Washington, DC — An Illinois trial court enjoined the enforcement of a draconian rule intended to force individual pharmacists and pharmacies to fill prescriptions for so-called “emergency contraception” in direct violation of federal law, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, and the conscience rights of targeted pharmacists and pharmacies.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, CEO & President of Americans United for Life, responded, “As our nation debates health care reform, it is critical that we reach the same conclusion as the Illinois court:  real health care reform respects conscience.  Protecting the conscience rights of all health care providers is critical to the continuing viability and safety of our health care system.”

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added, “Protecting conscience helps to ensure that providers enter and remain in the health care professions, helping to meet the rising demand for quality care.  On the other hand, failing to protect conscience will most certainly compromise basic health care for the entire nation.”

The case, Morr-Fitz v. Quinn, involves a constitutional challenge to a 2005 Executive Order signed by then-Governor Rod Blagojevich mandating that all prescriptions for Plan B or so-called “emergency contraception” be filled “without delay” and, consequentially, without regard to the conscience objections of individual pharmacists or pharmacies.  In December 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the case, overturning the decisions of two lower courts to dismiss it, and returned the case to the circuit court in Springfield which entered an injunction against the enforcement of the Order on August 21, 2009.

AUL provided legal support to the plaintiff-pharmacists and pharmacies from the initiation of this case, most recently filing an amicus brief before the Illinois Supreme Court on behalf of American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Catholic Medical Association, and other medical groups. The brief argued that the Plaintiffs’ rights of conscience — specifically their rights to decline to dispense prescriptions in violation of their consciences — are guaranteed under both federal and Illinois law.

AUL’s brief is available at http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/Morr-FitzvBlagILontheMerits.pdf

Media Contact
Heather Smith
202-270-9962
heather.smith@aul.org
##

Chicago, IL – Americans United for Life (AUL) today filed comments with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) supporting the retention of a December 2008 rule providing a much-needed enforcement mechanism for federal laws protecting healthcare freedom of conscience.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO stated, “Congress has a 36-year history of passing laws to protect healthcare freedom of conscience.  This rule simply provides HHS and the Administration with the means to fulfill their sworn constitutional duty to properly enforce these laws.”

On March 10, 2009, HHS announced its intention to rescind the rule enacted in the final months of the Bush Administration.  The rule is opposed by pro-abortion groups, who included a demand for its repeal in a 55-page memorandum to the Obama Transition Team in December 2008—arguing it limits access to the full range of reproductive healthcare.

AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs Denise Burke remarked, “Comprehensive conscience protections and proper enforcement of existing federal laws will help ensure access to quality medical care for all Americans.”

Burke continued, “While the majority of federal conscience laws are intended to protect those who decline to participate in abortions, some also protect those who choose to perform them.  It is, therefore, incredibly short-sighted for abortion advocates to actively lobby against the enforcement of these protections.”

AUL’s comments urging the retention of the HHS conscience rule are available at: http://www.aul.org/HHS_Comments

The Christian Broadcasting Network’s The 700 Club discussed the issue of rights of conscience last Friday, April 3rd. AUL Senior Counsel, Clarke D. Forsythe, among others, added to this conversation about doctors’ and pharmacists’ rights to refuse prescriptions and/or practices due to ethical, moral, and/or religious reasons. The segment also included discussion of President Obama’s desire to overturn legislation supporting rights of conscience.

To view the clip, click on the following link and the segment begins at 9:47 and ends at 13:43: The 700 Club.

The Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) have posted a great new YouTube video outlining the rights of conscience issue and its expected impact on healthcare in America.

AUL and CMDA are both a part of the Freedom2Care.org coalition.  If you haven’t sent your comments to HHS about the proposed rescision of conscience protections for your doctor or nurse, do so today – Patient comments | Healthcare Professionals comments.

AUL and AUL Action are participating organizations in the coalition, Freedom 2 Care, found at Freedom2Care.org. This coalition’s goal is “To educate and persuade the public, policy makers and the medical community regarding conscience rights in healthcare.”

AUL and AUL Action applaud the coalition for the value they place on “preserving historic American civil rights and freedoms in the field of healthcare.”

The coalition has divided their goals into both immediate and long term. The immediate goal is “to protect the federal ‘provider conscience’ regulation finalized in December 2008 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.”

Freedom2Care’s long term goals seek to educate the public, policy makers, and the medical community on the importance of conscience rights in healthcare.

Similar to AUL, Freedom 2 Care has many ways to take both immediate and long term action on the issue of conscience rights. To learn more, visit their website, Freedom2Care.org.

Chicago, IL — This week, the Obama administration moved to rescind U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rules mandating enforcement of and compliance with existing federal laws that protect the civil rights and freedom of conscience of healthcare professionals. The targeted rules were implemented by the Bush Administration in December 2008.

Regarding the new Administration’s move, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life stated, “The Administration needs to protect the countless healthcare providers, especially pro-life doctors and nurses, who have been discriminated against because these rules did not exist before last year. These rules were well considered when implemented last year. There is no need to revisit them on behalf of vocal special interest groups.”

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, noted, “Proper enforcement of existing federal conscience protections is essential to mitigate the current medical crisis in our nation, especially the shortage of qualified providers. We urge the Administration to ensure both protection for conscience and access to healthcare services by supporting, not rescinding, these important rules.”

