New Jersey flirts with radical abortion bill

The Washington Examiner recently published my Op-ed on a horrible New Jersey abortion-promoting bill:

With recent appointments to the Supreme Court nudging the institution away from judicial activism and toward an originalist view of interpreting the Constitution, some state lawmakers supported by the abortion industry are panicking.

Is Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Ethical?

Public Discourse recently published my essay, written with Dr. Jeff Barrows, "Is Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Ethical?"

On November 9, 2020, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and biotech company and cancer treatment specialist BioNTech stunned the world with the announcement that a “vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis.” The 90 percent success rate far exceeded experts’ hopes of a 50–70 percent effective rate and promised ultimately a potential curb on the global pandemic that has crippled the world’s economy.

U.S. Dept. of Labor addresses religious freedom

I recently participated in a call with the U.S. Dept. of Labor's Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives. The White House provided the following highlights of that meeting:

• Department of Labor’s new Final Rule, “Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause’s Religious Exemption.” This rule will encourage the full and equal participation of religious organizations as federal contractors.

Restoring the soul requires genuine repentance

In a New York Times piece, "The Faithful Voters Who Helped Put Biden Over the Top," a Democratic party political activist argues that Joe Biden's “restoring the soul of America” mantra resonated with religious voters. But mantras are not policies, and restoring the soul is not a political endeavor.

Our national malaise, conflict and division reflect our own inner personal malaise, conflict and division. Politicians cannot accomplish the deep spiritual restoration and revival that each of us desperately needs; that is a Divine mission that requires our assent.

Restoring the soul requires genuine repentance from our actions and attitudes that contradict our divinely created purpose and worth. Restoring the soul requires a regeneration by faith, a recognition of the divine imprint on every human being and the attendant sanctity of life and a deepened love for our neighbors.

U.S. sends shot across bow of UN, WHO with multilateral, pro-life health declaration

HHS Sec. Alex Azar joined Sec. of State Mike Pompeo
at the Geneva Consensus Declaration signing ceremony.

"At stake in this battle is the funding and prevalence of abortion, influencing societal views on abortion and securing or losing conscience freedom for pro-life healthcare professionals."

By Jonathan Imbody

At a signing ceremony in Washington, DC on October 22, 2020, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar laid out a multilateral agreement that sends a clear message to the United Nations and the World Health Organization: Stop pressuring countries to submit to a radical abortion agenda and focus instead on consensus global health issues.

Led by the United States and now joined by 31 other countries, the Geneva Consensus Declaration lays down four pillars of priorities for international healthcare programs:

1.      improving women's health;

2.      preserving human life;

3.      strengthening the family; and

4.      protecting national sovereignty.

The Declaration asserts, for example, that:

·         "there is no international right to abortion, nor any international obligation on the part of States to finance or facilitate abortion;"

·         "in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning;"

·         "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State;" and

·         "motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance."

Christian health professionals laud the Declaration

In a Christian Medical and Dental Associations news release heralding the Declaration, Senior VP for Bioethics and Public Policy, Dr. Jeffrey Barrows noted, "As an obstetrician, I especially appreciate the Declaration's dual emphasis on mother and child. The Declaration reaffirms both that 'motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.' It also notes that 'the child… needs special safeguards and care… before as well as after birth' and that 'special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children,' based on the principle of the best interest of the child.'

"Countries must learn to work together on consensus global health issues," Barrows continued, "rather than fight each other on ideological disagreements. Working together on consensus health issues, we can maximize our health resources and programs that will benefit all women while respecting the dignity of every person."

Declaration counters UN, WHO abortion activism and agenda

The Geneva statement reflects the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy of the United States. According to HHS, the policy "negotiates health policy at multilateral settings where policies are debated and set, like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN)." Activists within both the UN and WHO have vociferously advocated for abortion on demand, reportedly pressuring countries behind the scenes with the threat of loss of funding and standing should they fail to enact the pro-abortion agenda into laws.

In April this year, President Trump yanked hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. funding of the WHO, saying the agency had put "political correctness over lifesaving measures."

In September this year, the President declared in a speech to the UN General Assembly, "My administration is advancing religious liberty … and protecting unborn children."

That pro-abortion activism and agenda falls well outside the founding mandates of these organizations. Often ignoring the cultural and religious values of many countries, the abortion advocacy of these agencies and ideologically aligned countries also diverts funding and energy from addressing solvable health problems on which there is universal agreement.

