Protection of Conscience Project
Media Releases: 2008

Forcing our doctors' hands

Proposed policy could severely
 limit freedom
of Ontario physicians

Responses to CPSO Draft

The New Inquisitors

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba may implement a policy similar to a controversial Ontario proposal that would restrict freedom of conscience and religion among physicians. News of the plan for Manitoba doctors was disclosed today in a briefing note to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.¹

The Manitoba College provided “positive feedback” about the original version of  Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code, which was written in response to pressure from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Commission has since made clear that it expects physicians to “‘check their personal views at the door’ in providing medical care.”²

The document that the Manitoba College of Physicians plans to emulate has been widely denounced as an assault on the fundamental freedoms of physicians. The 25,000 member Ontario Medical Association has asked that the document be withdrawn ³  and has protested the secrecy surrounding its revision.⁴

Other critics of “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code,” include the Catholic Archbishops of Toronto and Ottawa, Rabbi Reuven Bulka of Ottawa, the Canadian Center for Policy Studies, the Centre for Cultural Renewal, and the Protection of Conscience Project.⁵  

It appears from the Ontario briefing note that the new Manitoba policy will be incorporated into a revised College statement on Discrimination in Access to Physicians. There is no reference to the plans on the CPSM website. It is doubtful that physicians in the province are aware of what the College has in store for them.

Notes:
1.  Council Briefing Note, p. 3, bullet 5
2.  OHRC Submission
3.  OMA Response to CPSO Draft Policy
4.  “The OMA Responds.” National Post, 17 September, 2008
5.   Protection of Conscience Project, Responses to Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code

-30-

Forcing our doctors' hands

Proposed policy could severely
 limit freedom
of Ontario physicians

Responses to CPSO Draft

The New Inquisitors

Officials at Ontario’s College of Physicians and Surgeons revised a controversial draft policy before the deadline for public consultation had passed, and before receiving major submissions critical of the proposal. They plan to have the College’s governing Council approve the changes on 18 September, even though the revised draft continues to be of concern.

Internal evidence indicates that revisions to Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code were made no later than 11 September, the day before public consultation ended.¹

While blatantly provocative assertions have been deleted,² the draft continues to assert that physicians may “in some circumstances” be obliged to help patients make arrangements for morally controversial procedures.³ It continues to link this expectation to the possibility of prosecution for professional misconduct.⁴ The revised draft does make clear that the principal threat to fundamental freedoms comes from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, not the College.

“One is left to wonder whether College officials are sincerely interested in a full and careful consideration of their proposal,” said Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. Like the Ontario Medical Association, the Project has protested the secrecy surrounding the revision, and joins the OMA in asking that College Council postpone a vote on the policy.⁵  

“Already this is having wide-reaching effects,” said Murphy. “The College of Physiotherapists wants to adopt the original problematic draft,⁶ and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba plans to develop something similar.”⁷

Notes:
1.  Council Briefing Note, p. 2, bullets 2 and 5.
2.  Revised draft policy, lines 219-224
3.  Revised draft policy, lines 227 to 229
4.  Revised draft policy, lines 232-234
5.  “The OMA Responds.”  National Post, 17 September, 2008
6.  Council Briefing Note, p. 3, bullet 4
7.  Council Briefing Note, p. 3, bullet 5

Forcing our doctors' hands

Proposed policy could severely
 limit freedom
of Ontario physicians

Responses to CPSO Draft

The New Inquisitors

13 September, 2008
For Immediate Release

“Blasphemy against the human spirit.” That is how the Protection of Conscience Project describes a threat by Ontario’s Human Rights Commission to punish doctors who refuse to do what they believe to be wrong. The rebuke is found in a submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Citing writers and philosophers in the democratic tradition, as well as the landmark Morgentaler decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Project argues that to force doctors to act against their conscientious convictions is “to deprive them of their essential humanity.” It calls the proposed policy “profoundly offensive and demeaning.”

“To abandon one’s moral or ethical convictions in order to serve others is prostitution,” states the submission, “not professionalism.”

The brief denies that doctors who refuse to do what they believe is wrong are violating the Human Rights Code. It explains that they are concerned about “complicity in wrongdoing,” not race, sex or other patient characteristics.

The Project submission addresses the College draft policy, Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code. Deadline for comment on the policy was extended to 12 September following protests when news of it became public.

