Commentaries on Federal Laws and Regulations
The commentaries provided on the website are not a substitute for legal advice provided by a qualified professional.
HHS Nondiscrimination Regulation
Proposed Regulation: 80 Fed. Reg. 54172 (Sept. 8, 2015).
- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- National Association of Evangelicals
- Christian Medical Association
- Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance
- Christian Legal Society
- World Vision (US)
- Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the
Southern Baptist Convention
- Liberty Institute
- Family Research Council
- National Catholic Bioethics Center
- In early 2012, pursuing health care reforms based on the new Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration decided that, individual women should not have to pay for "FDA approved
contraceptive services," which include surgical sterilization,
contraceptives, and embryocides.
for this policy are mainly economic and socio-political. Since
sterilization and birth control have to be paid for by someone, the
administration decided to force others to pay for them through insurance plans,
even if they object to doing so for reasons of conscience or religion. The
policy is highly controversial.
The following documents have been annotated and linked in order to
clarify the nature and scope of the controversy.
Proposed amendment to 'contraceptive' mandate (2013)
The 'contraceptive' mandate (2012)
Hobby Lobby Case and What It Says About Corporations With a Conscience
If people want to deny corporations a conscience, how can they ever
again demand that corporations act morally, conscientiously?
- Paul De Vries*
| The Supreme Court was right to allow corporations to be exempt from the
mandate to pay for abortion pills or contraception when their leaders have
established religious reasons against them. Moral issues can stand as
questions for the liberty of conscience – whether individual conscience or
- In the fall of 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the outgoing Bush administration passed a regulation to safeguard
freedom of conscience for healthcare workers. The rule came into
effect at the end of January, 2009, just before President Barack Obama
took office. President Obama's administration eviscerated the
regulation in 2011 to remove the safeguards enacted under President
Bush, even though the title of the regulation remained unchanged.
Obama Administration Final Rule (2011)
Bush Administration Final Rule (2008-2009)
Opening Statement of Chairman Manzullo
- . . .The subject before this Committee today deals with the negative
impact on small pharmacies that operate under the strict law that
requires pharmacists to fill all prescriptions - even if doing so
violates their moral and professional beliefs. I also want to discuss
alternatives that will ensure that women who want a certain prescription
have access to it, while preserving the integrity of the pharmacist. . .
Prepared Remarks of Mr. Luke Vander Bleek, R.Ph.
- . . . I object that any private business should be required by government to
offer for sale any particular product or service. Additionally, I have
strong professional and moral objections to this executive requirement being
placed on my business. . .
Prepared Remarks of Ms. Sheila Nix
- . . .The Governor's rule clarified a retail pharmacy's duty to
dispense contraceptive medication without delay. The rule does not apply
to individual pharmacists; it applies to pharmacies. This rule was not
intended to - nor does it - pertain to health care right of conscious
legislation or encroach on an individual pharmacist exercising his or
her beliefs. . .
Prepared Remarks of Mr. J. Michael Patton, M.S., CAE
- . . .Unfortunately, what we are now finding is that some individuals
are now testing select pharmacies to discern the willingness of the
pharmacy to fill their prescription. A case in point is a woman who
would drive over 100 miles to a very small rural pharmacy to get her
prescription filled when she had passed multiple metropolitan areas. . .
Prepared Remarks of Ms. Linda Garrelts MacLean, R.Ph., CDE
- APhA recognizes the individual pharmacist's right to exercise
conscientious refusal and supports the establishment of systems to ensure
[the] patient's access to legally prescribed therapy without compromising
the pharmacist's right of conscientious refusal. . . . In sum, our policy supports a
pharmacist 'stepping away' from participating but not 'stepping in the way'
of the patient accessing the therapy.
Prepared Remarks of Ms. Megan Kelly
- . . . When I went to pick up my medication, the pharmacist on duty
said she would not fill my prescriptions because of her beliefs, and
that I would have to get my prescriptions filled elsewhere. I was
shocked. . .
Testimony of Lynn
D. Wardle, J.D.
- . . .Recently, there have been a series of attempts to compel
hospitals, health care groups, and other hare care organizations to
either provide abortion services or to be denied the license, permission
or opportunity to engage in the health care service. Also, there have
been attempts to mandate that health care insurers and private employers
provide coverage and pay for abortion services. . .
Testimony of Ms. Karen Vosburgh
- . . .the court struck down a state law protecting
hospitals that refuse to participate in abortions, denying the right of our
board to exercise its rights of moral conscience. The court even suggested
that it would not respect the religious beliefs of those who decline
involvement in abortion, saying, "recognizing such a policy as 'compelling'
could violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." . . .
Fact Sheet: ACLU's Misrepresentations
about the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act
- US Conference of Catholic Bishops | In testimony before the House
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health (July 11, 2002), the
Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
made several claims about the practical effect of H.R. 4691, the Abortion
Non-Discrimination Act. Each claim is quoted below and followed by a
rebuttal that sets the record straight.
Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua
- 8 October, 2002 |. . .Passage of S. 2008 is
urgently needed. In recent years there has been a growing nationwide
effort to attack the conscience rights of Catholic and other health care
providers. In one example cited at the House hearing on this bill, an
Alaska court forced a community hospital to provide elective late-term
abortions contrary to its policy and the sentiment of the community. . .
- 15 August, 2003 | Abortion advocates, by opposing this modest legislation, have
called into serious question their past claim that they favor a "right
to choose" on abortion. . . .
Hospitals and other health care providers have "a right to choose
not to be involved in destroying life."
US Conference of Catholic Bishops