Showing posts with label contraception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contraception. Show all posts

Friday, August 2, 2019

Engage before they come for you


Ob-Gyn Dr. Regina Frost
Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA) member and Ob-Gyn physician Dr. Regina Frost appears to be a modern-day Queen Esther, taking a courageous stand for the faith as did the biblical heroine. Dr. Frost is the face of Christian doctors in a high-stakes federal lawsuit to protect the new federal conscience protection rule from legal assault.

Biblical heroes serve as exemplars
In an age of increasing hostility toward believers in the healthcare arena on issues including abortion, assisted suicide, sex and gender, the faith community needs more Esthers and Daniels to stand up and speak out.
Esther, the courageous queen of Ahasuerus, averted a pogrom by risking her life to approach and entreat the king on behalf of her imperiled Jewish brethren. As she contemplated the risk and compared it to the impending consequences for her fellow believers if she did not speak up, Esther committed to taking a stand, concluding, “if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16).
Daniel, a young Jewish captive chosen to serve as a protégé of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, committed to not compromising his conscience. He wisely and respectfully obtained an accommodation from the king’s orders that would have violated his faith:
“But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank; so he sought permission from the commander of the officials that he might not defile himself” (Daniel 1:8, NASB).
Conscience advocates battle state and city governments
Dr. Frost and CMDA are taking a stand against the assault on faith and conscience by 19 state governments, the District of Columbia and the cities of New York and Chicago. Becket, the law firm that successfully represented Little Sisters of the Poor in a Supreme Court religious freedom case over a government contraceptives mandate, represents Dr. Frost and CMDA, who have intervened to protect the conscience rule in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As Becket explains on its website,
Dr. Regina Frost has practiced medicine for 15 years, specializing in obstetrics and gynecology. She helps lead a network of female healthcare professionals called Women Physicians in Christ, a ministry of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) that is committed to supporting women physicians and dentists by integrating their personal, spiritual, and professional lives.
CMDA is an organization of over 19,000 healthcare professionals, including Dr. Frost, who are committed to living out their faith in their practice of medicine. CMDA members serve everyone and seek to treat all of their patients like Christ would, providing all with compassionate care, healing, and hope. CMDA medical professionals take an oath to do no harm and would never deny routine or life-saving care to anyone.Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to live out their faith in all facets of their lives—including in their professions. This lawsuit threatens the ability of religious healthcare professionals to provide quality, compassionate healthcare, forcing them to choose between their conscience and their practice.
As Dr. Frost has realized, this is no time for believers to silently hide while passively hoping that somehow the controversy and the agitators will not reach us personally. Our right to follow our conscience and the teachings of our faith are under sustained attack, both from within the healthcare community and from without, in an aggressively secular culture untethered from morality.
If we don’t stand up, not only will other health professionals suffer harm and be driven out of healthcare, but also patients and communities will face needless and unfair limits on care.
No believer can stand above the fray
Regardless of how close the assault may be touching us personally at the moment, we need to stand up and speak out whenever we see an erosion of faith and conscience freedom.
In the 1930’s, Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller at first welcomed the Nazi’s Third Reich. Eventually he learned that the State would countenance no competition from the Church.
After emerging from seven years in Nazi concentration camps, Pastor Niemoller summed up in a poem the lesson he had learned so painfully:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
It’s only a matter of time before the battle reaches each one of us. We will do well, like Daniel, to “make up our minds” beforehand to stand firm.
Having yielded our lives--and livelihoods--to our Lord who suffered and died for us, we can resolve, as did Esther, “if I perish, I perish.” And then we need to speak out and make the most of our calling to engage “for such a time as this.”

Thursday, June 28, 2018

New federal rule protects conscience and opens the door to pro-life family planning programs


Action: Read and send my pre-written message.

