Catholic Health Association Response to Women’s Preventive Services Regulations

NEWS RELEASE

Catholic Health Association of the United States

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The following statement is being released by Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, president and chief executive office of the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA):

The Catholic Health Association is both pleased and concerned by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) recent actions on preventive services for women.

We are delighted that health insurance coverage must include critical screening services without any cost-sharing. What to some may seem like small amounts as co-pays for mammograms, pap smears, etc., has proven to be an effective barrier to care for women who have low incomes.

Our hope is that eliminating this barrier will result in earlier diagnosis at a treatable stage of many diseases such as cancer and diabetes. We applaud this aspect of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine and their affirmation by the Health Resources and Services Administration.

However, CHA is very concerned about the inadequacy of the conscience protections with respect to the coverage of contraception. As it stands, the language is not broad enough to protect our Catholic health providers. Catholic hospitals are a significant part of this nation’s health care, especially in the care of the most vulnerable. It is critical that we be allowed to serve our nation without compromising our conscience.

HHS is accepting comments on its definition of religious employer and has invited alternative definitions. We will be submitting written comments to HHS and will continue our dialogue with government officials on the essential need for adequate conscience protections.

We appreciate that the Administration does not intend to include abortifacient drugs as covered contraception. Our comments will address our concerns about the mechanism of action of certain FDA-approved contraceptive drugs.


The Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA), founded in 1915, supports the Catholic health ministry’s commitment to improve the health status of communities and create quality and compassionate health care that works for everyone. The Catholic health ministry is the nation’s largest group of not-for-profit health systems and facilities that, along with their sponsoring organizations, employ more than 750,000 women and men who deliver services combining advanced technology with the Catholic caring tradition.

USCCB: HHS Mandate for Contraceptive and Abortifacient Drugs Violates Conscience Rights

NEWS RELEASE

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sharply criticized a new HHS “preventive services” mandate requiring private health plans to cover female surgical sterilization and all drugs and devices approved by the FDA as contraceptives, including drugs which can attack a developing unborn child before and after implantation in the mother’s womb.

“Although this new rule gives the agency the discretion to authorize a ‘religious’ exemption, it is so narrow as to exclude most Catholic social service agencies and healthcare providers,” said Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

“For example, under the new rule our institutions would be free to act in accord with Catholic teaching on life and procreation only if they were to stop hiring and serving non-Catholics,” Cardinal DiNardo continued.“Could the federal government possibly intend to pressure Catholic institutions to cease providing health care, education and charitable services to the general public?Health care reform should expand access to basic health care for all, not undermine that goal.”

“The Administration’s failure to create a meaningful conscience exemption to the preventive services mandate underscores the need for Congress to approve the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,” the Cardinal said.That bill (H.R. 1179), introduced by Reps. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) and Dan Boren (D-OK), would prevent mandates under the new health reform law from undermining rights of conscience.

Cardinal DiNardo added: “Catholics are not alone in conscientiously objecting to this mandate.The drugs that Americans would be forced to subsidize under the new rule include Ella, which was approved by the FDA as an ‘emergency contraceptive’ but can act like the abortion drug RU-486. It can abort an established pregnancy weeks after conception. The pro-life majority of Americans – Catholics and others – would be outraged to learn that their premiums must be used for this purpose.”

“HHS says the intent of its ‘preventive services’ mandate is to help ‘stop health problems before they start,’ said Cardinal DiNardo. “But pregnancy is not a disease, and children are not a ‘health problem’ – they are the next generation of Americans.”

“It’s now more vital than ever that Congress pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act to close the gaps in conscience protection in the new health care reform act, so employers and employees alike will have the freedom to choose health plans in accordance with their deeply held moral and religious beliefs.”

In a July 22 letter supporting the bill, Cardinal DiNardo wrote: “Those who sponsor, purchase and issue health plans should not be forced to violate their deeply held moral and religious convictions in order to take part in the health care system or provide for the needs of their families or their employees.To force such an unacceptable choice would be as much a threat to universal access to health care as it is to freedom of conscience.”

Cardinal DiNardo also addressed the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations on preventive services for women in a July 19 statement.

Spain violates conscientious freedom of medical practitioners

Public hearing at the Council of Europe

News Release

European Center for Law and Justice

(Strasbourg, France) – On June 22, 2011, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) organized a public hearing at the Council of Europe, entitled “Spain: Violations of Medical Practitioner’s Freedom of Conscience”. It was conducted with the Spanish Defense Association of Conscientious Objection (ANDOC) and with the support of the European’s People’s Party.

