Your Conscience,Your Right: A History of Efforts to Violate Pro-Life Medical Conscience,and the Laws that Stand in the Way *

Abstract

Attacks on the conscience rights of health-care professionals are increasing. This stems from the seven stages of liberal legal activism which begins with the assertion that a specific (immoral) activity should not be illegal and ends with the condemnation as criminals of those who disagree with the immoral activity. The history of legal activism in the United States with regard to abortion is traced, including attempts to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions and sterilizations. These include challenges on the national and state levels with conscience-protection legislation enacted both in Congress and in state legislatures. However, these laws provide no explicit means by which a medical professional or institution may seek redress for a violation of their conscience. This has led to recent failures of conscience protection, such as when Catholic Charities in New York was forced to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and a Catholic nurse was forced to assist in a twenty-two-week-old dismemberment abortion. The conscience protection regulations issued near the end of President Bush's second term would be helpful in ensuring greater education about and adherence to the laws and respect for conscience rights, but the Obama Administration has proposed rescinding the Bush Administration regulations. Catholic Medical Association members must stand and defend their conscience rights in this time or risk the loss of those rights in the near future. The Alliance Defense Fund and its allies are ready to assist medical students, professionals, and institutions who are willing to stand in this gap and refuse to sacrifice their consciences to the anti-choice agenda being promoted by those who call themselves “pro-choice.”

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cantor

Julie

“Conscientious Objection Gone Awry: Restoring Selfless Professionalism in Medicine,”

New England Journal of Medicine 360 (2009): 1484–1485.

More information on Cathy DeCarlo's case is available at the Alliance Defense Fund's website, see “NY Nurse Threatened, Forced to Assist in Late-Term Abortion,” press release, July 22, 2009, http://adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/2694.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 163 (1973).

Roe v. Wade, 144 n38 (1973), quoting Proceedings of the AMA House of Delegates 220 (June 1970).

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 197 (1973).

Doe v. Bolton, 197–198.

Taylor v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 523 F.2d 75, 76 (9th Cir. 1975).

See, e.g., Chrisman v. Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, 506 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1974); Watkins v. Mercy Medical Center, 364 F. Supp. 799 (D. Idaho 1973); Doe v. Bellin Memorial Hospital, 479 F.2d 756 (7th Cir. 1973).

42 U.S.C., § 300a-7.

10.

42 U.S.C., §238n.

11.

See United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Background: Hyde/Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment in the Labor/HHS Appropriations Bill” and the cases compiled therein, http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/h-backgrounder.pdf.

12.

These three departments are overseen by the same subcommittee in the House of Representatives and are thus budgeted together.

13.

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, § 508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209.

14.

National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 826 (D.C. Cir. 2006); California v. United States, 2008 WL 744840 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

15.

N.J. Stat. 45: 14-67.1.

16.

745 Ill. Comp. Stat. 70/5; American Center for Law & Justice, “Victory for Pro-Life Pharmacists,” August 25, 2009, http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=837.

17.

Doe v. Bolton.

18.

Chrisman v. Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, 506 F.2d, 312.

19.

Taylor v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 523 F.2d 75, 77.

20.

Doe v. Bellin, 523 F.2d 756, 759-760.

21.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

22.

Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany v. Serio, 859 N.E. 2d 459 (N.Y. 2006).

23.

North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. San Diego County Superior Court, 189 P.3d 959 (Cal. 2008).

24.

74 Fed. Reg. 10207-01, et seq. (March 10, 2009).

25.

Connecticut v. United States (and consolidated cases), Docket No. CV 09-00054 (D. Conn.).

26.

Cf. Heimburger

Angela

, “EC Access Under Threat,” paper presented at the 2007 Women Deliver conference, October 19, 2007, London.

27.

Pro-life health professionals seeking input from the Alliance Defense Fund can call (800) TELL-ADF. They can also call the Catholic Medical Association for assistance, or contact other respected, pro-life medical or legal organizations.