Your supportive comments by July 31
can help make sure this proposed rule
is finalized and becomes reality.
If a new proposed federal rule is finalized after a public comment period ending July 31, pro-life medical professionals and programs finally will be able to take advantage of family planning grants opportunities.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed a new federal family planning rule to govern federal family planning (Title X) funds. Your supportive comments by July 31 can help make sure this proposed rule is finalized and becomes reality.
Meanwhile, the Christian Medical Association is joining with other national pro-life organizations to prepare training resources that can help you apply for a federal family planning grant (more on that training to come…).
By voicing your support now for this new rule, you also can help protect conscience freedom in healthcare. The new rule removes abortion participation requirements and enforces federal conscience law.
Planned Parenthood is a billion-dollar industry that every year
rakes in half a billion tax dollars and
performs nearly a third of a million abortions.

Breaking up the abortion industry's monopoly on federal family planning funds


Monday, June 18, 2018

Voice your view on conscience protections, patient and taxpayer benefits and parental protections

You can voice your support now for a  new federal family planning rule to enhance care, respect conscience and protect patients:
The new rule will benefit:
  • Patients seeking family planning services from health professionals and organizations with lifeaffirming values.
  • Taxpayers who do not want their tax dollars to fund the abortion industry.
  • Health professionals and organizations who could use federal funding to help provide services of family planning.
  • Parents who want to be advised of and participate in their children's healthcare, especially regarding family planning. 
Meanwhile, the new rule also will help stop abuses by the abortion industry and others who under the old rule may have:

Thursday, March 29, 2018

Essay 7: Conscience freedoms protect against ideological agendas

Editor's Note: This is the seventh essay in a series on conscience in healthcare, by Freedom2Care Director Jonathan Imbody. For the other essays, click "ConscienceEssay" on Topics at left.
With pro-life individuals increasingly targeted,
conscience laws can help protect both
patients and professionals from discrimination.
On January 26, 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed a conscience protection rule designed to enforce and educate regarding "a long history of providing conscience-based protections for individuals and entities with objections to certain activities based on religious belief and moral convictions. "[i]
The rule specifically cited over two dozen existing federal statutes protecting the exercise of conscience in healthcare, both for patients and professionals. Included in the laws are:
·      

Monday, March 26, 2018

Comment by March 27 on new HHS conscience rule that erects a wall against ideologically driven assaults

Action: Submit your comment by Tuesday, March 27 to protect conscience in healthcare

Today I submitted a document to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services outlining the reasons why a new proposed conscience protection rule serves the interests of health professionals and their patients:

TO: Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights RIN 0945-ZA03
FROM: Christian Medical Association and Freedom2Care - Jonathan Imbody
RE: RIN 0945-ZA03 or Docket HHS-OCR-2018-0002
DATE: March 26, 2018

Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority

The following narrative offers answers to specific requests for comments (marked below with numbers and quotations) outlined in the text of the proposed rule.

·       "Comment on all issues raised by the proposed regulation."

The Christian Medical Association and Freedom2Care, representing combined constituencies of nearly 50,000 individuals who are committed to the moral and ethical practice of medicine, heartily applaud this proposed rule. We laud the Department for producing an outstanding tool to enforce existing conscience protection law and to educate regarding our most cherished principles of freedom.
The proposed rule clearly and thoroughly lays down the legal and rational foundation for the Department's enforcement of and education about existing federal law that protects the exercise of conscience and religious convictions in healthcare, both for patients and for professionals. Given the priority of conscience and religious freedom in our nation's founding, in our Constitution and in our legal tradition, the case could not be clearer for restoring the rightful place of these freedoms among other civil rights laws and principles.
Only willful political corruption and ideologically driven assaults on these core founding principles can explain why in 2018 the universal integration of conscience and religious freedom in healthcare remains incomplete. Therefore the proposed rule offers a welcome, if long overdue, course correction to get the nation back on track on the principles on which this democratic republic depends.
While the proposed rule offers hope of a renaissance of a political, cultural and professional commitment to freedom of conscience and religious exercise, ideological forces within government, academia and the healthcare community continue to subvert these freedoms. As a survey of medical and academic publications will indicate, abortion advocacy and a strong undercurrent of intolerance for faith-based and pro-life commitments would sweep out of medicine any and all health professionals who hold to such ideals. A radical and authoritarian ideology that marches under the false flag of "patient autonomy" would force all professionals to participate in any legal procedure or prescription, regardless of professional judgment, medical ethics or moral convictions.
The result of such intolerance and coercion, left unchecked by federal law, court action and regulatory enforcement, would be a catastrophic loss of healthcare for millions of American patients. Hardest hit by the loss of pro-life and faith-based professionals and institutions would be the poor, the marginalized and the medically underserved.
By enforcing the freedom of pro-life and faith-based health professionals to continue to practice medicine, the proposed rule protects patient access to a diverse pool of health professionals and institutions. In the process, the rule also upholds and advances core American values of freedom.

