The ACLJ continues to take the fight to Planned Parenthood in the courts and in this case New York and California. We’ve just filed two amicus briefs defending the Department of Health and Human Services’ new Rules “Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care.” These new rules enforce laws passed by Congress in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. The federal conscience laws protect persons and organizations with religious or moral objections to providing certain health care services, particularly abortion. For example, the Church Amendment, on the books for decades, bars health care providers who receive federal funds from discriminating against a nurse or doctor or who objects to performing or assisting with abortion. We had previously filed formal legal comments in support of the new rule.
Unfortunately, these important protections have been poorly enforced and violations are increasingly on the rise. Many pro-abortion advocates, including Planned Parenthood, oppose the new enforcement rules and believe the so-called “right” to abortion is more important than the right of conscience. The new HHS rules will ensure that the protection Congress intended for those who object to performing, assisting, or even referring for abortions will be fully enforced.
Planned Parenthood joined 20 states and several major cities in lawsuits in New York and California federal courts. Employing many of the same arguments that they used against the Protect Life rules, the Plaintiffs claim that health care as we know it will end if the right to conscience is protected. In a fanciful parade of horribles, Plaintiffs (like New York, Californian, and Planned Parenthood) falsely argue that people will be denied life-saving treatment in emergency rooms across the nation because health care workers will be permitted to object to an unlimited variety of medical procedures.
The ACLJ filed amicus briefs in support of the Administration’s motions asking the courts to dismiss the lawsuits (in both New York and California federal courts). In particular, we addressed the Plaintiffs’ absurd claim that the new rules violate the Establishment Clause. Even though the new rules mirror the federal laws in protecting the right of conscience regardless of whether it derives from religious belief or personal moral considerations, the Plaintiffs claim that the new rules unconstitutionally favor religion.
Our brief argues:
The Final Rule’s enforcement of federal statutory protections for conscience, whether that conscience be formed by religious or moral beliefs, or both, falls squarely within our country’s historical practice of honoring the rights of conscience. The Final Rule does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Neither the Conscience Amendments nor the Final Rule single out religious beliefs for preferential treatment. Secular moral convictions against abortion are equally protected under the Final Rule and the amendments. Because religious beliefs are not singled out for preferential treatment, the Final Rule easily passes Establishment Clause muster.
Both the California and New York courts will hear oral argument on the merits in October. The ACLJ will continue its support of the government’s defense of the regulations even if, as is likely the cases are appealed.
As we aggressively take legal action to protect doctors and nurses from being forced to perform abortions, have your gift DOUBLED to help us save lives. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.
You may have seen this past week headlines from a variety of news outlets loudly proclaiming the death of conscience rights: “ Trump’s ‘conscience rule’ for health providers blocked by federal judge .” “ Second federal judge strikes down Trump’s ‘conscience protection’ rule for health care...
On today’s Jay Sekulow Live , we talked about two different cases. The first, being the fight over the President’s taxes likely heading to the Supreme Court. The second, being the ACLJ’s fight for American soldiers before the ICC. The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of...
Two big things happened this week in our trial against Planned Parenthood. One of the Defendants majorly undercut Planned Parenthood’s case, explaining what he thought Planned Parenthood “bought all of, was this business model that runs directly contrary to the federal law in fetal tissue sales.”
In another big development in our trial against Planned Parenthood, the judge, for the first time, allowed a significant portion of one of the undercover videos to be played for the jury as the Planned Parenthood abortionist who discussed “crushing” babies to harvest their organs was on the stand.