The President of the College told the National Post that the draft has been revised, but refuses to make it public. Project Administrator Sean Murphy finds College secrecy unacceptable.

“At least two substantial briefs reached the College only on Friday,” he said. “The National Post story appeared Saturday. It seems very unlikely that College officials could have considered either submission before revising the draft. This brings into question the validity of the consultation process.”

“But the more important issue,” he said, “is that decision-making that impacts fundamental freedoms should be conducted transparently, not secretly. Why keep the revised draft secret? Is there something to hide?”

-30-

Forcing our doctors' hands

Proposed policy could severely
 limit freedom
of Ontario physicians

Responses to CPSO Draft

The New Inquisitors

31 August, 2008
For Immediate Release

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has been instructed by the province’s Human Rights Commission that physicians are to be denied freedom of conscience and religion. The “guidance” is contained in an OHRC submission that appears to have been posted today on the Commission’s website.

The helpful and advisory tone introducing the document is misleading.

“This is really an iron fist in a velvet glove,” said Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. “These so-called ‘recommendations’ are backed up with the threat of prosecution before Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal.”

“It is the Commission’s position,” states the submission, “that doctors, as providers of services that are not religious in nature, must essentially “check their personal views at the door” in providing medical care.”

Should the College fail to adopt the position demanded by the OHRC, the Commission can formulate policies that impose its ethical views on the medical profession, encouraging activists or others to file complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. The Commission can then intervene in the proceedings and force the Tribunal to consider its policies in applying the Code.

“Even at this point, the Commission’s statements suggest that it is open season on physicians,” said Murphy. “Activists can now apply to the Tribunal to prosecute physicians who refuse to facilitate abortion or other morally controversial medical procedures, with the assurance that the Tribunal will decide in their favour.”

The structure and operation of the Commission and Tribunal are described in the Project publication, The New Inquisitors.

-30-

Proposed policy could severely
 limit freedom
of Ontario physicians

Forcing our doctors' hands

Responses to CPSO Draft

The New Inquisitors

In a letter to the college Aug. 15, the League expressed concern over a draft policy relating to religious and conscientious freedom, noting that some of its provisions would appear to restrict physicians’ ability to decline to participate in treatments or referrals that violate their consciences. The League also asked that the deadline for feedback (originally Aug. 15) be extended, a request the college agreed to almost immediately. The new deadline is Sept. 12, 2008.

Portions of the League’s letter follow:

“As the draft document states, religious and conscientious beliefs are an integral part of the person. (Therefore) the statement below is somewhat problematic:

Personal beliefs and values and cultural and religious practices are central to the lives of physicians and their patients. However, as a physician’s responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical treatment and services they require.

“Canada has an established custom of accommodating sincerely held religious and conscientious convictions as much as possible. The expectation that physicians must set aside their beliefs with regard to treatments or referrals that violate their conscience is unreasonable, and at odds with the CMA’s Joint Statement on Preventing and Resolving Ethical Conflicts Involving Health Care Providers and Persons Receiving Care (1998).  

“With two private member’s bills favouring euthanasia put before Parliament in the past five years, it’s certainly not inconceivable that Canada will have a liberalized law at some future date, which could raise ethical dilemmas even more acute than those we have today. I hope that the review process is extended, and allows the profession to formulate guidelines that offer the best possible protection for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience for all concerned.

For further information:
Joanne McGarry, Executive Director
Catholic Civil Rights League
416-466-8244  joanne.mcgarry@ccrl.ca

About CCRL
Catholic Civil Rights League (www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization and has chapters across Canada. The Catholic Civil Rights League is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.

Forcing our doctors' hands

CPFL Interim Response

(Ottawa) - In a letter today to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the president of Canadian Physicians for Life, Dr. Will Johnston, expressed concern over a draft policy relating to freedom of conscience and the lack of sufficient notice given by CPSO to all interested stakeholders that a consultation process, which officially ends today, has been underway since the end of June.
 
Canadian Physicians for Life is asking the College for a 90-day extension on the deadline “due to the importance of the issues at stake and the lack of opportunity interested stakeholders were given to comment on the proposal.”
 
The draft policy, that CPL only learned of late yesterday, would appear to severely limit the freedom of Ontario physicians to practice according to their conscientious/religious beliefs. The College apparently posted the draft policy document, “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code” on its website at the end of June and had set a deadline of today for input on the proposal.
 