Abortion activism undermines action on solvable health problems

As I noted in the press release, "When surveyed on women's global health, our members serving in medical missions around the world have overwhelmingly agreed that 'Rather than advocating for abortion rights, the international health community, governments and international bodies should instead focus energy, time and resources on meeting women's health needs for which there is widespread agreement regarding strategies.'

"They also overwhelmingly agree with the statement, 'Abortion rights advocacy by some governments, world health and other international bodies is detracting attention and resources from women's health needs on which there is widespread agreement.'

"Instead, these medical missionaries say that efforts should focus on addressing solvable women's health issues such as maternal health, pregnancy complications, malaria and sexually transmitted diseases."

International abortion policies impact US policies and conscience freedoms

This international battle over abortion and health priorities is vitally important, not just for overseas patients and health professionals and institutions, but also for patients and pro-life health professionals and institutions in the United States. The international abortion movement (a) exerts significant pressure on U.S. policymakers to conform to "world opinion"; (b) reinforces the activism of U.S. abortion advocates; and (c) validates the policy agendas of pro-abortion U.S. politicians.

Because this battle impacts the funding and prevalence of abortion, influences societal views on abortion and threatens conscience freedom for pro-life healthcare professionals, it merits our effective engagement.

What can I do?

1.      Pray that God would:

a.       combat the invisible spiritual forces of darkness and death;

b.      increase and strengthen pro-life influence in international agencies; and

c.       turn the hearts of the mothers and fathers in our own nation back to Him and His Kingdom principles.

2.      Vote and advocate for pro-life candidates for office. Visit our Freedom2Care website to register to vote and to see who are your candidates.

3.      Urge policymakers in the White House, Congress and federal agencies to keep policies such as Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance that prevent U.S. funds from propping up the abortion industry overseas. (Sign up for Freedom2Care updates, to receive action opportunities as they arise.)

To learn more

·         HHS main page on Geneva Consensus Declaration:  www.hhs.gov/Declaration   

·         Text of the Declaration:  https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/geneva-consensus-declaration-english.pdf

·         HHS Press Release:  https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/10/22/trump-administration-marks-signing-geneva-consensus-declaration.html

·         CMDA Press Release: https://cmda.org/pressrelease/christian-medical-association-lauds-us-signing-of-geneva-consensus-declaration/

·         Remarks by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and HHS Secretary Alex Azar:  https://www.state.gov/secretary-michael-r-pompeo-with-secretary-alex-m-azar-ii-at-the-signing-ceremony-of-the-geneva-consensus-declaration/

·         News Article:  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/22/us-joins-global-declaration-disavowing-abortion-hu/

 

Christian Medical Association lauds US signing of Geneva Consensus Declaration, stresses need to focus on consensus global health issues

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo highlighted
the pro-life, pro-family precepts in the Declaration.

Bristol, TN—October 22, 2020—The nation's largest faith-based medical organization, the 18,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org), today heralded the signing of a multilateral agreement on consensus global health issues, following a signing ceremony cohosted by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.

CMA Senior VP for Bioethics and Public Policy, Dr. Jeffrey Barrows, an Ob-Gyn, said, "The four pillars of the Geneva Consensus Declaration—improving women's health, preserving human life, strengthening the family and protecting national sovereignty--provide a noble framework for consensus global engagement on women's health issues.

"As an obstetrician, I especially appreciate the Declaration's dual emphasis on mother and child. The Declaration reaffirms both that 'motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.' It also notes that 'the child… needs special safeguards and care… before as well as after birth' and that 'special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children,' based on the principle of the best interest of the child.'

"Countries must learn to work together on consensus global health issues rather than fight each other on ideological disagreements. Working together on consensus health issues, we can maximize our health resources and programs that will benefit all women while respecting the dignity of every person."

The Geneva statement reflects the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy of the United States.

CMA Director of Federal Government Relations Jonathan Imbody noted, "We appreciate the commitment of Secretaries Pompeo and Azar to achieving the goals outlined in the Geneva Consensus Declaration, and the vital work behind the scenes by many such as Valerie Huber, HHS's Special Representative for Global Women’s Health, that made this event possible.

"When surveyed on women's global health, our members serving in medical missions around the world have overwhelmingly agreed that 'Rather than advocating for abortion rights, the international health community, governments and international bodies should instead focus energy, time and resources on meeting women's health needs for which there is widespread agreement regarding strategies.'

"They also overwhelmingly agree with the statement, 'Abortion rights advocacy by some governments, world health and other international bodies is detracting attention and resources from women's health needs on which there is widespread agreement.'

