Media Releases
-January-December, 2006-

For Immediate Release
December 5, 2006

(OTTAWA, Dec.5, 2006) - Among all the medical advances of the past two centuries, immunization may have brought the greatest improvement to our health and life expectancy. It provides the best possible protection against some very serious diseases. Canadian Physicians for Life recommends that all adults and children be vaccinated according to the current national and provincial immunization guidelines.

Some vaccines protect against bacteria, and some against viruses. Canadian Physicians for Life has become aware that some viral vaccines were developed from tissue from aborted fetuses. A list of some of those vaccines can be found on our website. This presents a serious moral dilemma to those who might view the use of such abortion-related vaccines as a form of cooperation with an immoral act, but who are also aware of the dire health consequences of failing to immunize themselves or their children.

It has been brought to our attention that legally approved and effective vaccines are available which have been created from sources other than abortion-derived fetal cell lines. Specifically, the infant vaccine, PENTACEL (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and Haemophilus B), contains the MRC-5 fetal cell line while PEDIACEL (same diseases) does not. Both vaccines are Health Canada approved but only PENTACEL is marketed in Canada. PENTACEL is publicly funded in the regular childhood vaccination programs.

For PEDIACEL to be available to Canadians requires the recognition of these concerns by Health Canada and, most importantly, the provincial vaccine acquisition programs, and it is this recognition and assistance which Canadian Physicians for Life is requesting at this time.

-30-

For more information contact:
 
Will Johnston, MD, President
Canadian Physicians for Life
ph/fax: 613-728-5433
email: info@physiciansforlife.ca

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court today upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a pro-abortion group challenging the “Weldon Amendment.”  The Weldon Amendment is a federal statute that prohibits the federal government or state and local governments receiving certain federal aid from discriminating against medical professionals who refuse to perform or refer for abortions.

“Doctors and nurses should not be forced to participate in abortions against their religious beliefs or conscience.  Under the banner of ‘choice,’ the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association asserted a supposed right to do this, but the court didn’t buy it,” said Casey Mattox, litigation counsel for CLS’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom.  “This decision turns back the effort to enshrine abortion as a right above even the First Amendment.”

NFPRHA challenged the Weldon Amendment just days after it was first signed into law in December 2005.  After a federal district court upheld the law, NFPRHA appealed, arguing that the Weldon Amendment was too vague to enforce and that their member organizations had a constitutional right to force medical professionals to provide abortion referrals.

The ruling today held that NFPRHA lacked standing to challenge the Weldon Amendment.  The decision in National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association v. Gonzales from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/Gonzales-NFPRHAopinion.pdf.

The Christian Medical Association and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, represented by attorneys from ADF and CLS’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom, intervened to defend the Weldon Amendment on behalf of members of the two medical associations:  over 18,000 pro-life doctors, nurses, physician assistants, and other medical professionals across the country.

CMA and AAPLOG, along with the Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants, are also defending the Weldon Amendment in California ex. rel. Bill Lockyer v. United States, a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Together, ADF, America’s largest legal alliance, and CLS, America’s premier network of Christian legal professionals, defend religious liberty, human life, marriage, and the family.

Ruling

Richard E. Barnes, executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, issued the following statement after today’s decision by the New York State Court of Appeals upholding a state mandate that forces Catholic education, health and human service ministries to provide contraception coverage in employee health plans:

“We are very disappointed with the Court of Appeals decision and firmly believe that it is in error. Any religious organization must have the right in American society to uphold its own teachings, even if those teachings are unpopular or counter cultural. Plaintiffs will give every consideration to asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review it and reverse it.

“The Court acknowledges that, ‘The burden the (contraception mandate) places on plaintiffs’ religious practices is a serious one,’ but suggests that because the law doesn’t literally compel religious organizations to provide prescription drug coverage, it doesn’t meet the Court’s standard of scrutiny. The plaintiffs have noted, however, that Catholic social teaching demands that our ministries pay just wages and benefits to employees. The court’s claim that “it is surely not impossible, though it may be expensive or difficult, to compensate employees adequately without including prescription drugs in their group health care policies’ would seem naïve to the realities of modern employment practices and health care costs, as well as inconsistent with the legislature’s stated intent of increasing access to health care.

“This case is not about the right of New Yorkers to use contraception. It is about religious liberty. The state has unconstitutionally defined religion to purposely exclude the Church’s charitable ministries. In effect, the state has declared Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable agencies to be secular. Worst of all, the New York State court system has now given lawmakers carte blanche to pass laws even more offensive to religious practice. It should come as no surprise that legislation already has been introduced that would force Catholic entities to pay for employees’ abortions. Could the Court of Appeals reject such a new law in light of today’s decision?

“This decision will have a chilling effect on religious freedom for all New Yorkers.”

The Catholic Conference represents New York State’s Bishops in matters of public policy.

An attorney with the Christian Legal Society will be available for comments to the media outside the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse immediately following Friday’s hearing in National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association v. Gonzales, a federal lawsuit involving the conscience rights of pro-life physicians and healthcare workers.

“Pro-life healthcare workers do not deserve to be discriminated against for their beliefs,” said Chief Litigation Counsel Steven H. Aden of CLS’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom.  “When Congress enacted the Weldon Amendment, it intended to bring job security and peace of mind to thousands of pro-life healthcare workers who work in federally-funded health programs.  On behalf of those dedicated professionals, we are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will agree with the district court’s determination that the legal challenge to this important civil rights legislation is groundless.”

NFPRHA appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  In September of last year, the district court denied NFPHRA’s claim that the Weldon Amendment was unconstitutional and upheld Congress’s authority to protect pro-life healthcare workers’ right of conscience to refuse to provide abortions or abortion referrals.

The Christian Medical Association and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, represented by attorneys with CLS and ADF, intervened to defend the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment.  Friday, Aden will argue that the appeals court should uphold the district court’s decision.

Together, ADF, America’s largest legal alliance, and CLS, America’s premier membership organization of Christian legal professionals, defend religious liberty, human life, marriage, and the family.

WASHINGTON - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) today hailed as “a significant victory for the right of conscience” a decision of the U.S. District Court in Springfield, Illinois denying Illinois Governor Blagojevich’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by seven pharmacists challenging that state’s year-old morning-after-pill mandate.  ACLJ represents seven Illinois pharmacists who contend that the mandate or rule violates their right of Free Exercise of Religion protected by the First Amendment by requiring them to dispense drugs that they believe act to terminate a human life. The pharmacists also argue that the state’s rule conflicts with the religious discrimination protections contained in Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Five of the seven pharmacists have lost their jobs as a result of the conflict set in motion by last year’s mandate.

In a 28-page opinion, issued on September 6, 2006, denying the Governor’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Jeanne E. Scott said that the pharmacists’ allegations, if proven at trial, “may establish that the object of the Rule [morning-after-pill mandate] is to target pharmacists, such as the Plaintiffs, who have religious objections to Emergency Contraceptives, for the purpose of forcing them either to compromise their religious beliefs or to leave the practice of pharmacy. Such an object is not religiously neutral.” 

The pharmacists’ suit was brought last year to challenge a rule issued in April 2005 by Governor Rod Blagojevich as an emergency regulation and made permanent in August 2005.  Since that time, at least three Illinois pharmacy owners have had charges filed against them by the State of Illinois for allegedly violating the regulation.  At least five individual pharmacists have been fired or suspended by their employers for asserting their right to refuse to dispense the drugs on religious and moral grounds.

“Today’s ruling is an important recognition of the right of conscience,” said Francis J. Manion, ACLJ Senior Counsel and lead attorney in the suit.  “The Court has recognized that the State may not target religious objectors for disparate treatment.  Our clients have never sought to prevent anyone from gaining access to these drugs.  They simply want the State to respect their right to refrain from participating in activity that violates their sincerely held beliefs.”

At the crux of the legal battle is the question of whether the Emergency Contraceptives Rule, which took effect on August 25, 2005, violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Also at issue is whether the Rule violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII prevents employment discrimination based on religion.  The seven pharmacists are alleging that the Rule requires or permits employers to engage in religious discrimination and is therefore invalid under Title VII.