In his letter, Dr. Johnston expressed surprise that the College would not have been more proactive in soliciting input on a policy that could have profound impact on both individual doctors and on the profession as a whole. CPSO does not appear to have issued a news release on the consultation process, and pro-life physicians have been taken by surprise.
 
Dr. Johnston wrote, “The College must have been aware that groups such as Canadian Physicians for Life -- which represents doctors from across Canada who respect the dignity of all human life, regardless of age or infirmity -- would have concerns with the College’s view that “decisions to restrict medical services offered….that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the [Ontario Human Rights] Code, and/or constitute professional misconduct.”
 
“Refusal on conscientious or religious grounds to refer a woman for an abortion could be deemed professional misconduct under this new policy,” Dr. Johnston said.
 
A similar requirement (that doctors must make abortion referrals regardless of their conscientious beliefs) was put forward in a July 2006 guest editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It triggered such a firestorm of controversy, that the Journal was compelled to publish a letter from CMA’s Director of Ethics stating that CMA policy did not require physicians to refer for abortions if it would violate their conscientious or religious beliefs.
 
Dr. Johnston concluded, “There could be serious problems with what the Ontario College is proposing and we need time to study the implications of this policy in detail. If doctors feel coerced into compromising their deepest convictions as a result of this policy, certainly that’s a problem—not only for the integrity of physicians, but also for the welfare of their patients.”

- 30 -

Belgium: mandatory referral
for euthanasia

Morgentaler vs.
Professors Cook & Dickens

Proposed policy could severely
 limit freedom
of Ontario physicians

Forcing our doctors' hands

CPFL Interim Response

The document responds to legislative changes, which, according to the Chair of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, will see a twenty-fold increase in hearings before the Tribunal - from 150 to 3,000 cases per year.

According to the College, the Tribunal may take action against a physician who refuses to provide or refer for procedures that he finds morally objectionable. The College strongly suggests that the physician’s freedom of conscience and religion will be ignored because “there is no defence for refusing to provide a service” in such circumstances.

In addition to the possibility of prosecution by the Human Rights Tribunal, the College states that it will consider the Human Rights Code in adjudicating complaints of professional misconduct, even though the College admits that it lacks the expertise and authority in human rights.

The College also plans to force objecting physicians to actively assist patients to obtain morally controversial services. A similar demand - that objectors be forced to refer patients for abortion - generated fierce opposition when it appeared in a 2006 guest editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The College posted the draft policy for consultation near the end of June, with a response deadline of 15 August. The Project, noting that there was no news release about the draft and that “the mid-summer timing of the consultation is less than satisfactory,” has asked the College to extend the deadline by 90 days.

“Commentators like Rex Murphy, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have condemned Canadian human rights commissions for suppressing freedom of expression,” noted Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. “Perhaps we should not be surprised to see them now being used to suppress freedom of conscience and religion among medical professionals.”
 

HHS Secretary BLOG on
Freedom of Conscience

CWA News Release 2008-07-15

CMA News Release 2008-07-15

ACOG continues attacks
on freedom of conscience (2008)

Responding to objections to anticipated federal HHS regulations protecting health care providers' fundamental rights of conscience, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, today wrote to all members of Congress defending "efforts to reaffirm and implement laws on conscience protection."

The New York Times on July 15 reported that it had obtained an alleged draft of regulations soon to be issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, to clarify and enforce federal laws on respect for the moral and religious convictions of health care personnel in programs receiving federal funds.  Pro-abortion organizations and some members of Congress have already attacked the as-yet-unpublished regulations, saying they are unwarranted and could limit "access" to abortion and birth control.

Reacting to these criticisms, Cardinal Rigali said this "should be a matter of agreement among members who call themselves 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice': the freedom of health care providers to serve the public without violating their most deeply held moral and religious convictions on the sanctity of human life."

"Congress has passed numerous laws protecting rights of conscience in health care, beginning in 1973," said the Cardinal, and these laws address sterilization and other issues in addition to abortion.  "The critics' surprise that conscience protection may apply beyond the specific issue of abortion seems based on a lack of knowledge of existing federal law... If the Administration is preparing regulations along these lines, it would simply be performing its proper task in an area of law where that is long overdue."

