Category: Law

Freedom of conscience continues to generate discussion in abortion debate

Provisions in a bill to legalize abortion that threaten draconian fines to force objecting physicians and counsellors to facilitate the procedure are getting special attention in the Tasmanian Legislative Council.  Some members of the Council may be willing to support the bill if the measures aimed at suppressing freedom of conscience are substantially changed.  [The Advocate]

 

Amendment proposed to new Irish abortion law

Independent Deputy Clare Daly has introduced Bill Number 115 of 2013 (Protection of Life in Pregnancy (Amendment) (Fatal Foetal Abnormalities) 2013 in the Irish parliament (Oireachtas) to expand the reasons for abortion to include cases in which the foetus is diagnosed as having “a medical condition . . .such that it is incompatible with life outside the womb.”  The government will not oppose the bill.  [Irish Times]

Some Tasmanian legislators concerned about freedom of conscience

Some Tasmanian legislators concerned about freedom of conscienceA bill to legalize abortion is before the Tasmanian Legislative Council.  It proposes severe penalties on physicians and counsellors who are unwilling to facilitate the procedure by referral.  The Tasmanian chapter of the Australian Medical Association is opposed to the provision, and the state regulator, in supporting it,  misrepresented the physicians’ ethical obligations.  MLC Paul Harriss, though generally supportive of the bill, has described its treatment of conscientious objection as “heavy handed.”  Another MLC, Tony Mulder, also appears to have some concerns regarding conscientious objection. [The Examiner]

B.C. Court of appeal overturns assisted suicide judgement

In a 2/1 decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has overturned the Supreme Court ruling in Carter v. Canada, which would have legalized physician assisted suicide.  The case will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Obamacare and religious liberty

 A corporate conscience?

The Economist

S.M.

WHEN the Citizens United decision came down in 2010, 80% of Americans were unhappy to learn that political speech by corporations was protected under the first amendment. Three years later an effort to undermine Obamacare by expanding the constitutional rights of corporations is quietly gaining ground in the courts. The campaign, summarised here, includes some 73 cases challenging the law’s requirement that health-insurance plans provided by large employers include coverage for birth control. (A limited exemption—which Republicans are trying to expand—applies to religious organisations.) This contraceptive mandate, detractors say, presents organisations owned by religious individuals opposed to certain forms of birth control with a dilemma: abandon their beliefs or pay a hefty fine of up to $100 per employee per day.

Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet manufacturer with 950 employees in Pennsylvania, is one of the plaintiffs challenging the mandate. Conestoga is owned and run by the Hahns, a Mennonite family that considers two forms of birth control—the emergency contraceptives known as Plan B and ella—to be the sinful taking of embryonic life. The family has objected to Obamacare’s mandate on constitutional grounds and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a 1993 law requiring that “substantial burdens” on religious exercise be justified by a compelling state interest. . .[Read more]