Recent news reports that the Obama Administration will very soon review and potentially rescind U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conscience protections for the nation’s healthcare providers dramatically underscores the need for states to take action on this important issue.

Legal protections of healthcare rights of conscience affirm the need to provide quality care to patients, but also acknowledge that certain demands of patients, usually for procedures that are life-destructive and not life-saving, must not be blindly accommodated to the detriment of the rights of healthcare providers.  Moreover, protecting the freedom of conscience of healthcare professionals and institutions is necessary to avoid added stress on an already overtaxed healthcare system. 

Thus far in 2009, there have been 23 pieces of legislation related to healthcare rights of conscience (ROC) introduced in state legislatures.  Signficantly, this represents a 67% decrease from 2008 activity levels when approximately 70 related measures were considered.  However, approximately 60% of this year’s conscience-related measures are “protective,” whereas, in 2008, 60% of introduced measures sought to violate conscience and compel providers to violate their deeply-held beliefs or risk their careers and livelihoods.

Notably, AUL has been involved — through direct consultation and/or the use of our model legislation, The Healthcare Freedom of Conscience Act– in 50% (or 7 of 14) of the this year’s protective measures.

Thus far in 2008:

Alabama, Hawaii, Montana, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington have introduced 8 measures providing comprehensive ROC protection for all healthcare providers, institutions, and payers (i.e. insurance companies and HMOs), while Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia have introduced 5 measures to specifically protect pharmacies and pharmacists.  New York has introduced a measure to protect those providing end of life care and who decline to provide contraceptives.

Conversely, California, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma have introduced 9 measures that would violate the conscience rights of pharmacists and pharmacy owners by forcing them to stock and dispense conflict-ridden drugs such as so-called “emergency contraception” or Plan B.

A so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) in Illinois (IL House Bill 2354) is scheduled for a hearing at the State House at 8:00 AM on Wednesday, March 4.

Like the federal FOCA introduced in the 110th Congress, and state versions that have recently been introduced in other states such as New Mexico, the Illinois FOCA would authorize a nurse, in any public school in the state, to do an abortion on a minor girl, at any time of pregnancy, without any parental knowledge.  The bill then specifically immunizes such a nurse from any civil or criminal claim by any parent in Section 25(a).

The Illinois FOCA would repeal Illinois physician-only law and all other Illinois limits on abortion by virtue of declaring abortion to be a “fundamental right” and by prohibiting (in Section 15) any “interference” with the fundamental right and by prohibiting “discrimination” in funding in Section 20.

The FOCA would also eliminate the Illinois prohibition on partial-birth abortion and repeal other existing abortion regulations.

The declaration of abortion as a “fundamental right” would extend from conception to birth and thereby strike down any regulations of abortion throughout pregnancy.

Section 35 of the Illinois FOCA also tramples on conscience rights.

It would also require public funding of abortion from conception to birth by requiring that abortion be treated equally with childbirth.

By Clarke D. Forsythe and Denise M. Burke

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebilius has been nominated to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  If confirmed, she will be in a position to profoundly influence American healthcare including federal and state policies regarding abortion, healthcare rights of conscience, bioethics and biotechnologies, and end-of-life issues.

On balance, Gov. Sebelius’ record demonstrates that she is unfit to serve as HHS Secretary and should not be in a position to make such important policy determinations including:

• Whether to rescind, modify, or retain HHS rules requiring that recipients of certain federal funding certify their compliance with existing federal law supporting healthcare fights of conscience;
• Whether to expand the over-the-counter availability of abortifacients such as “Plan B” (so-called “emergency contraception”) to allow minors to obtain these controversial and dangerous drugs without a prescription or doctor’s involvement; and
• Whether to rescind approval for or, at a minimum, review the safety and efficacy of RU-486 (“the abortion pill”) which has killed at least 7 women in the U.S. since it was approved by the FDA in September 2000.

So, what is her record on these critical issues?

Gov. Sebelius served four terms (1987-1995) in the Kansas House of Representatives and two terms (1995-2003) as the state’s elected Insurance Commissioner.  She was then elected Governor in 2002 and re-elected in 2006.

In the 1980s and 1990s then- State Representative Sebelius voted to weaken or eliminate even such modest abortion-related measures as parental notification, reflection periods and informed consent.

However, her record as Governor is – in substantial part – even more extreme in its support for abortion.

She has routinely opposed or vetoed several abortion-accountability bills, including medically-supported clinic regulation legislation which she vetoed in both 2003 and 2005.  The need for this critical legislation was predicated, in large part, on evidence of shocking conditions in Kansas abortion clinics.  For example, two inspections of the same Topeka abortion clinic discovered fetal remains stored in the same refrigerator as food; a dead rodent in the clinic hallway; overflowing, uncovered disposal bins containing medical waste; unlabeled, pre-drawn syringes with controlled substances in an unlocked refrigerator; improperly labeled and expired medicines; carpeted floor in the surgical procedure room; and visible dirt and general disarray throughout the clinic. Dr. Krishna Rajanna, who operated the unsanitary clinic, also consistently violated the practice guidelines for conscious sedation.

Recently, in 2008, she vetoed a measure that would have strengthened the state’s existing parental notification law by 1) requiring that any adult accompanying a minor show identification, declare in writing their relationship to the minor, and identify the father of the unborn child; 2) requiring the minor to show some form of photo identification providing identity and place of residence; and 3) if the minor chooses to seek a judicial waiver, prohibiting any employee of an abortion provider or clinic from assisting her with the requisite court filings and proceedings.

More shocking, however, is her continuing and unyielding support for late-term abortions including post-viability abortions.  Over the past three years, she has vetoed measures:

• Requiring explicit medical reasons for late-term abortions;
• Requiring abortion providers to report the diagnosis or the nature of the condition which necessitated a post-viability abortion; and
• Permitting injunctive relief for either a completed or about-to-be-performed illegal late-term abortion and adding certain prosecutors (in addition to the Attorney General) to prosecute violations of existing prohibitions on late-term abortions

Interestingly, in the face of these controversial vetoes, Gov. Sebelius honored late-term abortionist George Tiller, 25 friends and employees of Tiller’s abortion clinic, and Nebraska partial-birth abortionist LeRoy Carhart, at the Governor’s mansion in April 2007.  As documented by Associated Press (AP) reporter John Hanna, after the AP filed a request for documents under the Kansas Open Records Act, Gov. Sebelius is shown in photographs, pointing with gratitude to Tiller who is holding a campaign t-shirt featuring her name.  Tiller is currently facing criminal prosecution for 19 counts of illegally performing late-term abortions.  His trial is set to begin on March 16, 2009.

Gov. Sebelius not only honors radical abortion supporters and renegade practitioners at the Governor’s mansion, she also appoints them to important state positions.  For example, she appointed a former abortion clinic “escort” John Carmichael, a militant supporter of Tiller’s Political Action Committee, ProKanDo, to the Human Rights Commission. His name was quietly withdrawn ten months later in May 2008.  See http://kansasmeadowlark.com/2008/05/05/sebelius-withdraws-appointment/.

She also appointed political supporter and abortionist Howard Ellis to serve on the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts after he surrendered his medical license in Missouri rather than face disciplinary charges.  Ellis resigned under pressure, and two months later was charged by the Board with attempting to persuade a physician to falsify records. See http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/2569646.html.

A fair and honest review of her record shows that she has signed some important pro-life legislation since becoming Kansas governor in 2003:

• In 2004, legislation promoting morally-responsible growth of the biotechnology industry.  The state has specifically indicated that the terms “bioscience,” “biotechnology,” and “life sciences” shall not be construed to include 1) induced human abortions or the use of cells or tissues derived therefrom, and 2) any research the federal funding of which would be contrary to federal laws that are in effect.  However, the specific language excluding destructive biotechnologies was included at the insistence of several Kansas legislators and local pro-life groups and did not have the support of Gov. Sebelius who nonetheless signed the legislation.
• In 2005, legislation that required any physician performing an abortion under a girl 14 years or younger to retain fetal tissue and turn it over to Kansas Bureau of Investigation for use in potential prosecutions for sex crimes against children; and legislation providing $300,000 in state funding for abortion alternatives.  Notably, in 2005, Gov. Sebelius used all of her political capital fighting against legislation that sought to mandate medically-supported regulation of abortion facilities.  Specifically, the clinic regulations bill passed both the House and Senate by veto-proof majorities, but was adamantly opposed by Tiller.  Gov. Sebelius vetoed it and later lobbied Democrat legislators to change their vote and not override her veto.  Thus, according to Kansas pro-life groups, she then had little to no political capital available to oppose these measures.
• In 2006, the Pain Patients Bill of Rights which specifically permits opiate dosages necessary to eliminate pain, but did not legalize assisted suicide.
• In 2007, unborn victims of violence protections, criminalizing the homicide of and assault upon unborn children at any stage of gestational development.  However, Gov. Sebelius has a long history of opposing this legislation.  She finally signed it after it was attached to a crime bill that she wanted and after significant pressure from the media and the family of a young woman killed in a murder for hire scheme while she was 8 months pregnant.

However, on balance, Gov. Sebelius’ record demonstrates that she is unfit to serve as HHS Secretary and should not be in a position in influence American healthcare policy for years to come.

Americans United for Life Applauds Illinois Supreme Court Decision Supporting Constitutional Rights of Pharmacists

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) applauds today’s Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich that individual pharmacists and pharmacy owners do have legal standing to challenge a rule requiring them to dispense Plan B, which abortion activists call “emergency contraception,” regardless of their religious, moral, or conscientious beliefs.

The rule was originally forced upon the pharmacists and pharmacies by a 2005 emergency order of Governor Rod Blagojevich, who stated in no uncertain terms that pharmacists should either dispense the controversial drug or leave the profession. Two lower courts had previously ruled that the plaintiff-pharmacists and pharmacies did not have legal standing to challenge the rule.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President and CEO, stated, “This is a huge victory for the freedom of conscience of all healthcare providers. Pharmacists now have proper recourse against a discriminatory law that would force them to check their constitutional rights at the workplace door.”

Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel, noted, “Finally, an Illinois court got it right. If pharmacists and pharmacy owners don’t have standing to challenge a rule that unfairly targets them, who does? People should have legal recourse when the state attempts to circumvent and even eliminate their constitutional rights.”

