests they relocate their practices to better refer patients to nearby abortionists.

Could Strip Certification

The effect of the ACOG committee opinion is that otherwise qualified health care providers specializing in obstetrics and gynecology may lose their board certification solely because of their prolife values. According to the 2011 Bulletin for Basic Certification in Obstetrics and Gynecology from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG), an individual can have his or her board certification revoked if he or she acts in “violation of ABOG or ACOG rules and/or ethical principles.”

Without Board certification, a doctor is subject to discrimination by other entities. State and local governments, hospitals, or other institutions that require Board certification may take action against the physician. Thus, refusing to conform to the ACOG recommendations on abortion could result in the loss of a health care provider’s livelihood.

In finding that abortion is a circumstance where conscientious objection “can and should be overridden in the interest of other moral obligations that outweigh it,” ACOG’s subjection of conscience to patient autonomy leaves patients paying the ultimate price. Access to essential reproductive health care will be limited as prolife doctors are forced out of the field.

ACOG Threat Prompted Rule

When ACOG first issued its threat, then-Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Michael Leavitt issued a letter to Norman F. Gant, executive director of ABOG, stating such discrimination would seem to violate federal laws protecting the right of conscientious objection to abortion.

ABOG and ACOG refused to change their policy, and the Bush administration enacted the “Regulation Ensuring that the Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Practice in Violation of Federal Law” in December 2008. The regulation required certification from entities receiving federal funds from HHS that they will comply with the established federal conscience protection laws.

Protection Removed

A recent case demonstrated the importance of the Bush rule. A nurse at Mt. Sinai hospital in New York, Cathy DeCarlo, was forced to participate in an abortion despite her conscientious objection. A federal court dismissed her claim, saying she cannot bring suit by herself. HHS then ruled the court can pursue the case because of the Bush regulations.

Now that President Obama has revoked the rule, conscience rights will likely have little protection against threats from ACOG and ABOG. It is unlikely Congress (particularly the Senate) has the votes to convert the revoked guidelines into a binding statute. For this reason, Americans United for Life has drafted a model bill to protect conscience at the state level, blocking discriminatory practices such as “refusal of board certification.”

Health care professionals face serious ethical issues on a daily basis. The Obama administration’s rejection of conscience protection ought to concern both health care providers and patients.

ADF rebuts NY hospital’s claim that pro-life nurse can’t sue

ADF attorneys respond to claims of Mount Sinai Hospital

NEWS RELEASE
19 August, 2009

Alliance Defense Fund

NEW YORK — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys submitted a brief in federal court Monday in response to the claim of New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital that a pro-life nurse who sued the hospital has no right to defend herself in court.  ADF filed suit after the hospital forced senior nurse Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo to participate in a late-term abortion procedure.

“Pro-life nurses shouldn’t be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs.  Nonetheless, Mount Sinai Hospital is multiplying its injustices against nurse Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman.  “First it disregarded Cathy’s conscience; now it argues she can’t go to court to defend her rights.  Mount Sinai Hospital does not have the right to disregard federal law and then refuse to face the consequences of its actions.”

Administrators at Mount Sinai Hospital threatened Cenzon-DeCarlo with disciplinary measures if she did not honor a last-minute summons to assist in a scheduled late-term abortion.  Despite the fact that the patient was apparently not in crisis at the time of the surgery, the hospital insisted on her participation in the procedure on the grounds that it was an “emergency,” even though the procedure was not classified by the hospital as such. ADF attorneys filed suit on behalf of Cenzon-DeCarlo in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on July 21.

Attorneys for the hospital submitted a brief to the court Aug. 10 arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the federal law at issue “does not grant individual litigants a private right of action.”

ADF attorneys responded to the brief Monday, noting, “Mount Sinai’s compulsion violates 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c), ‘the Church Amendment’ (named after Senator Frank Church).  This law provides that no recipient of federal health funds may discriminate in the employment or privileges of its health care personnel because of their religious objection to abortion.  The law contains no exception letting Mount Sinai compel assistance based on their unbridled judgment that abortion is an ‘emergency.’  Mount Sinai’s actions are a quintessential example of discriminating in employment and privileges on condition that Mrs. DeCarlo violate her objection to abortion.”

The ADF brief goes on to explain that “Mount Sinai compounds its contempt of the law” by denying that the law allows Cenzon-DeCarlo to defend her conscience rights.  The brief points out that a federal court just this year “not only recognized an individual right, but allowed the plaintiff (in that case an abortion supporter) to seek punitive damages.”  It also points out that the federal law involves all of the factors that the U.S. Supreme Court has used to recognize such rights and that Congress obviously intended to protect individuals from discrimination under the law it created.

New York ADF-allied attorneys Joseph Ruta and Piero Tozzi are serving as local counsel in the case, Cenzon-DeCarlo v. The Mount Sinai Hospital.  The court will hold a pre-trial conference on Sept. 10.

Contact: ADF MEDIA RELATIONS  (480) 444-0020


ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

A NY Nurse Forced to do the Unthinkable

Inside the Issues with Alan Sears

August 18, 2009
Reproduced with permission

Alliance Defense Fund

The administrators at New York City’s Mount Sinai Hospital knew at least three  things, that Sunday morning, when they ordered senior nurse Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo,  at the last minute, to assist in a late-term abortion:

  1. They knew that Cathy, who is a devoted follower of Christ and a Catholic, was on long-term record with the hospital as opposing abortion for religious reasons.
  2. They knew that, despite what some of them were telling Cathy, the medical situation was not a true emergency, and the mother’s life was not at stake.
  3. They knew that, under federal law, any hospital receiving federal health funds – as Mount Sinai does – cannot force its employees to assist in abortion procedures under any circumstances.

Despite all that, the administrators told Cathy that if she didn’t assist in the  procedure, she would face disciplinary action – likely including termination and  loss of her professional license.

“Pro-life nurses shouldn’t be forced to assist in abortions against their  beliefs,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, who is representing Cathy in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New  York. “Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion  in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of  conscience. Federal law requires that employers who receive funding from tax  dollars must not compel employees to violate their sincerely held religious  beliefs, but this nurse’s objections fell on deaf ears.”

ADF attorneys are also requesting a preliminary injunction that would order the hospital to honor  Cenzon-DeCarlo’s religious objection against assisting in abortion and refrain  from retaliation against her while the case moves forward. New York ADF-allied  attorneys Joseph Ruta and Piero Tozzi are serving as local counsel in the case.

“Chasing away workers from the health care field is disastrous health care  policy,” said Bowman. “An individual’s conscience is likely what brought them to  the health care field. Denying or coercing their conscience will likely drive  them right out.”

Cathy’s case is a clear example of an employer violating an employee’s right of  conscience – and violations like this are happening all over the country  everyday to people of sincere religious faith who work in the medical  profession: not only nurses, but doctors and pharmacists as well.  Please be in  prayer for those who are trying to blend their medical skills with a Christ-like  compassion and godly reverence for human life – and in particular prayer for our  attorneys as they represent Cathy in this high profile and potentially  nation-shaping case.

Contact: ADF MEDIA RELATIONS  (480) 444-0020


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.