"Instead, these medical missionaries say that efforts should focus on addressing solvable women's health issues such as maternal health, pregnancy complications, malaria and sexually transmitted diseases."

Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s opening statement - highlights

CONFIRMATION PROCESS

“I thank the President for entrusting me with this profound responsibility, as well as for the graciousness that he and the First Lady have shown my family throughout this process.”

“I thank the members of this committee—and your other colleagues in the Senate—who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. It has been a privilege to meet you.”

“The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the court if I am confirmed— requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.”

“If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench.”

“I come before this Committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me.”

“I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.”

IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY

“As I said when I was nominated to serve as a Justice, I am used to being in a group of nine—my family. Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me.”

“There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life.  I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.”

JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY

“Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.”

“That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be.”

“When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.”

“If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.”

LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP

“Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors—in particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit gave me my first job in the law and continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture, and he is cheering me on from his living room now.”

“I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were.”

NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE COURT

“And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the President noted when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the court. I would be the first Justice to join the court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale.”

Great news from Washington on caring for vulnerable newborns:

On September 25, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children.

The Executive Order responds to concerns that hospitals have refused to provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to vulnerable newborns, including those who are premature, born with disabilities, or born in medical distress.  The Executive Order explains that hospitals may issue these refusals “because they believe these infants may not survive, may have to live with long-term disabilities, or may have a quality-of-life deemed to be inadequate.”

The Executive Order clarifies that all individuals, including these vulnerable babies, are protected under the law.  Examples of federal protections include:

• Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) (42 U.S.C. 1395dd): Requires that every individual who comes to a hospital emergency department receive appropriate medical screening and stabilization or transfer.  
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794): Prevents recipients of federal funding from discriminating against individuals with disabilities.  
• The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (1 U.S.C. 8): Clarifies that an infant “born alive at any stage of development” is a person under federal law.

The Executive Order places a number of requirements on the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

• The Secretary must ensure that all federal funding recipients understand their obligations under federal law.  In particular:
• They have an “obligation to provide an appropriate medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or transfer, when extremely premature infants are born alive or infants are born with disabilities.”
• They “may not unlawfully discourage parents from seeking medical treatment for their infant child solely because of their infant child’s disability.”
• They must “allow the infant patients to be transferred to a more suitable facility if appropriate treatment is not possible at the initial location.”

• The Secretary shall investigate complaints of violations of federal laws that occurred respecting infants in need of stabilizing treatment whose parents sought medical care for them.  The Secretary shall take appropriate enforcement action against violations of federal law.
• The Secretary shall “clarify, in an easily understandable format, the process by which parents and hospital staff may submit such complaints for investigation under applicable Federal laws.”

• The Secretary shall prioritize grant funding to:

• “Research to develop treatments that may improve survival — especially survival without impairment — of infants …who have an emergency medical condition in need of stabilizing treatment.”

• “Programs and activities …that provide training to medical personnel regarding the provision of life-saving medical treatment” for these infants.

 The Secretary is directed to issue regulations or guidance, as necessary, to implement this order.

To learn more:

Executive order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-vulnerable-newborn-infant-children/

Press release from HHS: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/09/25/hhs-secretary-azar-statement-on-executive-order-to-protect-infants-born-alive.html 

Watching China's persecution should cause us to protect religious freedom in the U.S.A.

George Weigel's incisive commentary in the Washington Post, on the secret pact between the Vatican and China makes the case for unwavering resolve in protecting religious freedom against the powers opposing it--in this case, the Communist Party of China. In the U.S., the opposing power frequently is a formidable coalition of abortion rights groups, corporation heads, LGBT activists, entertainment moguls and academics.

First Amendment to the Constitution also protects the free exercise of no religious beliefs

Quoted in a news report, Atheists bash DeVos' campus free-speech rules, the president of American Atheists displays a perilous ignorance of how the First Amendment protects their own beliefs, foolishly lambasting a new Department of Education campus free speech and religious exercise rule.

The rule simply requires public colleges and universities to provide religious student groups the same rights, benefits, and privileges that other student groups enjoy. Under the new rule that enforces the First Amendment, if several different student groups apply for access to meet in campus buildings—such as students with American Atheists, Black Lives Matter and Christian Medical Association--the public university cannot decide that only Black Lives Matter may enjoy the privilege because campus administrators disagree with atheists and Christians.

In guaranteeing the First Amendment free exercise of religious beliefs, the rule also guarantees the free exercise of no religious beliefs. Absent the First Amendment, the government decides which beliefs are allowed and which merit interrogation, imprisonment and violence.