AUL provided legal support to the Plaintiffs from the initiation of the case, most recently filing an amicus brief before the Illinois Supreme Court on behalf of American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Catholic Medical Association, and other medical groups. The brief argued that the Plaintiffs’ rights of conscience — specifically their rights to decline to dispense prescriptions in violation of their consciences — are guaranteed under both federal and state law.

AUL’s brief is available at http://tinyurl.com/aulmorrfitz

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2008

Americans United for Life Releases Eight New Model Legislation & Policy Guides: Twenty-Three Model Legislation & Policy Guides Now Available

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) today released its 2009 Model Legislation & Policy Guides. With the addition of eight new guides this year, AUL now offers 23 pieces of model legislation on key issues related to abortion, protection of unborn victims of violence, bioethics, healthcare rights of conscience, and the end-of-life.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “AUL is the leading developer of cutting-edge pro-life legislation that saves lives today and lays the groundwork for a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

New additions to AUL’s library of model legislation include a state legislative resolution opposing the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a prohibition on coerced abortions, and The Child Protection Act—comprehensive legislation to ensure abortion providers report child sexual abuse and prevent the transportation of children across state lines for clandestine abortions.

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added, “Each year, AUL legal and policy experts provide extensive consulting and support to legislators across the nation, helping to enact protective laws that advance a culture of life. We look forward to partnering with legislators and pro-life allies in 2009 to build on our past successes.”

All of AUL’s Model Legislation & Policy Guides are available at http://www.aul.org/Legislative_Guides

Most state legislative sessions have ended for 2008, and the results in the area of rights of conscience are fairly depressing.  A disturbing 60 percent of all conscience-related bills considered this year were compulsion bills.  In other words, these were not bills aimed at protecting the conscientious and moral beliefs of healthcare providers; instead, these were bills aimed at forcing pharmacists and other healthcare providers to provide drugs and treatments contrary to their moral beliefs.
 
Clearly, abortion advocates are not pulling any punches when it comes to advancing their ultimate agenda: forcing all healthcare providers to choose between providing abortion-on-demand and any other morally problematic procedures or drugs, or leaving the profession.  And for a nation already facing a healthcare crisis caused by an insufficient number of healthcare providers to account for our ever-growing demand, that is a dangerous ultimatum.
 
To read the entire article, please visit The Culture of Life website by clicking here.

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) has filed comments with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) affirming the need for a proposed regulation that will protect the freedom of conscience of healthcare providers nationwide.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of AUL said, “Protecting the rights of healthcare providers is critical to the continuing viability and safety of our healthcare system.”

“Protecting conscience helps to ensure that providers enter and remain in the healthcare professions, helping to meet the rising demand for quality care,” continued Yoest. “Failing to protect freedom of conscience will most certainly compromise basic healthcare for the entire nation.”

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President & Legal Director added, “Laws such as the proposed HHS regulation acknowledge that certain demands of patients, usually for procedures that are life-destructive and not life-saving, must not be blindly accommodated to the detriment of the freedom of healthcare providers.”

The proposed HHS regulation will require recipients of federal funding through HHS to certify compliance with existing federal laws including the Hyde-Weldon Amendment and the Church Amendment, which protect the right of healthcare providers to decline to participate in abortions for reasons of conscience.

In its comments, AUL argues that the proposed regulation is a much-needed and long-overdue enforcement mechanism for existing federal laws protecting healthcare freedom of conscience. In addition, the failure to adequately protect conscience — through both appropriate laws and requisite enforcement mechanisms — will only exacerbate the existing healthcare crisis in this country.

To view AUL’s comments, go to http://www.aul.org/hhsroc

We’re back this morning at the Minneapolis Convention center as the GOP platform delegates continue their consideration of amendments to the platform.  This morning has been devoted to the national defense section. 

But it still provided a great example of how life issues affect so many different areas:  in a section focused on international organizations, language was inserted to reaffirm the Mexico City policy barring funding to organizations that promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning.

All in favor, say AYE.

The motion passed.

We break for lunch in a little while and will come back this afternoon to consider the Health sections which include the Rights of Conscience sections and a portion that references stem cell research and human cloning.  The hall is buzzing with rumours that the stem cell section might be watered down.

More later.

In a disturbing unanimous opinion today, the California Supreme Court ruled that patient demand for nonessential, elective care trumps the freedom of conscience of physicians and their ability to practice medicine in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The Plaintiff, Ms. Benitez, brought suit because physicians at North Coast Women’s Medical Care Group could not, based upon conscience, perform one particular form of artificial insemination. Ms. Benitez was told from the beginning of the patient-physician relationship that certain North Coast physicians could not perform that particular elective procedure on unmarried women. When later denied that elective procedure, Ms. Benitez claimed it was because of her sexual orientation and sued.

The Court’s ruling is disturbing—and dangerous—for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Benitez’s arguments—as adopted by the California Supreme Court—represent an extremist position that will deny physicians free exercise in any medical situation. Rather than balancing the patient and physician interests so that everyone wins, the Court completely ignored the physicians’ constitutionally-guaranteed free exercise rights. Thus, this decision will force physicians to perform any elective procedure in any situation, regardless of their moral or religious beliefs. In fact, this decision is dangerous to any professional in any occupation.

Second, the Court’s decision poses a threat to good medical care. It defies common sense that a patient would want a doctor to violate his or her conscience in practicing medicine. We want our physicians to have consciences. In addition, by giving physicians an ultimatum—treat every patient in any way she demands, or get out of the profession—we will be left with a diminished supply of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare workers. Obviously, a diminished supply will be disastrous for the overwhelming demand in American society today.

