Scottish judge rules objecting midwives can be forced to facilitate abortions

Two Catholic midwives who brought suit against National Health Services Greater Glasgow and Clyde have lost the case in the Court of Session.  The judge ruled that midwives, while expected to supervise and direct staff providing abortions, were not required to directly participate in the procedure, and were “sufficiently removed” from the procedures that their beliefs had been appropriately accommodated. Nonetheless, the judge did acknowledge that they were causally connected, but ruled that the protection of conscience clause in the Abortion Act (1967) must be interpreted to refer only to direct participation.

Statement by Glasgow midwives after abortion judgment

NEWS RELEASE
29 February 2012, 17:15

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

The two Glasgow midwives at the centre of today’s court judgment on conscientious objection to abortion have made the following statement:

Miss Mary Doogan said:

“Connie [Wood] and I are both very disappointed and greatly saddened by today’s verdict.

“For most of our 20-plus years of employment as midwifery sisters at the Southern General Hospital we have been proud to be associated with a maternity unit in which the right of all midwifery staff to freedom of conscience has been acknowledged, protected and upheld with no detrimental outcome to any mother whatsoever.

“Neither Connie nor I stand in judgement of any woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy for whatever reasons. We are more than aware of the difficult choices that some expectant mothers may be faced with in a crisis pregnancy.

“However, in holding to the view that life should be protected from conception to natural death, neither do we wish to be judged for exercising what is our legal right to refuse to participate in the process of medical termination of pregnancy.

“We wish now to take some time to consider all options that are available to us (including appeal) before making any further comment.”

Notes for editors:

Since both women remain employees of the health board they are not in a position to make further comment or give interviews.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has supported the midwives in bringing their case, underwriting their legal costs, and will now be considering their further legal options with them. Please see SPUC’s release of earlier today  and of 17 January.SPUC’s communications department can be contacted on:

  • mobile: 07939 177683
  • direct dial: 020 7820 3129
  • email: news@spuc.org.uk
  • Twitter: @spucprolife

Seven states file lawsuit against Obama administration health care plan

Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Florida and Texas have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and the U.S. Department of Labor and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.  The suit alleges violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act through the HHS birth control mandate that will force insurance coverage for surgical sterilization, contraceptives and embryocides.[CNN]

 

Washington state coercive pharmacy regulation rejected by court

Judge Robert B. Leighton of the United States District Court has ruled against the Washington State Department of Health. The case may be summarized by quoting the judge’s opening and concluding paragraphs:

This case presents a novel question: can the State compel licensed pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense lawfully prescribed emergency contraceptives over their sincere religious belief that doing so terminates a human life? In 2007, under pressure from the Governor, Planned Parenthood, and the Northwest Women’s Law Center, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy enacted regulations designed to do just that. . .

. . . The Board of Pharmacy’s 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally applicable. They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted. The rules are unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs. The Court will therefore permanently enjoin their enforcement against Plaintiffs.

[Full text of ruling]

Three more universities sue US federal government because of HHS mandate

Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, Louisiana College in Alexandria, Louisiana, and Geneva College in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania have filed civil suits against the US federal government in response to an Obama adminstration regulation that will force objecting employers to provide insurance coverage for surgical sterilization, contraceptives, and embryocidal  drugs.