Thankfully, we don't live in Communist China but in the free United States—free as long as we all protect each other's First Amendment freedoms.

Americans prefer a rational, respectful discussion of the issues

 

A USA Today commentary entitled, "Transgender scare tactics are back on the Republican agenda" unfortunately employs scare tactics and loaded language ("harmful, cruel, and just factually inaccurate") to mischaracterize in one broad stroke what are often sincerely held differences of persuasion on transgender issues.

For example, in a recent national survey, faith-oriented medical professionals note the importance of fact-based biology in treating patients while also affirming that they "care for all patients in need, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identification, or family makeup, with sensitivity and compassion."

These physicians simultaneously view transgendered individuals as possessing inestimable worth, while differing with their particular perspective regarding gender. Should we deny these physicians their right to follow their medical training and judgment regarding sexuality? Is it worth trampling their freedom of speech or faith to enforce a preferred pronoun?

Debates over controversial issues like transgenderism need not devolve into scare tactics by either side. Most Americans prefer a rational, respectful discussion of the issues and the freedom to pursue their own convictions.

New Dept. Ed rule: “Students should not be forced to choose between their faith and their education”

“Students should not be forced to choose between their faith and their education, and an institution controlled by a religious organization should not have to sacrifice its religious beliefs to participate in Department grants and programs.”  - Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Following up on the President's executive order safeguarding students’ First Amendment rights on college campuses and universities, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has announced a final rule to protect students of faith on public and private campuses nationwide.

As the White House explains, the rule contains four provisions to protect religious liberty and free speech:

1. Allows the U.S. Department of Education to withhold federal funding from public colleges and universities if a state or federal court finds they violated the First Amendment.  Allows the U.S. Department of Education to withhold federal funding from private colleges and universities if a state or federal court finds they violated their own stated institutional policies on freedom of speech, including academic freedom.
2. Requires public colleges and universities to provide religious student groups the same rights, benefits, and privileges that other student groups enjoy.  
3. Provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for religious schools to demonstrate that they are exempt from Title IX to the extent Title IX conflicts with the tenets of their faith. 
4. Clarifies religious schools cannot be denied federal funding due to their religious character with respect to grant programs under the Higher Education Act, such as the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program (DHSIP), the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program (SHBCU), the Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions Program (SHBGI), and the Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP).  

For more information:

Fact Sheet

Press release

Why should the nonreligious care about religious freedom?

 

The Vatican's Faustian secret compact with China and the scandalous silence of Pope Francis regarding the plight of several Catholics who by contrast courageously stand against the tyrannical Chinese Communist Party raises a fair question: If religious organizations kowtow to tyrants at the peril of religious freedom, why should the nonreligious even care?

We should all care about religious freedom because at its heart is our freedom to believe and behave according to our deepest held beliefs. Every one of us depends upon that freedom to live our lives according to our conscientious principles.

America's First Amendment by no accident pairs religious freedom with freedoms of speech, the press, assembly and petitioning the government. That's because once a government intrudes on any one of these freedoms, none of the other freedoms remains safe. Witness China.

The Chinese Communist Party's jackbooted stomping on freedoms of speech, assembly, the press and religion should give us pause before sanctioning any weakening of these freedoms in our own country—even when such suppression might advance our own convictions regarding abortion, marriage, gender issues or any other matter of belief and conscience.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. reminds us, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Addressing race in healthcare through the faith and through the law

The Christian Medical Association has tackled race issues in healthcare proactively, gathering members together for prayer and fasting, webinars, public policy statements, articles, discussions, video presentations and more while pledging to "continue seeking to oppose racism in healthcare and society and pursuing justice in access to healthcare and equitable outcomes."

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is likewise tackling race issues in healthcare, by communicating and enforcing federal law. OCR recently issued the following (excerpted) bulletin of guidance "to ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance understand that they must comply with applicable federal civil rights laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in HHS-funded programs during COVID-19:

To help ensure Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] compliance during the COVID-19 public health emergency, recipients of federal financial assistance, including state and local agencies, hospitals, and other health care providers, should:

·         Adopt policies to prevent and address harassment or other unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

·         Ensure – when site selection is determined by a recipient of federal financial assistance from HHS – that Community-Based Testing Sites and Alternate Care Sites are accessible to racial and ethnic minority populations.

