Message at Supreme Court: Constitution protects both minority and majority viewpoints

Speakers included the mother (center, in red) of a girl
who transitioned against the mother's will through
the intervention of government authorities.

I recently spoke outside the Supreme Court in the face of raucous protests on the day of oral arguments in a case involving transgender individuals and alleged sex discrimination, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Speeches had resumed outside the court after a bomb scare had prompted police to clear the area.

Speeches resumed after police cleared the area for a bomb scare.

Members of the LGBT community relentlessly hassled and harried speakers on our side of the argument by launching wailing sirens, shouting with bullhorns in the faces of speakers and chanting mantras like "homophobe" while we spoke (a special irony given that our speakers included a lesbian and a former transgender man). I imagine their side had some reasonable arguments to make, but I could hear none over the sirens, bullhorn and chanting.
My remarks follow:

In a recent national poll of faith-based health professionals, virtually all of them declared, "I care for all patients in need, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identification, or family makeup, with sensitivity and compassion, even when I cannot validate their choices."
In that same poll, 91% of those faith-based health professionals also said they oppose "Redefining 'sex' in federal discrimination laws to mean gender identity, defined as one's internal sense of being 'male, female, neither or a combination of male and female.'"
So they treat all patients with care and compassion, but they need the freedom to recognize and rely on biology when treating their patients.
But some people think that to show compassion and respect for transgender individuals, the government has to force everyone to ignore not only the clear evidence of biology but also the clear meaning of the law.
That's why a few ideological members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and activist judges have rejected the plain meaning of sex discrimination that Congress, women and doctors have all understood and relied upon for decades.

Reading transgenderism into decades-old sex discrimination law
threatens women's rights and sports, as track star Selina Soule
(above) discovered. Photo: Alliance Defends

In the process, these activists are threatening to undermine the very protections against sex discrimination that Congress enacted, which have transformed opportunities for women.
So this case today is as much about the law and individual freedom as it is about gender.
We will have no individual freedom in our country if the government can require you to believe whatever the government wants you to believe.
The genius of our nation's constitutional protection of individual rights and freedom is not only that the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority, but also that the majority is protected from the tyranny of the minority. The goal of our democratic republic is protecting the greatest freedom for each one of us, protecting us from government coercion, whether our views align with the majority or with a minority.
So let's all work together to protect each other's freedom to choose our beliefs, and to act in accordance with those beliefs, without government coercion. 

.

Dr. Allen Josephson (left), former chief of the
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and
Psychology at the University of Louisville, spoke
about how he lost his position after expressing his
professional opinions on the treatment
of youth experiencing gender dysphoria.

Thank you.

As expected, mainstream media coverage slanted toward
stories sympathetic to the LGBT community.

National poll: Faith-based health professionals care for all but need conscience protections on moral issues

By Jonathan Imbody, VP for Government Relations - Christian Medical Association and Director - Freedom2Care

Faith-based health professionals care with compassion and respect for all patients, but they will leave medicine rather than violate their conscience if forced to participate in morally objectionable procedures and prescriptions.

I recently delivered that message from our members, based on a professionally conducted poll, at the White House to the President's advisors; at the U.S. Capitol to Congressional staffers; at a U.S. House of Representatives office to legislators and staffers; and at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to agency officials.

The survey, a nationwide poll of faith-based health professionals, conducted by Heart and Mind Strategies, LLC, found that 91 percent said they would have to "stop practicing medicine altogether than be forced to violate my conscience." That finding holds significant implications for millions of patients, especially the poor and those in underserved regions who depend upon faith-based health facilities and professionals for their care. 

The survey of faith-based health professionals also found that virtually all care for patients "regardless of sexual orientation, gender identification, or family makeup, with sensitivity and compassion, even when I cannot validate their choices." The finding puts the lie to the charge that somehow conscience protections will result in whole classes of patients being denied care. 

"Faith-based health professionals actually seek out and serve marginalized patients to provide compassionate care," explained CMDA CEO Emeritus Dr. David Stevens in a news release. "All we ask as we serve is that the government not intrude into the physician-patient relationship by dictating that we must do controversial procedures and prescriptions that counter our best medical judgment or religious beliefs." 

Key poll findings include:

• Faith-based health professionals need conscience protections to ensure their continued medical practice.
• Conscience-driven health professionals care for all patients.
• Religious professionals overwhelmingly support a biological—not ideological--definition of sex.
• Religious health professionals face rampant discrimination.
• Access for poor and medically under-served patient populations depends on conscience protections.

Detail on the poll of faith-based professionals can be found at www.Freedom2Care.org/polling.

CMA is currently represented by the Becket law firm in two cases on which this poll has bearing: Franciscan Alliance v. Azar, which addresses an Obamacare transgender mandate, and New York v. HHS, which addresses a new federal conscience protection rule.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently introduced two new regulations on which the poll has bearing: a final conscience protection rule and a proposed gender rule. For more information on these rules, see https://www.freedom2care.org/laws-regs-cases and click on Regulations.