What is ironic about Ms. Benitez’s arguments and the Court’s opinion is that both demonstrate their complete intolerance for the lifestyle decisions of other Americans. Ms. Benitez demands to be respected in her lifestyle decisions; but she does not afford that same grace and dignity to the decisions of others.

AUL filed an amicus brief at the appellate level as well as before the California Supreme Court on behalf of Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA), American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), and Physicians for Life. AUL argued that Ms. Benitez’s extremist arguments would, if adopted by the Court, open a Pandora’s Box of ramifications threatening to religious freedom and the practice of medicine.

The case now returns to the trial court for a trial and important factual determinations including whether the physicians declined to perform the demanded treatment because of Ms. Benitez’s marital status or her sexual orientation. If, as the physicians have demonstrated all along, the trial court agrees that the physicians acted based upon Ms. Benitez’s marital status, the case should be decided in favor of the physicians. Ms. Benitez has raised no claims of marital discrimination.

Chicago, Illinois — The California Supreme Court today ruled that patient demand for nonessential, elective care trumps the freedom of conscience of physicians and their ability to practice medicine in accordance with their religious or moral beliefs.

Denise Burke, Vice President & Legal Director of Americans United for Life (AUL), said, “This ruling will deny physicians and other professionals the ability to freely exercise their religious convictions.”

Added Burke, “By forcing healthcare professionals to choose between conscience and career, we will lose doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who are already in short supply.”

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., President and CEO of AUL added, “Medical experts already project that existing shortages of nurses, physicians, and pharmacists will soon worsen, failing to meet future healthcare needs. Legal action to compel healthcare providers to participate in procedures to which they conscientiously object threatens to make the already dangerous situation disastrous.”

Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel, said, “It defies common sense that a patient would want a doctor to violate his or her conscience in practicing medicine. A diminished physician population is not good for medical care.”

The case — North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Benitez) – involves a situation where artificial insemination was not provided due to the marital status of the patient (Ms. Benitez).

Ms. Benitez filed suit arguing that she was not provided the procedure because she is a lesbian. However, the physicians testified that the real issue was her marital status, and that they would not have provided artificial insemination to any single woman.

Ultimately, Ms. Benitez received the procedure from another physician after receiving a referral from the objecting physicians (who paid the additional costs she incurred).

AUL filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Physicians for Life, arguing that federal and state law as well as the ethics standards of major medical organizations support the physicians’ right to conscientiously object to performing certain nonessential, elective medical procedures that conflict with physicians’ religious and moral beliefs.

About Americans United for Life
Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which every human being is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971. The Wall Street Journal has profiled AUL, and PBS’ Frontline program chronicled AUL’s successful efforts in Mississippi.

Website: http://www.AUL.org
Blog: http://Blog.AUL.org

Media Contact
Matthew Eppinette
202-289-1479

##

On Monday, the Bush administration began circulating a proposed policy that would require all recipients of federal money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services to certify that they will not discriminate against healthcare providers who object to participating in abortions.

Although the announcement of this draft policy was met with predictable consternation from abortion advocacy groups, this policy simply provides an oversight mechanism to enforce more than a dozen existing (and many long-standing) federal protections for healthcare freedom of conscience.

For example, on June 19, 1973 (in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade), Congress passed, The Church Amendment, the first federal legislation protecting the right of healthcare providers to decline to participate in abortions.  Named after its sponsor, Senator Frank Church, it provides that an individual may not be forced to participate in abortions over moral or ethical objections.

More recently, the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, part of the Fiscal Year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education (Labor/HHS/ED) Appropriations bill, provides that no federal, state, or local government agency or program that receives federal health and human services funds may discriminate against a health care provider if the provider refuses to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Moreover, the laws of 47 states also provide similar protections for individual healthcare providers.  Only Alabama, New Hampshire, and Vermont do not supplement federal freedom of conscience protections.

In response to the proposed policy, abortion advocacy groups engaged in a classic attempt at misdirection, arguing that the policy would negatively impact women’s access to contraceptives.

However, a careful reading of both the draft policy and the multitude of existing federal laws protecting healthcare freedom of conscience clearly shows that this policy is directed at abortions, both surgical and chemical (e.g. those induced using RU-486).

The reasons for this attempted misdirection are obvious:  Abortion supporters realize that the majority of Americans do not support taxpayer funding of elective abortions.  Americans, by a large margin, also support the right of individuals to refuse to participate in procedures (like abortion) that violate an individual’s conscience, morals, or ethics.  So, rather engaging in a meaningful and honest discussion of the issues, abortion supporters are feverishly trying to shift the debate to one in which they feel more confident of acquiring some modicum of public support.

This step by the Bush Administration is necessary to ensure that existing federal law is enforced and to protect the freedom of conscience of all Americans.

The Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association (AMA) is asking its membership to adopt a policy that supports eviscerating the freedom of conscience of pharmacists. Specifically, the following recommendation will be considered at next week’s AMA meeting:

A pharmacist’s deliberate refusal to dispense a drug on religious, moral, or ethical grounds, i.e., pharmacist conscientious objection, has been most often associated with Plan B, the emergency contraceptive, and has received considerable attention in both the lay media and in medical journal commentaries. Of all of the reasons why a pharmacist might not dispense a legally valid prescription, conscientious objection is the only one that places a pharmacist’s personal views in potential conflict with the best interests of the patient. As discussed in current AMA Policy H-120.947, our AMA supports responsibility to the patient as paramount in all situations. Thus, our AMA supports legislation that would require individual pharmacists and pharmacy chains to fill legally valid prescriptions or to provide immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference.”

The Board of Trustees recommends that the following be adopted and the remainder of this report be filed: That our American Medical Association reaffirm Policy H-120.947, ‘Preserving Patients’ Ability to Have Legally Valid Prescriptions Filled.’ (Reaffirm HOD Policy).

This is just the latest in a well-orchestrated series of attacks on the freedom of conscience of medical professionals. Such attacks have become commonplace over the past few years (emanating from the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, federal and state courts, and governors’ mansions) and are most frequently encouraged by abortion advocates and their allies. However, this may be the most hypocritical. While purportedly supporting freedom of conscience protections for physicians, the AMA is arguing that similar protections should be denied pharmacists.

For more information on freedom of conscience for pharmacists, see The Tip of the Spear: Protecting Pharmacists’ Rights of Conscience

For more information on healthcare freedom of conscience (generally), see A Primer on Protecting Healthcare Rights of Conscience

In the last several years, the “usual suspects” in the pro-abortion movement have been infesting other nations with their pro-choice rhetoric.  One need only peruse the first page of the Center for Reproductive Rights’ website to see headlines such as “Center for Reproductive Rights Denounces Chilean Constitutional Tribunal’s Decision to Ban Distribution of ‘Morning-After Pill’ in Public Facilities” and “Filipino Women and Men Sue Manila Mayor for Ban on Contraception.”   It is clear that the battle lines are now being drawn in countries far from our U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.  Thus, it is becoming all the more important for the pro-life movement to shift to a more global focus, and support our pro-life brothers and sisters in other nations as they wage a war which has been litigated in this country for 35 years.  We have much to offer from our wins and our losses.

To read the entire article click here

As life-affirming laws in Michigan increase, the abortion rates in Michigan continue to plummet. Michigan state health officials announced last week that the abortion rate in the state have dropped to a record low since record-keeping began in 1979. The current abortion rate shows a 50% drop since the peak in 1987, and a 3.7% drop from 2006. The Michigan Department of Community Health reported that in 1987 there were 350 abortions for every 1,000 live births. In 2007, the number of abortions dropped to 200 abortions for every 1,000 live births.

The drastic drop in the Michigan abortion rate in 2007 is no surprise. Americans United for Life (AUL) ranked Michigan as the #1 pro-life state for 2007. AUL bases its rankings on the number of pro-life laws being enforced in a state, and the breadth of protection provided by each law.

Michigan currently has a number of women’s health and safety laws in effect, including:

• a comprehensive informed consent for abortion statute;
• a statute providing an option for women to view an ultrasound image of the unborn child;
• parental consent statute for abortions performed on minors;
• minimum health and safety requirements for abortion facilities;
• and a prohibition of the use of public funds and school health coverage plans for abortions.

Michigan law also contains provisions that specifically protect the health and safety of the unborn and the newly born. Michigan law defines the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide, and defines non-fatal assaults on an unborn child as a crime. In addition, Michigan law requires that infants who survive an abortion and are born alive must be given immediate and appropriate care.

In terms of bioethics, Michigan law bans human cloning, for both reproductive and research purposes. Michigan also bans fetal experimentation and non-therapeutic research on a live human embryo, fetus, or neonate. As for end-of-life issues, Michigan treats physician-assisted suicide as a felony.

Lastly, Michigan law protects the rights of conscience of healthcare providers in the abortion context. Under Michigan law, healthcare professionals and healthcare facilities who object on grounds of conscience may not be forced to participate in the performance of an abortion, and may refrain from participation.

It is no coincidence that the abortion rate in Michigan has dropped to its all-time low, and that Michigan has the best pro-life, incremental legislation in place. Research shows that incremental protections are effective means of lowering the number of abortions performed. Michigan is a concrete example of this conclusion. The effectiveness and importance of passing life-affirming, incremental legislation in the states has been made clear enough. For those interested in making abortion rare, Michigan stands out as a model.

To go to National Right to Life’s article elaborating on congruent abortion data click here.

In its controversial 4-3 decision on marriage, the California Supreme Court also decided, for the first time anywhere in the United States, that as a matter of state constitutional law, sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” deserving of heightened protection.

The legal repercussions of this case are yet to be known. However, we may soon have the chance to evaluate how far this liberal court is willing to go in advancing a progressive social agenda and undermining the right of the people to decide important issues and govern themselves. A case currently before the court and dealing with healthcare rights of conscience may provide that opportunity.

In North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court (Benitez) (Case No. S 142892), Ms. Benitez, an unmarried lesbian, filed suit when two Christian physicians at North Coast would not artificially inseminate her because of her marital status. Ms. Benitez filed suit even though the physicians referred her to an alternative provider (who successfully performed the procedure) and paid the costs associated with her transfer to the new provider.

Despite evidence to the contrary, Ms. Benitez claims the physicians refused to treat her because she is a lesbian and argues that their decision amounts to illegal discrimination. Further, Ms. Benitez and her attorneys have also argued that the physicians have no right to assert their consciences as a defense to the claims in the lawsuit.