·         Confirm that existing policies and procedures with respect to COVID-19 related services (including testing) do not exclude or otherwise deny persons on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

·         Ensure that individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups are not subjected to excessive wait times, rejected for hospital admissions, or denied access to intensive care units compared to similarly situated non-minority individuals.

·         Provide – if part of the program or services offered by the recipient – ambulance service, non-emergency medical transportation, and home health services to all neighborhoods within the recipient's service area, without regard to race, color, or national origin.

My friend and colleague, HHS OCR Director Roger Severino, observed, "HHS is committed to helping populations hardest hit by COVID-19, including African-American, Native American, and Hispanic communities. This guidance reminds providers that unlawful racial discrimination in healthcare will not be tolerated, especially during a pandemic."

Vice Admiral Jerome M. Adams, Surgeon General, MD, MPH added, "Minorities have long experienced disparities related to the medical and social determinants of health – all of the things that contribute to your health and wellbeing. The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified those disparities, but it has also given us the opportunity to acknowledge their existence and impact and deepen our resolve to address them."

As CMDA has demonstrated and encouraged, followers of Christ can use this unique moment in our nation's history to advance principles of the faith regarding race. We can continue to promote the revolutionary biblical truth that every human being--of all races, both genders and at every point along the continuum of life from fertilization to natural death--carry the very image of God and as such merit our deepest respect, protection and love.

Resources

·         Read the new HHS OCR Bulletin: Title VI Bulletin - PDF

·         Learn more about non-discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability; conscience and religious freedom; and health information privacy laws, or file a complaint with HHS OCR: www.hhs.gov/ocr.

CMA doctors denounce judge's injunction against FDA safety precautions on abortion pill as a "pyrrhic victory" for abortion advocates

July 20, 2020—Bristol, TN: Today the 18,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) denounced an injunction issued by a federal district court judge that bars the FDA from enforcing health and safety precautions on a chemical abortion pill during the pandemic.

Dr. Jeffrey Barrows, an Ob-Gyn and CMA's Senior Vice President for Bioethics and Public Policy, said, "The judge handed pro-abortion forces a pyrrhic victory at the cost of women’s health and lives. The reason the FDA placed a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) on mifepristone is that since its approval, 24 women have died from various complications including infection and internal hemorrhage.

"Since mifepristone was approved in 2000, 97 women have been documented with a pregnancy outside the womb--a life-threatening situation. I know from personal experience that these abnormal pregnancies are difficult to diagnose and require in-person consultation and examination. Prescription through telemedicine will hamper the ability to diagnose these abnormal pregnancies."

A federal district court judge for the District of Maryland on July 13 issued a preliminary injunction blocking Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement for the “Elements to Assure Safe Use” in the Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for the chemical abortion pill mifepristone. The injunction allows mifepristone to be dispensed after telemedicine consult by clinics, medical offices, and hospitals via mail or delivery service and applies until thirty days after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency.  

This injunction comes after Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) led 38 Senators and 121 House Members in a bicameral letter urging FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn to enforce the REMS.

The letter noted, "Unfortunately, there are some who seek to exploit this time of crisis to push for the weakening or overturning of critical Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) associated with medication abortion drugs, which would put women at significant risk."

The Congressional letter also highlighted that "research proves that as many as five to seven percent of women who take abortion drugs will require follow-up surgery, and three percent could end up in the emergency room. Self-managed abortions from home are especially dangerous; in fact, half of abortion providers do not consider them safe."

The Members of Congress had urged Hahn "to continue to robustly enforce the REMS for medication abortion....”

Christian Medical Association applauds new Tennessee policy to protect vulnerable patients during pandemic

Bristol, TN—June 26, 2020: The Tennessee-based, 18,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) today applauded a Tennessee patient protection policy announced this afternoon by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and developed collaboratively between HHS, the state of Tennessee and disability rights groups.

CMA's Executive Vice President for Bioethics and Public Policy, Dr. Jeffrey Barrows, noted, "Patients with disabilities face even greater challenges than others during a pandemic, and we're thankful that both the federal government and the state of Tennessee are standing in the gap to protect the civil rights of all Americans. No person with a disability should have to fear that a government will assign their lives a lower value simply because they live with physical challenges."

The policy, announced today by HHS, reportedly incorporates crucial protections into the state's Crisis Standards of Care plan, stipulating that factors such as age or disability should not be used as criteria in determining the allocation of scarce resources. The policy also protects vulnerable patients who require additional resources from automatically being assigned a lower priority to receive lifesaving care.