In yesterday’s opinion, Judge Scott appeared to invite the State to amend the existing rule “to clarify its object and application . . . in a manner that would be consistent with individual constitutional rights.”  ACLJ’s  Manion welcomed this invitation saying, “This is something we have been suggesting from the start.  There is no good reason why both sides of this controversial issue cannot be accommodated if the State is willing to recognize and respect the interests of all of its citizens – including objecting pharmacists.  Telling our clients, as the Governor has repeatedly done, that they should ‘find another profession’ is not the way to show respect for their rights.”

The ACLJ is committed to defending the rights of health care professionals to practice their professions in a manner consistent with their religious, moral, and ethical beliefs.  The organization has been involved in litigation protecting the rights of conscience for over a decade.  The ACLJ is being assisted in this case by the firm of LaBarre, Young & Behnke of Springfield, Ill., which is acting as co-counsel.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is the nation’s leading constitutional law firm defending religious liberty.  Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled Friday that California healthcare professionals must be allowed to intervene in a lawsuit to defend their right to refuse to provide abortions and abortion referrals.  Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and the Christian Legal Society represent members of the Christian Medical Association, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physicians Assistants.

“The choice of doctors to obey their conscience should not be a crime,” said Casey Mattox, litigation counsel with CLS’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom.  “California wants to criminalize the decision of a doctor not to provide abortions.  The Weldon Amendment prohibits them from doing that.  We stand to defend the interest of thousands of doctors and other medical professionals—in California and around the country—who choose not to be involved in destroying human life.”

ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

An attorney with the Christian Legal Society will be available for comments to the media outside the Browning U.S. Courthouse immediately following Friday’s hearing in State of California v. United States of America, a federal lawsuit involving the conscience rights of pro-life physicians.

“California seeks to fine and criminally prosecute pro-life doctors because they refuse to perform abortions, and yet the district court said that more than 1,000 pro-life California doctors had no interest in this case,” said Litigation Counsel M. Casey Mattox of CLS’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom.  “We hope the court of appeals will recognize the right of these healthcare professionals to defend themselves against California’s attack on their consciences.”

The appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit involves a motion to intervene filed by CLS and the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of members of the Christian Medical Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physicians Assistants in a case affecting their right to refuse to provide abortions and abortion referrals.  The motion was denied by a lower court in November 2005.

Mattox will be asking the court to allow the medical groups to enter the case as defendants in order to adequately protect their members’ interests by defending the constitutionality of the federal Weldon Amendment.  Bill Lockyer, the attorney general of California, filed suit against the U.S. government in January 2005, claiming the amendment is unconstitutional.  The statute forbids state and local governments that receive federal funds from discriminating against healthcare providers because they refuse to perform or refer patients for abortions.

Together, ADF, America’s largest legal alliance, and CLS, America’s premier membership organization of Christian legal professionals, defend religious liberty, human life, marriage, and the family.
 

“A person’s religious freedom doesn’t end when he opens the door to his business,” states Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life. “Michigan’s representatives have taken an important step toward guaranteeing freedom of conscience for those providing health insurance in that state.”

Fr. Pavone’s statement follows the passage by the Michigan House of Representatives of measures that would allow a health maintenance organization or health insurer to refuse to cover abortion or other procedures.

“It is ironic that for some supporters of abortion, there are certain arenas where ‘freedom of choice’ definitely does not belong,” notes Fr. Pavone. “I’m glad that Michigan legislators are wiser.”

Contact: Jerry Horn, Priests for Life, 540-220-0095

Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro-life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit www.priestsforlife.org.

OLYMPIA, Wash. — The Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter Friday to the Washington State Board of Pharmacy urging the board to adopt a policy protecting the right of conscience for pharmacists.  Many pharmacists object on moral, ethical, and religious grounds to dispensing contraceptives, including the “morning-after” abortion pill.