During this hearing, the ANDOC and ECLJ have launched a comprehensive report detailing, with individual examples, the structural and systemic violations of freedom of conscience for healthcare professionals in Spain, and in particular their right to conscientious objection. The right to conscientious objection is founded on the principle that no one shall be forced to threaten someone’s life. Any attack on human life, when permitted by law, can be only performed voluntarily.

Based on this report, a number of parliamentarians from various national and political parties lead by Luca Volontè and Blanca Fernandez, have addressed a “Written question to the Committee of Ministers” urging this Committee, composed of the Representatives of the 47 Council of Europe Member States, to take action in order to ensure respect for doctors, healthcare and administrative personnel, as well as hospitals and institutions’ right to conscientious objection in compliance with European and international regulation. In the following months, the Committee of Ministers will have to agree on a common written response to the Parliamentary Assembly addressing this specific problem.

In Spain, health professionals suffer structural and systemic violations of their rights. Doctors, nurses, and other medical staff that object to performing or assisting with abortion procedures are coerced and suffer career-crippling sanctions or are legally prosecuted for attempting to exercise this fundamental right, which is recognized by both European and international law.

In particular, they are prevented from exercising their freedom of conscience through the following practices:

  • Submission of a fundamental right to administrative authorization: In order to exercise their fundamental right, a conscientious objector must request an authorization from the administration in advance and in writing.
  • Creation of a registry of conscientious objectors: The above requests are registered in a directory that ranks medical professionals according to their conscience.
  • Creation of a registry of conscientious objectors: The above requests are registered in a directory that ranks medical professionals according to their conscience.
  • Systematic discrimination against conscientious objectors
  • The presence in the directory has negative consequences for a medical professional. Their career advancement is dependent upon the number of abortions performed or prescribed through the “Accreditation Program of Professional Skills.” In Andalusia, recruitment in the health care system is subject to the condition of not being an objector.
  • No recognition of the right to conscientious objection of health care institutions that according to their ideology refuse to practice abortions.

Within this structure, there are also other violations such as:

  • Refusal to register a medical practitioner as an objector;
  • Deprivation of the right to object for the staff responsible for pre-natal diagnosis, nursing and other administrative personnel;
  • In order to prevent conscientious objections, the type of operation or information about a negative opinion from the clinical committee is not communicated to the medical professionals, especially to the anesthesiologists and clinical nurses.

During the hearing, presided by the Spanish parliamentarian and medical doctor, Dr Blanca Fernandez (PPE), has also intervened Dr. Esteban Rodriquez Martin, gynecologist, Prof. José Antonio Diez Fernandez Secretary of the ANDOC, and Dr. Grégor Puppinck, Director of the ECLJ.

Dr. Esteban Rodriguez Martin gave his testimony as a gynecologist and victim of the Spanish regulation on abortion and prenatal diagnostic procedures. He explained that he is now before national courts for refusing to take part in the procedure leading to eugenic abortions.

Dr. Esteban Rodriguez Martin underlined that professionals must request advance approval from Spanish administrative authorities to be listed as a “conscientious objector.” Only health care professionals placed on this list of “objectors” are exempt from performing or assisting with abortions, and often, this requirement is not communicated. As a result, if a woman solicits abortion services, health care professionals who object to providing assistance, but are not pre-registered as an “objector,” are legally obligated to either perform the abortion or give a referral-even if doing so would violate their conscience.

José Antonio Diez Fernandez, Professor of Law and Coordinator of ANDOC, presented the national legal framework leading to this structural violation of medical professional’s rights. He noted, inter alia, that those who register as conscientious objectors suffer further negative consequences and are unjustly singled out for voicing their objection. Often career advancement and health care ratings depend on the number of abortion referrals or procedures completed, he noted. Opting to register as an objector has career-stifling effects, because assessment of an objector’s professional skills becomes linked to ideological beliefs and not to the practitioner’s true merit or ability. He also highlighted how administrative authorities will often refuse a practitioner’s attempt to register as an objector. Though the process is supposedly declarative in nature, in practice, health care professionals may be refused to register as objectors for arbitrary criteria.

Dr. Gregor Puppinck, Director of the ECLJ, analyzed the situation in regard to the legal obligations of Spain under European and International law.

He recalled in particular the resolution 1763/2010 “On the Right to conscientious objection in the field of health” adopted in October 2010 by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly holding that:

“No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason.”

He also commented on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) related to Conscientious objection underlining, in particular, the fact that in numerous decisions since the 1989 Rommelfanger v. Germany ruling (no. 12242/89), the Court has recognized the right of institutions based on a specific ethos, such as religious hospitals, to exercise – on an institutional level – their right of conscientious objection to abortion and other related practices.