A lower court disagreed and, in December 2006, ruled that the physicians had every right to assert their constitutionally-protected rights of conscience as a defense in the case. Ms. Benitez appealed and this issue is now before the California Supreme Court.

Thus, this case now pits the long-established federal and state constitutional rights of healthcare providers to practice according to their consciences against the new determination of the California Supreme Court that sexual orientation is entitled to heightened legal protection.

At worst, the court could use its analysis in the marriage case to undermine healthcare rights of conscience. Specifically, the court could find that a physician’s right of conscience is trumped by the right of patients to demand certain procedures. In doing so, the Court would likely find that medicine is not a service but a commodity and that the patient is entitled to receive what he or she wants without regard to the physician’s ethics, morals or religious beliefs.

This would be an unprecedented and incredibly dangerous decision for patients and healthcare providers, ultimately undermining the quality and availability of healthcare in California while eviscerating important constitutional rights.

For more information on healthcare rights of conscience click here.

To review the brief that Americans United for Life filed in support of the physicians in the Benitez case click here.

By Denise M. Burke, AUL Vice President & Legal Director

Over the last few decades, abortion advocates and others have launched a concerted campaign to force hospitals, healthcare institutions, health insurers, and individual healthcare providers to provide, refer for, or pay for elective abortions, abortifacient drugs, contraceptives, assisted reproductive procedures such as in vitro fertilization, and sterilizations. Their determined effort to eviscerate the concept of individual conscience and the freedom to follow one’s religious, moral or ethical beliefs from the medical profession has resulted in the following: [more]

This article originally appeared at the Culture of Life Foundation website http://www.culture-of-life.org.

AUL’s Oklahoma State Network Affiliate, Maressa Treat sends the following message about activity in her state.

Last night Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry vetoed SB 1878, an omnibus pro-life bill, but today pro-life legislators came together and overrode the veto!

The Oklahoma State Senate voted at 11:00 am to override Governor Henry’s veto, 37-11. And thirty minutes later the Oklahoma House voted 81-15 to override.

Thanks to many prayers and our pro-life legislators working fast to defend the sanctity of life, SB 1878 has become law.

For more on the history and content of SB 1878 see Pro-Life Legislation Passes Oklahoma Senate

Maressa Treat, AUL’s liaison in Oklahoma, has worked with a coalition of pro-life groups and individuals to pass Senate Bill 1878, a sweeping piece of pro-life legislation. The bill now awaits the Governor Brad Henry’s signature.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Oklahoma State Senate
Senator Todd Lamb, R-Edmond

Pro-Life Legislation Passes Senate

State Capitol, Oklahoma City – An omnibus pro-life bill passed the Oklahoma State Senate Wednesday with a bipartisan vote.

Senate Bill 1878 by Senator Todd Lamb, R-Edmond, and Representative Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa, contains several pro-life initiatives, passing the Senate with a vote of 38-10.

By combining various pieces of legislation from Senator Lamb and members of the House of Representatives, Senate Bill 1878 now does the following:

• creates the Freedom of Conscience Act which protects the rights of healthcare providers to refuse to take part in the destruction of human life (SB 1878—Sen. Lamb, Rep. Peterson);
• regulates the use of the dangerous chemical pill RU-486, used when the unborn child is about two months old (HB 2181—Rep. McNiel);
• ensures the mother’s consent to abort is truly voluntary, and protects against coerced abortions (HB 3059—Sen. Williamson, Rep. Hamilton);
• provides a woman with an ultrasound of her unborn child which she can view prior to undergoing the abortion (HB 3144—Sen. Lamb, Rep. Billy);
• cultivates respect for disabled children by banning the wrongful-life lawsuits that claim a baby would have been better off aborted (HB 2814—Sen. Crain, Rep. Sullivan).

“The provisions spelled out in this legislation are critical pro-life advances,” said Senator Lamb. “Working with pro-life members of the House and Senate to protect the sanctity of life and develop this comprehensive bill has been an honor. I am encouraged by the bipartisan support to protect innocent life today in the Senate.”

The next stop for Senate Bill 1878 will be the Governor’s desk for his signature.

New Yorkers for Parental Rights (NYPR) (http://www.nyfpr.com/) have been spearheading the efforts in opposition to ex-Governor Spitzer’s radical abortion bill, “The Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act”(RHAPP), also known as the NY “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA). The group has posted anti-RHAPP billboards on 14 major roadways around the State of NY, and released a 30-second commercial and a 4-minute educational video opposing the bill. Both the commercial and educational video can be viewed on www.abortionbill.org.

The RHAPP would wipe out all safety and health abortion regulations, and authorize non-physicians to perform abortions. The bill would violate parental rights by allowing abortion providers to perform abortions on minors without parental notification. The bill would also force Catholic physicians and other healthcare professionals to lose their licenses if they refuse to participate in abortions, even if they refuse on moral or religious grounds.

Dr. Alveda King (http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/index.htm), niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and founder of King for America has come out in support of NYPR’s efforts against the abortion bill, stating:
“We require parental notification and permission for minors for everything from ear piercing to dental work, and in most legal proceedings; yet abortion, a dangerous and devastating procedure, too often remains in a category apart, protected from parents who will often have to pay for the damages and consequences their children suffer through abortion.”