To read the rest of the document, click here.

To learn how to quickly (30 seconds) submit your own comment on the proposed rule (deadline Tuesday, March 27) using a pre-written, editable form, click here.

To watch a quick video explanation, click here.


Monday, August 7, 2017

Rebuilding the wall of religious freedom

Wall of Jerusalem
In biblical times, secular kings provided outcast and downcast Israelites, living in a hostile pagan culture, an opportunity to return to their spiritual home and rebuild the wall around Jerusalem. Their enemies derided them and used the secular government to stop progress. But with faith, determination and courage, the Israelites rebuilt the wall (see the book of Nehemiah).
The Obama administration gave American believers a taste of what government disfavor can feel like when aimed at people of faith. A few examples:
The Obama administration relentlessly pursued
faith-based objectors to a contraceptives mandate,
forcing groups like Little Sisters of the Poor
into court to avoid ministry-killing federal fines
--Coercing health professionals and redefining sex discrimination: the 2016 HHS transgender mandate;
--Squelching First Amendment freedoms on campuses: barring campus faith expression;
--Forcing nuns to violate religious tenets: the Obamacare contraceptive mandate;--Threatening pro-life doctors and health care access: the 2009 gutting of the federal conscience regulation;--Denying federal human trafficking grants to pro-life programs for victims: HHS grant scandal;--Government intrusion on churches' hiring freedom: Supreme Court Hosanna Tabor case;--Firing and coercing life-honoring health care professionals and students: personal stories of discrimination.
As American culture continues to careen toward widespread hostility against the Church, we have a window of opportunity--perhaps a brief one--to rebuild the legal wall of religious freedom that our founders erected.
Failure to do so will make the Obama administration's assaults on the Church seem like gentle nudges in comparison to the wholesale oppression that future hostile administrations may undertake.
"So we built the wall and the whole wall was joined together to half its height, for the people had a mind to work."--Nehemiah 4:6

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Linking healthcare access to conscience freedoms, Christian Medical Association hails Presidential Executive Order

[The President's Executive Order text follows this press statement]
Washington, DC, May 4, 2017--Citing the link between patient access to healthcare and conscience freedom for health professionals, the 18,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) today expressed gratitude for President Trump's executive order that begins to provide stronger protections against discrimination against individuals and organizations of faith.
"Protecting religious freedom means protecting the millions of individuals served by organizations and professionals who are motivated and guided by the tenets of their faith," explained Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the 85-year-old nonpartisan organization of Christian doctors and students. "The faith that compels so many health professionals to minister to patients in underserved areas and populations is the same faith that compels us to practice according to moral and ethical guidelines. Conscience freedoms are the foundation of our service.
"When the government refuses to accommodate those faith principles, or--as we experienced in the previous administration's contraceptives and transgender mandates--attempts to coerce people of faith to violate those principles, those who suffer include the poor, the marginalized and the vulnerable."
Represented by Becket Law, the Christian Medical Association recently successfully challenged the Obama administration's transgender mandate. Represented by Americans United for Life, CMA filed an amicus brief in the contraceptives mandate Supreme Court case, Zubik v. Burwell.
CMA also worked to help establish the nation's first health professionals' conscience protection rule, promulgated in 2008 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Obama administration subsequently gutted the conscience rule and also attempted to force faith-based organizations to participate in morally objectionable contraceptives such as Plan B and the morning-after pill.

