Washington D.C., Aug 23, 2019 / 18:00 pm
Medical professionals do not give up their right to conscience protections upon accepting a job, Catholic healthcare organizations have argued in support of new rules issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.
In legal briefs filed Aug. 21 on behalf of four non-profit organizations, including the National Catholic Bioethics Center and the Catholic Medical Association, the groups argue that medical professionals should not be forced to perform procedures or refer patients for procedures to which they are morally opposed.
The cases concern the Conscience Rights in Health Care Rule, first announced in May. The rule mandates that institutions receiving federal money be certified that they comply with more than two dozen laws protecting conscience and religious freedom rights, including a doctor's right to refuse to participate in abortion or so-called gender reassignment surgery.
State attorneys general have filed several suits against the rule, with California AG Xavier Becerra calling it dangerous to American lives and part of "a war being waged on access to health care across our country."
Dennis Herrera, city attorney for San Francisco, wrote that "hospitals are no place to put personal beliefs above patient care," and that "refusing treatment to vulnerable patients should not leave anyone with a clear conscience."
After the "significant litigation," HHS announced last month that the rule would not come into effect until November 22.
Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, said in a statement last July that the rule is simply an enforcement mechanism for policies that have existed for years.
"The rule gives life and enforcement tools to conscience protection laws that have been on the books for decades," he said in a statement provided to CNA.
"Protecting conscience and religious freedom fosters greater diversity in the healthcare space. We will defend the rule vigorously."
The briefs were filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the four organizations in the cases City and County of San Francisco v. Azar, and State of New York v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
"Conscience rights are not limited based on one's professional status. The argument that too many health care workers' consciences would be protected under the HHS Conscience Rule shows a misunderstanding of the fundamental rights we have historically protected-beginning with the guarantees of the First Amendment," the submissions argue.
These conscience rights are "paramount," they said, no matter what a person's job may be, and that "decades of Supreme Court caselaw teach that complicity in an act creates an unconstitutional conscience burden."
Removing conscience rights from medical professionals would force them to sacrifice their "core convictions," said ADF Legal Counsel Denise Harle.
"That's why protecting the freedom to live and work consistent with one's conscience is critical: It is at the heart of what motivates many who enter the medical field, a profession full of individuals who dedicate their lives to healing and doing no harm," she said.
Harle said she believes the rule is "constitutionally sound" as well as "consistent with related federal laws."
ADF also observed that Congress has passed multiple laws, with the support of both major political parties, that protect health care professionals from being forced to violate their consciences. These protections, however, are not often supported on the state level- as evidenced by the lawsuits and the 13 state attorneys general who previously denounced conscience protection regulations.
(Story continues below)
Kevin Theriot, vice president of the ADF Center for Life, said in a statement that the rule was "commonsense" and simply worked to enforce existing conscience protections.
"Despite clear constitutional principles assuring respect for conscience, nurses, doctors, pharmacists, and health care providers have faced discrimination and even have lost their jobs because of their commitment to saving life," said Theriot.
"The government may not pick and choose which views deserve protection."