Working with the HHS OCR, the state agreed to remove language permitting the use of a patient's long-term life expectancy as a factor in determining assignment of scarce resources. The policy also stipulates that long-term ventilator users will be protected from having their own ventilators taken from them and given to someone else.

Dr. Barrows, an Obstetrician-Gynecologist, observed, "Every human life is of immeasurable worth at every stage of life, regardless of physical challenges. We congratulate the HHS Office of Civil Rights for ensuring the civil rights of persons with disabilities. We also encourage the Department to ensure that civil rights are extended to vulnerable persons of all ages, including babies born prematurely."

HHS addresses "transgender mandate" in new rule … but Supreme Court redefines "sex discrimination"

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on June 12 that it had "finalized a rule under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that maintains vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights laws on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, and sex, and restores the rule of law by revising certain provisions that go beyond the plain meaning of the law as enacted by Congress."

CMA and Becket express optimism

The Christian Medical Association (CMA) expressed optimism that the new HHS rule, which was influenced by a CMA court case and buttressed by CMA polling, will help protect medical judgment and the exercise of conscience in healthcare.

"Health professionals know they must base medical decisions on biology and science, not ideology," said Dr. Jeff Barrows, CMA's Executive Vice President for Bioethics and Public Policy and an Ob-Gyn physician. "Biological gender carries very significant health implications that a physician must be able to recognize in making treatment decisions. The freedom for a health professional to base decisions on the medical science regarding biological gender also carries conscience concerns that should not be overruled by politics or ideology.

"We are hopeful that this rule will help steer consideration of gender issues in healthcare back toward science and away from politics and ideology, back to the protection of professional medical judgment and the freedom to adhere to long-observed ethical and moral standards."

Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket—the firm that represents CMA in its case against the 'transgender mandate--added, “No doctor should be forced to perform a procedure she believes would harm a patient. The new rule will help ensure that all patients receive top-notch care without forcing doctors to perform potentially harmful procedures in violation of their religious beliefs and medical judgment."

CMA lawsuit and polling influenced new HHS rule

The new HHS rule was influenced by a successful and ongoing CMA and Franciscan Alliance lawsuit aimed at stopping the previous administration's "transgender mandate" that had trampled medical judgment and nixed conscience objections over transgender procedures and prescriptions. The old rule had interpreted "sex discrimination" under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to include not just biological sex but also termination of pregnancy and gender identity, which the old rule defined as “one’s internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”

As Roger Severino, Director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, explained in announcing the new final rule, "HHS will continue to vigorously enforce federal civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, and sex in healthcare, as Section 1557 provides. HHS respects the dignity of every human being, and as we have shown in our response to the pandemic, we vigorously protect and enforce the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted by our laws as passed by Congress. We are unwavering in our commitment to enforcing civil rights in healthcare."

In its announcement, HHS highlighted the impact that CMA's successful lawsuit had on the rules, noting, "On December 31, 2016, a federal court preliminarily enjoined, on a nationwide basis the prior administration’s attempt to redefine sex discrimination in the 2016 Rule, concluding that the provisions were likely contrary to applicable civil rights law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act."

HHS also cited as rationale for its new rule CMA's national polling of faith-based health professionals that had been submitted to HHS during the public comment period on the proposed rule.

HHS observed that CMA "commenters, however, cited a survey showing that 97% of responding faith-based medical professionals attest that they 'care for all patients in need, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identification, or family makeup, with sensitivity and compassion, even when [they] cannot validate their choices.' Thus, some commenters argue, the issue is not one of refusing to care for certain patients based on identity, but instead a matter of declining to participate in a discrete set of morally controversial procedures and treatments that are available elsewhere."

CMA's polling also found that 91% said they would stop practicing medicine apart from conscience protection.

Supreme Court redefines "sex discrimination"

While the HHS final rule highlighted the common understanding of the term "sex" as referring to biological male or female, the Supreme Court just a week later issued a decision reinterpreting "sex discrimination" in employment to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

According to the majority opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, if any employer “fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender,” then the employer has fired that person “for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.” Thus, the employer has engaged in “sex discrimination” in violation of federal law.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito warned that the ruling “is virtually certain to have far-reaching consequences.” In particular, Justice Alito noted that “[h]ealthcare benefits may emerge as an intense battleground under the Court’s holding,” because the Affordable Care Act “broadly prohibits sex discrimination in the provision of healthcare.”

One example of that issue is CMA's "transgender mandate" lawsuit. Winning the religious freedom aspect of that case now takes on even greater importance.

As Justice Alito noted, “[S]ome employers and healthcare providers have strong religious objections to sex reassignment procedures, and therefore requiring them to pay for or to perform these procedures will have a severe impact on their ability to honor their deeply held religious beliefs.”

Call to courage and spiritual battle

Clearly some of the foundations of our faith, medical science and reality itself are under attack in the courts and in our legislatures. We know from Scripture that spiritual forces lie behind attacks on God's immutable truth and on the design of His creation.

Ultimately our enemy is not deceived legislators, activists or judges but the false ideas and spiritual forces of deception that have blinded eyes to the truth—truth that can set us free to live according to God's design.

Pray for our country, our courts, our lawmakers and CMDA, that we might all conform our lives to God's truth and follow His perfect path to human fulfillment and justice.

Related resources:

•  Freedom2Care - CMA's project focused on freedom of faith, conscience and speech
• CMA/Freedom2Care national polling – on conscience and compassionate care
• Final HHS Rule - PDF
• Factsheet on HHS rule - PDF

Christian Medical Association doctors express hope that HHS gender rule will uphold medical judgment and conscience

Washington, DC, June 12, 2020—The 18,000-member Christian Medical Association (www.cmda.org) today expressed optimism that a just-finalized rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that deals with gender issues will help protect medical judgment and the exercise of conscience in healthcare.

"Health professionals know they must base medical decisions on biology and science, not ideology," said Dr. Jeff Barrows, CMA's Executive Vice President for Bioethics and Public Policy and an Ob-Gyn physician. "Biological gender carries very significant health implications that a physician must be able to recognize in making treatment decisions. The freedom for a health professional to base decisions on the medical science regarding biological gender also carries conscience concerns that should not be overruled by politics or ideology.

"We are hopeful that this rule will help steer consideration of gender issues in healthcare back toward science and away from politics and ideology, back to the protection of professional medical judgment and the freedom to adhere to long-observed ethical and moral standards."

Responding to anti-Christian animus revealed in the pandemic

The pandemic has revealed much about human nature, sacrificial Christian love and hostility toward followers of Christ.

Activists lobby to banish Christians working to save COVID-19 patients

Samaritan's Purse volunteers risked their lives at their
own expense to save lives in New York City.

In New York City, pronouncements against the volunteer work of the Christian relief group Samaritan's Purse revealed venomous anti-Christian attitudes. Because Samaritan's Purse, led by Franklin Graham, the son of the late evangelist Billy Graham, adheres to a biblical view of marriage, some New Yorkers would have had the group kicked out of the city rather than allowed to help save lives.

According to NBC News, for example, an LGBT activist protestor summed up the sentiment  against the Christian organization by saying, "How was this group ever considered to bring their hatred and their vitriol into our city at a time of crisis when our people are fighting a pandemic?” According to the New York Times, "the Democratic speaker of New York’s City Council urged Samaritan’s Purse to leave the city."

Meanwhile, of course, Samaritan's Purse staff and volunteers risked their lives at their own expense to save the lives of as many New Yorkers as they could. Like virtually all Christian health professionals who participated in national polling by the Christian Medical Association and Freedom2Care, they had committed to "care for all patients regardless of agreement with patients' choices."

Anti-Christian hatred threatens Christian health professionals

A Christian physician who serves in New York City wrote of healthcare colleagues feeling "incensed since day one" and of "enraged emails and faculty meetings that demand 'kicking them out.'" The physician worried that anyone known to associate with Samaritan's Purse staff would be subjected to personal reprisals.

I wrote to this Christian physician:

Thank you for your incredible work and perseverance in the face of tremendous stress. May God bless, strengthen and inspire you and you have inspired us.

It sounds like you are essentially viewing raw human nature apart from God, something akin to what C.S. Lewis paints a picture of in The Great Divorce.

You also seem to be living and experiencing life in a way reminiscent of the early Christians, who shone as lights in pagan darkness and hostility that went beyond words to rocks and lions.

In our times of growing hostility toward the things of God, I suspect He is calling Christian health professionals to make clear decisions along the lines of Daniel, who first “made up his mind that he would not defile himself” (Daniel 1:8) by compromising values under pressure, and with Queen Esther, who finally conquered her fear with faith, determining that “if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16).

In other words, if a Christian health professional can stay true to God’s principles by determining beforehand to let it all go and leave career, reputation and future in His hands, then faith can begin to conquer fear and enable one to not only courageously face the hatred of others but to love them as well.

Now, I write this in the comfort of my home while you are facing demanding shifts in the midst of death, so I don’t claim to fully appreciate what you’re facing. But I do think these examples and principles in God’s Word are there for us for just “such a time as this.”

God bless you, protect you and equip you to love as He would. And may He transform the lives of your colleagues.

Government officials discriminate against churches

The pandemic also seems to have provided an invitation, in the minds of some government officials, to restrict believers from meeting while allowing more favored secular groups to meet. The U.S. Department of Justice recently had to weigh in against government officials in Virginia who were penalizing churches while protecting secular businesses and groups for the same activities.

From a U.S. Department of Justice news release:

The Department of Justice today filed a Statement of Interest in a Virginia federal court concerning the First Amendment’s freedom of religion in support of Lighthouse Fellowship Church (Lighthouse), a congregation in Chincoteague Island, Virginia, that serves, among others, recovering drug addicts and former prostitutes.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Virginia’s governor issued executive orders that ban in-person religious services of more than 10 people while permitting such gatherings of workers in any non-retail business and an array of retail businesses, including liquor stores, dry cleaners and department stores. Violations of the orders allow for criminal charges and carry penalties of up to a year in a jail and a $2,500 fine.

As alleged by Lighthouse, on April 5, 2020, the church held a sixteen-person worship service in its 225-seat sanctuary while maintaining rigorous social-distancing and personal-hygiene protocols. At the end of the service, the Chincoteague police department issued Lighthouse’s pastor a criminal citation and summons, based on the governor’s executive orders.

“For many people of faith, exercising religion is essential, especially during a crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division. “The Commonwealth of Virginia has offered no good reason for refusing to trust congregants who promise to use care in worship in the same way it trusts accountants, lawyers, and other workers to do the same. The U.S. Department of Justice will continue to monitor any infringement of the Constitution and other civil liberties, and we will take additional appropriate action if and when necessary.”

We can seize an opportunity in the midst of attacks

Someone has wisely observed that crises do not form character; they reveal character.

As our nation faces this pandemic crisis, we see not only the raw anti-Christian character of some people laid bare; we see also an opportunity to demonstrate supernatural Christ-like character in response. Easier said than done, I fully realize, but the words of our Lord Jesus Christ can inspire and equip us to overcome evil with good:

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also (John 15:18-20).

“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil me (Luke 6:35).

Keep FDA safety requirements and nix telemedicine abortions

Seeing the pandemic as an opportunity to pump up profits from abortions, the abortion industry and its advocates in state governments are lobbying to loosen abortion-related FDA safety requirements.

Twenty-one state attorneys general have written to U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, "to request that you increase access to reproductive healthcare, including safe and legal abortion, during this pandemic. Specifically, as the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) considers policy changes in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, we urge you to waive its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), or use FDA enforcement discretion, to allow certified prescribers to use telehealth for Mifepristone, the medication abortion prescription drug."

Thankfully, pro-life Members of Congress and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations also have written to Azar and Hahn, urging the officials to protect the health of women.

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) led 38 Senators and 121 House Members in a bicameral letter that noted,

"Despite claims that medication abortion is safe and easy, research proves that as many as five to seven percent of women who take abortion drugs will require follow-up surgery, and three percent could end up in the emergency room. Self-managed abortions from home are especially dangerous; in fact, half of abortion providers do not consider them safe, according to a 2019 survey published in the journal Contraception. Further, medication abortion becomes even more dangerous in situations where women cannot access emergency medical care. This is especially concerning during the COVID-19 pandemic as emergency rooms are currently being overwhelmed."

Senior VP for Bioethics and Public Policy Jeffrey Barrows, DO, MA, (Ethics) DO MA ACOOG, wrote in CMDA's letter,

"The FDA gave Mifepristone a REMS designation because it is a drug with significant complications if not prescribed correctly. One essential criterion for prescribing Mifepristone is to establish that the pregnancy is less than 71 days in duration. Telemedicine is incapable of correctly ascertaining the gestational length of a pregnancy. Menstrual history is an inaccurate indicator of gestational age, even among reliable patients. If Mifepristone is given inadvertently to a woman beyond 70 days gestation, the potential danger of hemorrhage and its resulting complications rise significantly, thus placing the patient at significant risk of harm."

Abortion is not healthcare, much less essential healthcare during a pandemic.

Besides protecting women's health, we also want to offer alternatives such as pregnancy resource centers and adoption. By loving both mother and baby, and by engaging in public policy with credibility and courage, we can begin to rebuild a culture of life in our nation.