Cardinal Rigali said the charge that respect for conscience rights undermines "access" to abortion and other procedures contradicts pro-abortion groups' longstanding claim that only "a tiny minority of religious zealots" object to their agenda.  In any case, he said, "patients with pro-life convictions, including women who require a physician's care for themselves and their unborn children during pregnancy, deserve 'access' to health care professionals who do not have contempt for their religious and moral convictions or for the lives of their children."

"This issue," he said, "provides self-described 'pro-choice' advocates with an opportunity to demonstrate their true convictions... [I]s the 'pro-choice' label a misleading mask for an agenda of actively promoting and even imposing morally controversial procedures on those who conscientiously hold different views?"

[Full Text of Letter from Justin Cardinal Rigali to Members of U.S. Congress]
 

HHS Secretary BLOG on
Freedom of Conscience

CWA News Release 2008-07-15

NSCCB News Release

ACOG continues attacks
on freedom of conscience (2008)

Washington, D.C.--July 15, 2008-- Responding to a story published this morning by the New York Times , physicians of the Christian Medical Association called on Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael O. Leavitt to publish regulations in accord with federal laws protecting patients and healthcare professionals in decisions relating to controversial procedures and prescriptions. The New York Times indicated that the Department has drafted regulations "to ensure that federal money does not 'support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.'"

Americans on all sides of controversial issues such as abortion, reproductive technologies and assisted suicide can appreciate the need to protect everyone's First Amendment rights of free speech and religious exercise. That means that healthcare professionals must be free to follow their individual conscientious convictions on these life-and-death matters. The CMA letter also noted, "An informal survey of Christian Medical Association members found that over 41 percent of respondents had been "pressured to compromise Biblical or ethical convictions."

Anecdotal accounts suggest that few persecuted healthcare professionals actually know their conscience rights and that they typically simply submit to pressure by resigning. Unless pro-life professionals are equipped to know and apply their conscience rights, they actually stand at risk of being weeded out from the profession altogether .

"Patients are protected when physicians follow objective ethical codes, such as those expressed in the Hippocratic Oath and the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. We recognize that some individuals choose to refuse to follow these principles, and under current law, that is their choice.

To schedule an interview, please contact Becky Gerber at (423) 844-1048 or by e-mail: becky.gerber@cmda.org . The Christian Medical Association is equipped with Ku Band Digital Uplink satellite and ISDN lines. 
 

HHS Secretary BLOG on
Freedom of Conscience

CMA News Release 2008-07-15

NSCCB News Release

ACOG continues attacks
on freedom of conscience (2008)

Contact: Natalie Bell, Concerned Women for America,   202-488-7000  ext. 126

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.

HHS Secretary BLOG on
Freedom of Conscience

ACOG continues attacks
on freedom of conscience (2008)

Washington--June 27, 2008--The Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org), the nation's largest faith-based organization of physicians, today lauded U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt for encouraging the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) to clearly publish assurances that it will not decertify or otherwise penalize physicians who do not perform or refer for abortions. 

CMA CEO David Stevens said, "Secretary Leavitt is serving America's physicians and patients well by prodding ABOG to provide assurances that it will uphold fundamental principles of conscience protections in healthcare. Protecting the right for physicians to abide by longstanding ethical codes such as the Hippocratic Oath is one of the best ways to protect patients—by insuring that their physicians follow time-tested objective standards and not ideological whims or politically motivated pressures." 

Secretary Leavitt's letter addresses ABOG's written guidance, published in December, that links its physician certification procedures with the ethics positions of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Those ACOG positions include a controversial official position issued in November that called upon conscience-objecting obstetricians to refer patients for abortions—an act which many such physicians consider unethical. 

Dr. Stevens noted, "As Secretary Leavitt has pointed out, forcing physicians to refer for abortions not only violates ethical standards; it may also violate federal laws such as the Weldon amendment, which prohibits discrimination in certain cases from forcing physicians and institutions to 'provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.'" 

Stevens said, " An informal survey of our membership revealed that over 41 percent have been 'pressured to compromise Biblical or ethical convictions.' Over 46 percent "know of a colleague in medicine who has experienced' such pressure. We have been working hard to raise awareness of and counter the attack on conscience rights in healthcare—not just to protect our members and their patients, but also to protect physicians and patients of conscience nationwide." 

Dr. Gene Rudd, an obstetrician and CMA Senior Vice President, said, "It's one thing for ACOG to allow for differences of opinion on abortion, and quite another to require its members to submit to the ACOG leadership's decidedly partisan position on abortion." Dr. Rudd canceled his ACOG membership as a result of the organization's abortion referral mandate. 

