Category: Proposed Laws

NJ Legislature Considering ‘Reproductive Freedom Act’

Strips Medical Workers of ‘Conscience Protection,’ Legalizes Infanticide of Born-Alive Children

News Release

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.,

MEDIA ADVISORY, Dec. 1, 2020 /Standard Newswire/ — “Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right.” – Martin Luther King

A coalition of pro-life groups and concerned activists are holding a “Day of Outrage” protest at the offices of legislators sponsoring the “Reproductive Freedom Act.” This bill removes the “conscience clause,” meaning healthcare workers must assist in abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. It gives impunity to those who would kill a child born alive.

“The Reproductive Freedom Act is a human trafficker’s best friend,” said Rev. Greg Quinlan for Garden State Families. Quinlan stated, “The Reproductive Freedom Act will allow anyone, of any age, regardless of their residency, to receive an abortion at the expense of New Jersey taxpayers. New Jersey taxpayers will be paying for abortions for women victimized by Human Traffickers.”

“This outrageous bill strips babies of their right to live, strips women of their right to safe healthcare, strips NJ healthcare workers and taxpayers of their rights of conscience not to participate in abortion, and even disenfranchises citizens from being able to rescind it in the future. This anti-freedom bill must be stopped in its tracks,” said Christine Flaherty, Executive Director, LIFENET.

The Working Together coalition has been designed to educate the public on the details of the bill and how this bill will detrimentally affect women. New Jersey will be joining California and New York in not requiring an abortionist to be a licensed medical doctor.

Shawn Hyland, director of advocacy for the Family Policy Alliance of New Jersey, said, “This unsafe bill threatens women’s health, jeopardizes children’s safety and criminalizes medical health professionals.”

Gwen Schwarzwalder, an activist with South Jersey Pro-Life Coalition, quoted from Albert Einstein,  “Never surrender conscience even if the state demands it.”

“The Reproductive Freedom Act shamefully disregards advances in prenatal medicine. Instead, it seeks to dehumanize and deprive babies in the womb of their life and dignity. It consigns them to inhumane procedures that would not be tolerated if done to a cat or a dog” said Marie Tasy, executive director, New Jersey Right To Life.

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr., founder of BlackGenocide.org, stated, “This change will further endanger women’s health and put their lives at risk. This lowering of care for disproportionately African American women is typical of the callous abortion industry. Abortion is the most performed surgery on women. No doctors?”

The coalition will have another “Day of Outrage” that will span over three counties, Wednesday, December 2, starting at these NJ legislative offices

10 a.m. – Assemblywoman Mila Jasey, 511 Valley St., Maplewood (Essex County

1 p.m. – Assemblyman Vincent Mazzeo, 2312 New Rd., Northfield (Atlantic County

2 p.m. – Senator Vin Gopal, 35 West Main St., Freehold (Monmouth County

The Pro-life coalition is a promoter of Prayerful and Peaceful protest. The civil rights of all our citizens is a chief priority of the coalition.

S-3030/A-4848

SOURCE Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.

CONTACT: Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr., 201-704-9325; 

John Tomicki, League of American Families, 201-725-2154

Alberta’s doctors say they worry about the effects of a conscience rights bill

The Globe and Mail

Christina Frangou

Dr. Jillian Demontigny keeps a rainbow bracelet wrapped around the stethoscope that she drapes across her neck. It’s her signal to any LGBTQ patient who arrives at her clinic: you are welcome here.

Dr. Demontigny is one of 13 physicians working at the Taber Clinic, a family medicine clinic in a southern Alberta town of 8,500 people. Over her 14 years in Taber, she has expanded her practice to offer extra supports for patients looking for the kind of health care that can be hard to access in this rural, conservative region, where anti-abortion billboards are posted along the highway. . . [Full text]

Controversial conscience rights bill will die on order paper

Second session of 30th legislature starts on Feb. 25

CBC News

Michelle Bellefontaine

A controversial private member’s bill on conscience rights for medical providers will be dropped now that the government intends to prorogue the first session of the 30th legislature. 

Government House Leader Jason Nixon announced on Wednesday that the second session will start Feb. 25 with a speech from the throne. . . [Full text]

Indiana assisted suicide bill fails to protect objecting practitioners

Assisted suicide evolves from “assistance” to  “medical care”

Affirmation has serious consequences for objecting  Indiana physicians

Sean Murphy*

On 7 January, 2020, Representative Matt Pierce introduced HB1020: End of life options in the Indiana General Assembly. HB1020 is the fourth assisted suicide bill introduced by Pierce since 2017; three previous bills died in committee without hearings. Parts of HB1020 relevant to protection of conscience are reproduced on the Project website.

Overview

The bill permits physician assisted suicide for Indiana residents 18 years of age and older who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness likely to cause death within six months. [Full text]

New Hampshire assisted suicide bill introduced

Protection of conscience provision biased against objectors

Sean Murphy*

New Hampshire House Bill 1659 would legalize assisted suicide. Parts of the bill relevant to protection of conscience are reproduced on the Project website.

The bill permits physician assisted suicide for New Hampshire residents 18 years of age and older who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness likely to cause death within six months. Candidates who are capable of making and  communicating health care decisions must apply in writing for a lethal prescription (137-M:3); the application must be witnessed by two independent witnesses (137-M:4).  The candidate must apply personally; substitute medical decision makers cannot apply on behalf of a patient (137-M:3.III).

The bill imposes a number of obligations on physicians primarily responsible for treating a patient’s terminal illness (137-M:5) and upon physicians consulted by them about the illness (137-M:6).  These would be unacceptable to physicians who refuse to participate in assisted suicide for reasons of conscience.

Section 137-M:14 (Immunities) is the provision that is intended to protect objecting health care providers, which includes individuals and health care facilities.  The protection offered is biased in favour of those willing to participate in assisted suicide and insufficient to protect those unwilling to do so.  Specifically:

  • 139-M:14.I limits protection against civil, criminal and professional liability to persons willing to participate in assisted suicide; no protection is provided for those who refuse. It also prevents objecting institutional health care providers from taking action against employees who participate in assisted suicide on their premises.
  • 139-M:14.II protects both participants and non-participants equally, but also prevents objecting institutional health care providers from taking action against individuals who ignore prohibitions against assisted suicide on their premises.
  • 139-M14.III protects those providing assisted suicide drugs against negligence complaints, but does not similarly protect those who refuse to provide assisted suicide drugs.
  • 139-M14.IV declares that no health care provider is under a duty to participate in assisted suicide.  However, the provision is ambiguous because it is inconsistent with the lack of protection noted in 139-M4.I and III.