Grégor Puppinck also commented on the ECHR’s recent ruling in the case R.R. v. Poland (no. 27617/04) of May 26, 2011. In this case, the Court asserted that if a State decides to legalize abortion, it is then “obliged to organise the health services system in such a way as to ensure that an effective exercise of the freedom of conscience of health professionals in the professional context does not prevent patients from obtaining access to services to which they are entitled under the applicable legislation.” Two aspects of this ruling are of particular interest: first, it expresses the right to an “effective exercise of the freedom of conscience of health professionals in the professional context”, and second, it does not say that the access to abortion should be ensured at the expense of the fundamental rights of health professionals, but it say, however, that the State has to respect both.

Dr Puppinck concluded that in this regard, it is clear that the Spanish regulation does not respect both the individual and institutional right not to take part in an abortion process.

The ECLJ thoroughly supports ANDOC’s efforts to draw attention to this important issue. The right to conscientious objection must be respected. Rather than punishing health care professionals for exercising this right, Spanish authorities must comply with European and international standards to protect this right from the structural and systematic violations that conscientious objectors in Spain are experiencing today.

Related documents:

CoE PACE Resolution 1763 (2010) on “The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care”

Written question to the Committee of Ministers on the violations of the right to conscientious objection in lawful medical in Spain. English | Spanish

ANDOC Informe sobre vulneraciones al derecho de objeción de conciencia de los profesionales de la sanidad pública en España.

2011 ECLJ Memorandum on the Proposed Pace’s Resolution on “Women’s Access to Lawful Medical Care: The Problem of Unregulated Use uf Conscientious Objection”. September 2010. English | Spanish


The European Centre for Law and Justice is an international, Non-Governmental Organization dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights in Europe and worldwide. The ECLJ holds special Consultative Status before the United Nations/ECOSOC since 2007.

The ECLJ engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation. The ECLJ advocates in particular the protection of religious freedoms and the dignity of the person with the European Court of Human Rights and the other mechanisms afforded by the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and others.

AULA Calls for strong conscience clause protection for medical professionals

“No longer should the civil rights of medical professionals be held hostage to political interests,” said Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

NEWS RELEASE

Americans United for Life

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Americans United for Life president and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest noted that the Obama Administration had rescinded almost all of the regulation protecting conscience rights for medical professionals – except the provision to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.

“AUL predicted that the rights of conscience of medical professionals could be violated without stronger protections,” said Dr. Yoest. “This must come to an end. No longer should the civil rights of medical professionals be held hostage to political interests.” She continued: “Today the Obama Administration acknowledged that it is a civil right not to participate in an abortion, but in the same breath weakened federal regulations designed to protect that right. This underscores the necessity for Congressional action; health care providers must have an effective means to enforce their rights written in the law. The protection of the basic civil right to provide care without participating in life-destructive activities must not be dependent on the whims of an Administration that has made expanding abortion central to its mission.”

The Obama Administration received more than 300,000 comments when it announced in 2009 that it intended to rescind regulations enacted under the Bush Administration to uphold federal conscience protection laws. Nearly two-thirds of those comments expressed opposition to rescinding the conscience-protecting regulations.

For more information or interviews, contact Kristi Hamrick press@aul.org

USCCB Finds Weakening of Health Care Conscience Rule a ‘Disappointment’

Affirms Some Positive Elements

USCCB News Release 11-036
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 18, 2011

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

WASHINGTON (February 18, 2011)—The Obama administration’s final rule rescinding important elements of a federal regulation protecting the conscience rights of health care providers is a disappointment, but there are also reasons for hope, said Deirdre McQuade of the Pro-Life Secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

“The Administration’s action today is cause for disappointment, but also offers reasons for hope regarding an emerging consensus in Washington on the need for clear conscience protections for health care providers,” said McQuade.

“It is very disappointing that the Administration has chosen to eliminate much of the existing regulation on conscience issued in December 2008. Among other things, the final rule issued today eliminates important clarifications that would have helped in interpreting and enforcing longstanding federal statutes protecting the conscience rights of health care providers. It also eliminates a regulatory requirement that recipients of federal funds certify compliance with those statutes.

“However, it is welcome news that the Administration says it will take initiative to increase awareness of the conscience statutes, work to ensure compliance with them, and require that government grants make clear that compliance is required. We look forward to working with the Administration and Congress to ensure that these endeavors are carried out, so providers receive the full conscience protection they are due.

“We also hope that the Administration will place its full support behind efforts in Congress to clarify conscience protections and make them more secure, by endorsing such initiatives as the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3), and the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 361).”

  • Past USCCB letters supporting the Bush administration regulation, and opposing efforts to rescind it.