Leavitt's letter of June 20 to ABOG notes, "Amending current and future ABOG Bulletins to clarify specifically which ACOG rules and principles the Bulletin refers to would reduce potential future confusion over this issue. So too would amending the Bulletin, or another appropriate ABOG document, to reflect your statement that physicians' refusal to perform or refer for services that violate their ethical or moral standards is not a consideration in certification." 

On March 14, Secretary Leavitt sent a letter to the Board that noted, “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.”  

To schedule an interview, please contact Margie Shealy at (423) 844-1047 or by e-mail: margie.shealy@cmda.org. The Christian Medical Association is equipped with Ku Band Digital Uplink satellite and ISDN lines. 

U.S. Coast Guard officials who initially refused to excuse an officer from being injected with a vaccine derived from an aborted child have relented in the wake of a lawsuit filed on behalf of the officer by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys [Healy v. United States Coast Guard ].  The U.S. Coast Guard had refused to grant an exemption for Officer Joseph J. Healy, who is Catholic, even though it allows exemptions based on other religious beliefs.

"Christians shouldn’t be punished for abiding by their beliefs against abortion.  The Coast Guard has done the right thing in recognizing that those who lay their life on the line to defend our shores are entitled to the same freedom as anyone else not to have their particular beliefs disregarded," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman.

"Members of the U.S. military should never be forced to make an unconstitutional choice between honoring their country and adhering to the belief that health and medicine can prosper without exploiting the killing of preborn children," Bowman said.

In May 2006, the Coast Guard, which requires its personnel to be vaccinated against a variety of diseases, ordered all active-duty personnel to receive one of two vaccines against Hepatitis A or show proof of immunity.  The vaccines are derived from cells taken from the lung tissue of a child who was electively aborted at 14 weeks gestation and then dissected.  The Coast Guard allows religious exemptions for those who hold a "religious tenet or belief contrary to immunization."

In compliance with Coast Guard requirements, Healy, a lieutenant commander, submitted a memo requesting religious exemption based on his Catholic faith and strong opposition to abortion.  In response, a higher ranking officer denied the request because he disagreed with Healy’s theology, claiming that Catholic teaching "does not state that these immunizations are against the religious tenets of the Catholic Church."

Friday, the Coast Guard notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that it will grant Healy a religious exemption.  As a result, ADF attorneys plan to file a motion to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit they filed Jan. 2.

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled Thursday that Washington pharmacists’ rights of conscience will be protected while an appeal by state officials who oppose those rights moves forward.  The ruling means that a court order requested by ADF and ADF-allied attorneys to suspend newly-passed state regulations will remain in place.  The regulations forced pharmacies and pharmacists to stock or distribute abortion-inducing drugs regardless of their religious or moral opposition.

“Pharmacists and other health-care workers shouldn’t be punished for abiding by their beliefs. They should never be forced to abandon their pro-life convictions in order to appease a government agenda, even while an appeal moves forward in court,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley.  “No one should ever be forced to choose between keeping their career and honoring their faith.”

In November, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a preliminary injunction against the regulations while a lawsuit filed against state officials proceeds.  The state then asked the 9th Circuit to stay the injunction so the regulations would remain in effect during the appeal, but a 9th Circuit panel rejected that request Thursday.

In its decision, the 9th Circuit said the state did not sufficiently demonstrate a lack of availability of abortion-inducing drugs, including the so-called “Plan B” drug, for any woman who wants them.

ADF-allied attorney Kristen Waggoner of the Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry is lead counsel in the case.

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

23 April, 2008

Today the Thomas More Society filed an appeal with the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of Neil T. Noesen. Noesen is a registered pharmacist, who refused to fill a prescription for oral contraceptives at a K-Mart in Menominee, Wisconsin, because of conscientious objections. In 2005, he was disciplined by the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board for refusing to transfer the prescription.

Both a Wisconsin Circuit Court and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the order of the Pharmacy Examining Board imposing discipline on Mr. Noesen (a reprimand and limitations on his license).

