Letter from Justin Cardinal Rigali to Members of U.S. Congress
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Original Text
Reproduced with permission
Introduction
On 15 July, 2008 the New York Times published a story based on a
confidential document it had obtained from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. The story identified the document as a draft
regulation intended to ensure that federal protection of conscience laws
are respected. The story generated a such a strong adverse reaction from
those opposed to freedom of conscience in health care that Justin
Cardinal Rigali, Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia and Chairman of the
American bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities, felt compelled to
respond by writing to members of Congress. [Administrator]
July 18, 2008
Dear Member of Congress:
I am writing on an issue that 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.
On July 15, pro-abortion groups publicly attacked what purports to be a
leaked draft of a proposed federal regulation on the conscience rights of
health care providers (R.
Pear, "Abortion Proposal Sets Conditions on Aid." The New York Times, July
15, 2008, p. A17). Already Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and others have
circulated a letter in the House urging Members to write to President Bush
opposing any (as yet unpublished) regulations on this topic.
I am not writing to comment publicly on the details of an unpublished
draft allegedly leaked from a government agency. The Catholic bishops'
conference will be glad to provide public comment on a proposed rule if and
when it is published, as provided for by law. But the critics' charges are
sweeping enough that a few general comments on conscience protection in
health care seem warranted.
First, Congress has passed numerous laws protecting rights of conscience
in health care, beginning in 1973 with various provisions of the "Church
amendment" (named for prime sponsor Senator Frank Church [D-ID]). Some of
these laws address such rights in a specific context, such as abortion or
AIDS prevention; some explicity address both abortion and sterilization; and
some try to ensure respect for individuals' moral and religious convictions
in programs receiving federal funds regardless of the specific issue. (For
an
overview . . .) 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.
Second, despite Congress's frequently demonstrated concern about
conscience rights over 35 years, none of these statutes has been clarified
or enforced through implementing regulations. Partly as a result, relatively
few policy makers or health care personnel are even aware that these laws
exist, which means that some institutions may be violating them without even
knowing it, and others who are victims of discrimination may not know that
they have any legal recourse. For example, in November, 2007 the Ethics
Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued
an opinion stating that pro-life physicians must do abortion referrals - and
ACOG had to be reminded by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that
such coerced referrals are among the abuses that federal conscience laws
have long been directed against. It seems the statutory policy is clear and
needed, and at the same time is relatively unknown, misunderstood and
unenforced. This is a paradigm instance calling for the executive branch to
reaffirm and implement the statutes, especially as fundamental rights are at
stake. 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.
Third, efforts to protect rights of conscience are being attacked by
critics as a threat to women's "access" to abortion and birth control. This
is an interesting charge. For many years, pro- abortion groups have insisted
that abortion and related services are 'basic" and mandatory aspects of
health care. They have opposed conscience clauses, dismissively calling them
"refusal clauses," claiming that they protect an irrational "refusal" by a
tiny minority of religious zealots to comply with this supposedly objective
medical standard. Now they have reversed their stand, claiming that
conscientious objection to these procedures is so pervasive in the health
care professions that policies protecting conscience rights will eliminate
access to them. Obviously these two claims cancel each other out. I would
suggest, however, that if a procedure really elicits widespread ethical
disapproval from conscientious health professionals, and must be imposed on
unwilling physicians and nurses by force of law in order to be available at
all, it may not be as "basic" as pro-abortion groups imagine. I would add
that 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 provides self-described "pro-choice" advocates with an
opportunity to demonstrate their true convictions. Do they agree with most
Americans that an abortion is a moral concern? Do they at least hold that
"freedom of choice" must belong to everyone, including those who have deep
moral concerns in this area? Or is 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? Reactions to
efforts to reaffirm and implement laws on conscience may provide an answer.
Sincerely
Cardinal Justin Rigali
Archbishop of Philadelphia
Chairman, Committee for Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops