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