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience . . .

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes . . . freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Eleanor Roosevelt (seen here speaking at the United Nations) chaired the committee that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As the 2008 Presidential Election approaches, we find ourselves struggling to determine which presidential candidate will best serve our country and hold fast to the principles and values we hold dear. One factor of increasing importance in this determination is a candidate’s position on abortion and life issues. How important is it for the pro-life cause to elect a pro-life President? What impact will the next President of the United States have on the pro-life agenda? Does it really matter what the next President’s position on life issues is? The answer is simple: Yes, it does matter. The President of the United States plays a crucial role in advancing the pro-life cause in America, and the election of a pro-life President will guarantee a political environment that is supportive of pro-life legislation and policies.

To read the entire article click here.

On March 18, the Northern District of California dismissed the State’s challenge to the federal Hyde-Weldon Amendment. In the case State of California v. United States, the court granted summary judgment to the federal government.

The Hyde-Weldon Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used by any state or local government that forces healthcare providers to provide, refer, or pay for abortions.

While this decision is a victory for the pro-life movement, the court only dismissed the case as not “ripe” for review—it did not decide the constitutionality of the Hyde-Weldon Amendment. The State of California plans to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

AUL has been and continues to be involved with this and similar issues, including filing an amicus brief in a similar case in the federal district court for the District of Columbia. That district court also dismissed a challenge to the Hyde-Weldon amendment.

Yesterday, AUL-allied attorney Mark Rienzi argued before the Illinois Supreme Court on behalf of pharmacists Luke and Joan Vander Bleek regarding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s rule mandating that pharmacies in the state must dispense Plan B (the morning-after pill) or risk revocation of their license.

The Vander Bleeks own three pharmacies in rural Illinois and are observant Catholics who oppose being required by the State to distribute the drug on religious grounds. They have already been forced to close one pharmacy due to staffing shortages caused by the threat of closure by the government.

You can watch video of the arguments here:

http://163.191.183.117/court/SupremeCourt/Video/2008/031808_104692.wmv

Or you can listen to an audio-only version:

http://163.191.183.117/court/SupremeCourt/Audio/2008/031808_104692.mp3

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, March 14, 2008

Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343

HHS Secretary Calls on Certification Group to Protect Conscience Rights

Unless changes are made, physicians could be forced to refer patients for abortions even if it violates their conscience

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt today expressed disappointment in a new policy put forth by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). He also called on the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) to reject this policy and protect the conscience rights of physicians.

In a letter sent to ABOG Executive Director Dr. Norman Grant today asking for clarification, Secretary Leavitt notes, “It appears that the interaction of the [ABOG Bulletin for 2008 Maintenance of Certification] with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification.”

In particular, the Secretary expressed concern that enforcement of this ACOG policy by certain federally-funded entities would violate federal laws against discrimination.

Secretary Leavitt continues, “As you know, Congress has protected the rights of physicians and other health care professionals by passing two non-discrimination laws and annually renewing an appropriations rider that protect the rights, including conscience rights, of health care professionals in programs or facilities conducted or supported by federal funds.”

The full text of Secretary Leavitt’s letter appears below:

Norman F. Gant, M.D.,
Executive Director
The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
2915 Vine Street
Dallas, TX 75204

Dear Dr. Gant:

I am writing to express my strong concern over recent actions that undermine the conscience and other individual rights of health care providers. Specifically, I bring to your attention the potential interaction of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s (ABOG) Bulletin for 2008 Maintenance of Certification (Bulletin) with a recent report (Opinion Number 385) issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Ethics Committee on November 7, 2007 entitled “The Limits of Conscience Refusal in Reproductive Medicine”.

The ACOG Ethics Committee report recommends that in the context of providing abortions, “Physicians and other health care professionals have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel that they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive service that patients request.” It appears that the interaction of the ABOG Bulletin with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification.

As you know, Congress has protected the rights of physicians and other health care professionals by passing two non-discrimination laws and annually renewing an appropriations rider that protect the rights, including conscience rights, of health care professionals in programs or facilities conducted or supported by federal funds. (See 42 U.S.C. § 238n, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, § 508). Additionally, threats to withhold or revoke board certification can cause serious economic harm to good practitioners.

I am concerned that the actions taken by ACOG and ABOG could result in the denial or revocation of Board certification of a physician who — but for his or her refusal, for example, to refer a patient for an abortion — would be certified. These actions, in turn, could result in certain HHS-funded State and local governments, institutions, or other entities that require Board certification taking action against the physician based just on the Board’s denial or revocation of certification. In particular, I am concerned that such actions by these entities would violate federal laws against discrimination.

In the hope that compliance of entities with the obligations that accompany certain federal funds will not be jeopardized, it would be helpful if you could clarify that ABOG will not rely on the ACOG Ethics Committee Report, “The Limits of Conscience Refusal in Reproductive Medicine” when making determinations of whether to grant or revoke board certifications.

Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Michael O. Leavitt

cc:
Kenneth Noller, M.D.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Over the last few months, Americans United for Life (AUL) has been working with individual physicians, physicians’ groups, public interest groups, and others to draw attention to the grave threat that ACOG’s proposed policy poses to healthcare rights of conscience. We are grateful for Secretary Leavitt’s interest and intervention.