Prior to refusing to fill or transfer the prescription, Mr. Noesen notified his employer of his conscientious objection to contraceptives. The employer had adopted a procedure for accommodating Mr. Noesen's beliefs without losing customers but it was not followed in this particular case. As Mr. Noesen explained to the Court: "...with good conscience, I can't aid, abet, encourage, refer, transfer, or participate in any way with something that I feel would be impairing the fertility of a human being." The customer's prescription was ultimately filled and she did not become pregnant from missing a single dose of her prescription.

According to Paul Linton, Thomas More Society Special Counsel, "Mr. Noesen is being punished for refusing to compromise his beliefs. The Pharmacy Examining Board's action violates his rights of conscience, clearly protected by the Wisconsin Constitution (art. I, s. 18). We hope the Wisconsin Supreme Court will restore Mr. Noesen's right to express his deeply held beliefs. Being tolerant of what others believe is the definition of a free society."

The Thomas More Society is a public interest law firm which provides legal counsel and defense for those who work to protect innocent human life.

Contact: Tom Ciesielka, TC Public Relations, ; Denise Mackura, Executive Director & General Counsel, Thomas More Society

Introducing the motion in Parliament, Mr. Vellacott said it “would prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person’s religion or belief that human life is inviolable. The bill seeks to ensure that health care providers will never be forced to participate against their will in procedures such as abortions or acts of euthanasia.” Private members’ bills do not often become law. This is the third Parliament in which Mr. Vellacott has introduced a bill on this topic.

While freedom of conscience and religion is a Charter right, health care providers and students sometimes find themselves in situations where they are expected to participate in procedures such as abortion or certain types of research that conflict with their beliefs at a serious level. While some institutions address conscientious objection through policies on reasonable accommodation (usually by assigning the employee to alternate duties), the League knows of numerous cases where such requests have not been honoured. The League therefore welcomes the attempt to establish conscience protection for health care workers in federal law.  It is hoped the continued pursuit of this objective may also be taken up at the provincial level, where such employment protection is also needed.

For further information:
Joanne McGarry, Executive Director
Catholic Civil Rights League
416-466-8244  joanne.mcgarry@ccrl.ca

About CCRL
Catholic Civil Rights League (www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization and has chapters across Canada. The Catholic Civil Rights League is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.

OTTAWA – Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) today re-introduced his Private Member’s Bill that would protect the conscience rights of Canada’s health care workers. This is the third Parliament in which Vellacott has introduced a bill to protect health care workers’ conscience rights.

“I hope that the Canadian Parliament will eventually pass this kind of a common sense measure that would protect the freedom of choice for all health care workers,” said Vellacott.

Introducing the bill in Parliament this afternoon, Vellacott said:

Mr. Speaker, the bill would prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human life is inviolable. The bill seeks to ensure that health care providers will never be forced to participate against their will in procedures such as abortions or acts of euthanasia.

Canada has a long history of recognizing the rights of freedom of religion and of conscience in our country. Yet health care workers and those seeking to be educated for the health care system have often been denied those rights in medical facilities and educational institutions. Some have even been wrongfully dismissed.

The bill would make those conscience rights explicit in law and would safeguard health care workers' fundamental human rights.

– 30 –

For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or 297-2249

A federal court Tuesday rejected California’s challenge to the “Weldon Amendment.”  The federal statute forbids state and local governments that receive federal funds from discriminating against healthcare providers that refuse to perform or refer patients for abortions.  The court sided with three groups of pro-life medical professionals and others, including the federal government, in rejecting California’s challenge [State of California v. United States of America].

“Pro-life medical professionals shouldn’t be discriminated against for abiding by their beliefs,” said Litigation Counsel M. Casey Mattox of CLS’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom.  “This ruling means that California will remain prohibited from fining and criminally prosecuting pro-life doctors because they refuse to perform abortions.  The Weldon Amendment remains a critical protection for the rights of conscience of pro-life healthcare workers.”

Bill Lockyer, the former attorney general of California, filed suit against the U.S. government in 2005, claiming the amendment is unconstitutional because it interferes with California’s enforcement of a state law.  That law provides for criminal and civil penalties against healthcare workers if they do not perform or refer for abortions in some circumstances.

Attorneys with CLS and ADF represented members of the Christian Medical Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3777).

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth.  The CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom is a team of Christian attorneys allied with ADF to defend religious liberty and human life.
 