“Pharmacists shouldn’t lose their jobs because of their religious beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Byron Babione.  “Pro-life pharmacists should not face discrimination on the job because they are morally opposed to dispensing pills that can induce abortion.”

The letter points out that including a conscience clause to protect pharmacists does not make contraceptives unavailable nor does it ban contraceptives.  Conversely, if the board does not include a conscience clause, the right of pharmacists to act according to the dictates of their conscience will be banned.

“The right to one’s conscience is a fundamental right recognized by both the Washington and U.S. constitutions,” said Babione.  “It is unjust to condition the keeping of a person’s job on renouncing his or her moral, ethical, and religious beliefs.  Including a conscience clause allows women to access contraceptives and also protects the ability of pharmacists to maintain their moral integrity on the job.”

The letter points out that Title VII requires employers to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s religious observances and practices that conflict with employer requirements unless the employer can show that the accommodation would involve more that a minimal burden. 

Copy of the letter sent by ADF to the board.

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation. 

ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA), representing more than 600 registered nurses at Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC), has filed an unfair labor practice charge against VMMC with the National Labor Relations Board. The complaint states that within the past six months, VMMC has retaliated and discriminated against the registered nurses for exercising their contractual right to refuse flu vaccination by forcing them to wear masks. VMMC implemented this new restriction unilaterally without good faith bargaining as is required by the collective bargaining contract.

In early January, the United States District Court ruled in favor of the WSNA in upholding the arbitrator’s decision against VMMC which stopped the hospital from forcing RNs to receive flu shots. The Court decision "did not find that the arbitrator’s decision is procedurally defective" thereby upholding the arbitrator’s award by denying the VMMC's appeal.

According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "no studies have definitively shown that mask use by either infectious patients or health-care personnel prevents influenza transmission." "Forcing nurses who are not vaccinated to wear a mask is a punitive and discriminatory act. This policy is not enforced uniformly with other employees and visitors. It not only singles out and embarrasses the nurses who refused vaccination but also unnecessarily alarms patients and disrupts patient care," said Barbara Frye, RN, Director of Labor Relations at WSNA.

WSNA absolutely supports the flu vaccination and in fact strongly encourages nurses to get them. But, it does oppose any health care facility threatening to fire or retaliate against nurses if they do not submit to the mandatory vaccination, especially in the absence of a declared public health emergency and a recommendation for mandatory vaccination by the CDC.

Founded in 1908, Washington State Nurses Assocation (WSNA) is the professional organization representing more than 13,000 registered nurses in Washington State. WSNA effectively advocates for the improvement of health standards and availability of quality health care for all people; promotes high standards for the nursing profession; and advances the professional and economic development of nurses.

7 January, 2006
Seattle, Washington, USA

The United States District Court ruled in favor of the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA), representing more than 600 registered nurses at Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC), in upholding the arbitrator's decisions against VMMC which stopped the hospital from forcing RNs to receive flu shots.

The decision by the United States District Court denied VMMC’s motion challenging the arbitrator’s decision, which would have allowed the hospital to make flu shots a condition of employment and fire RNs who did not comply. The Court decision "did not find that the arbitrator’s decision is procedurally defective" thereby upholding the arbitrator's award by denying the VMMC's appeal.

WSNA absolutely supports the flu vaccination and in fact strongly encourages nurses to get them. But, it does oppose any health care facility threatening to fire people if they do not submit to the mandatory vaccination, especially in the absence of a declared public health emergency and a recommendation for mandatory vaccination by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

"This decision confirms the arbitrator's ruling and prevents VMMC from forcing RNs to get a flu vaccination against their will. It’s a basic right for people to make decisions regarding their own health care treatment. As health care professionals, nurses know that education, accessibility and incentives - not brute force - are the best way to encourage people to comply," said Barbara Frye, RN, Director of Labor Relations at WSNA.

Founded in 1908, Washington State Nurses Assocation (WSNA) is the professional organization representing more than 13,000 registered nurses in Washington State. WSNA effectively advocates for the improvement of health standards and availability of quality health care for all people; promotes high standards for the nursing profession; and advances the professional and economic development of nurses.