HHS Secretary BLOG on
Freedom of Conscience

ACOG continues attacks
on freedom of conscience (2008)
 

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 Gant 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 Montana Board of Pharmacy has dropped all complaints against a pharmacist who declined to dispense contraceptives and the so-called “morning after pill” because of his sincerely-held religious beliefs.  An ADF-allied attorney represented the pharmacist before a screening panel of the Montana Board of Pharmacy Wednesday.

“Pro-life pharmacists shouldn’t be penalized for abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Byron Babione.  “Respecting the right to not sell these items doesn’t impose an ideology on anyone.  Forcing a pharmacist to sell them does.”

John Lane, a pharmacist in the town of Broadus, had 11 complaints filed against him with the Montana Board of Pharmacy because of his decision not to sell contraceptives and the so-called “morning after pill” at his store.  On March 5, the pharmacy board met to decide if it would further investigate the complaints, which can result in an official reprimand or the revoking of a pharmacist’s license.  At the meeting, the board dismissed the complaints against Lane, stating he had not violated the law.

Lane was represented at the hearing by ADF-allied attorney Matthew Monforton, of Mark Bryan, P.C., in Bozeman.  Monforton was assisted by Babione and ADF Litigation Counsel David Sheasby.

“Neither the government nor an employer should make people choose between their faith and their job,” said Monforton.  “The board did the right thing by recognizing that Mr. Lane did nothing to violate the law.”

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

ADF attorneys sent a letter to the American Counseling Association Wednesday, asking the organization to reconsider a policy which stigmatizes counselors and clients who hold to biblically based religious beliefs regarding homosexual behavior.  According to the ACA’s Ethics Committee, working with counselors or referring clients to counselors who respect such views may violate the organization’s “ethical rules.”

“Christian counselors and the people who receive their counseling shouldn’t be penalized for abiding by their beliefs.  People have the right to choose the counselor they want, and counselors have the right to suggest what they believe will help,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum.  “Professional freedom of conscience is a crucial element in ensuring that clients receive the help they need.”

Dr. Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor of psychology and fellow for psychology and public policy at Grove City College, sent a letter of complaint to the ACA on behalf of nearly 400 mental health professionals.  The letter expresses concern that the ACA’s policy on “sexual-identity therapy” could jeopardize the rights of both clients and counselors.

In a 2006 Ethics Committee memorandum, the ACA condemned approaches to therapy which attempt to change sexual orientation.  However, in doing so, the ACA also disregarded clients who wish to avoid homosexual behavior on religious grounds.  The ACA stated that working with or referring such clients to counselors who will assist them may violate the ACA’s code of ethics.  The memo also indicated that religious perspectives which affirm homosexual behavior are the proper ethical approach when working with clients who have religious conflicts over their same-sex attractions.

ADF attorneys representing Throckmorton wrote a letter to the ACA asking it to change the policy, noting that it is “imperative” that the “religious beliefs of both clients and counselors be respected and protected.”

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

 

January 04, 2008, 12:00 AM (MST)

On Wednesday, ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of a U.S. Coast Guard officer told he must be injected with a vaccine derived from an aborted child, even though it conflicts with his Catholic beliefs [Healy v. United States Coast Guard] .  The U.S. Coast Guard refused to grant an exemption for Officer Joseph J. Healy, who is Catholic, even though it allows exemptions based on other religious beliefs.

"Those who lay their life on the line to defend our shores are entitled to the same religious freedoms as anyone else," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman.  "Members of the U.S. military should never be forced to make an unconstitutional choice between honoring their country and honoring their faith."

In May 2006, the Coast Guard, which requires its personnel to be vaccinated against a variety of diseases, ordered all active-duty personnel to receive one of two vaccines against Hepatitis A or show proof of immunity.  The vaccines are derived from cells taken from the lung tissue of a child who was electively aborted at 14 weeks gestation and then dissected.  The U.S. Coast Guard allows religious exemptions for those who hold a "religious tenet or belief contrary to immunization."

In compliance with Coast Guard requirements, Healy, a lieutenant commander, submitted a memo requesting religious exemption based on his Catholic faith and strong opposition to abortion.  In response, Capt. Brent Pennington denied the request because he disagreed with Healy’s theology, claiming that Catholic teaching "does not state that these immunizations are against the religious tenets of the Catholic Church."

Because of the denial, Healy may be forced, under threat of severe penalty, to receive the immunization against his will.  ADF attorneys have filed a motion along with the lawsuit asking the court to prevent that from happening while the case moves forward in court.

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