"We are grateful for this executive order that begins to turn the tide back toward freedom of faith and speech, including political speech. Americans do not give up their First Amendment protections when they speak from the pulpit, counsel their patients or minister in a faith-based outreach to help the poor," Dr. Stevens observed. "Threatening the First Amendment freedoms of any one group threatens the First Amendment freedoms of all of us, and protecting those freedoms protects us all." 
-----
EXECUTIVE ORDER
PROMOTING FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
      By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious liberty of persons and organizations in America, and to further compliance with the Constitution and with applicable statutes and Presidential Directives, it is hereby ordered as follows:

     Section 1Policy.  It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law's robust protections for religious freedom.  The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government.  For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans' first freedom.  Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government.  The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.

     Sec. 2Respecting Religious and Political Speech.  All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech.  In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury.  As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.

     Sec. 3.  Conscience Protections with Respect to Preventive-Care Mandate.  The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate promulgated under section 300gg-13(a)(4) of title 42, United States Code.

     Sec. 4Religious Liberty Guidance.  In order to guide all agencies in complying with relevant Federal law, the Attorney General shall, as appropriate, issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law.

     Sec. 5.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any individual or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other individuals or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.  

     Sec. 6General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

     (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

     (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,

May 4, 2017.

Monday, June 20, 2016

USAID to Dads: Help advance women's agenda, and btw, get circumcised

Apparently USAID bureaucrats feel so antagonistic or ambivalent toward men that the only way they can stomach Father's Day is to allow that at least some men help advance their women's agenda. And then they encourage readers to learn more about male circumcision. Now there's a Father's Day present for which every Dad hopes.
Here's what a recent USAID email had to say--and not say--about Father's Day:
"This Father's Day, we salute men and recognize their essential role in families--in finance, health, education, and much more.
"At the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), we believe that gender equality and women’s empowerment are at the core of development. Today, as we celebrate fathers everywhere, we want to underscore that men’s informed and active participation in development is crucial to creating a more equitable world for all. \
"In this spirit, we wish to send special thanks to the many men around the world who continue to support women and girls’ right to equal footing with men and boys, even at the risk of going against dominant socio-cultural norms. Your dedicated service is vital to better health and improved lives for everyone. Only together can we unlock full human potential on a transformational scale.
Learn more:
• "Find out about USAID’s commitment to meeting the reproductive health and family planning needs of couples and individuals around the world.
• "Learn about the REAL Fathers initiative and how we’re working with husbands and fathers to reduce domestic violence.
• "Learn more about how men protect themselves and their partners from HIV through USAID-supported voluntary medical male circumcision programs.
• "View the USAID Father's Day photo gallery."

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Where is the evidence for Obama's "evidence-based" sex ed approach?

Valerie Huber
I recently met at the US Capitol with Members of Congress and my friend and colleague Valerie Huber, President of the sexual risk avoidance education group ASCEND.
Ascend (formerly the National Abstinence Education Association) champions youth to make healthy decisions in relationships and life by promoting well being through a primary prevention strategy, and as a national membership and advocacy organization that serves, leads, represents and equips the Sexual Risk Avoidance field.
At our meeting at the Capitol, Valerie explained how the Obama administration disfavors the sexual risk avoidance education that parents favor, opting instead for the so-called "comprehensive" sex ed approach. "Comprehensive" sex ed programs expect teens to engage in sex and focus on the mechanics of sex and prophylactic measures.

Teens' tendencies thwart condom strategy

The comprehensive sex ed approach depends heavily on condom instruction. Yet as the FDA notes, the effective use of condoms depends on consistency, carefulness and rationality. Teenagers, by contrast, are often inconsistent, reckless and irrational. Studies of the brain offer evidence that the ability to rationally anticipate consequences and adapt behavior accordingly often does not fully develop until after the teen years.

Exposing the flaws in the "evidence"

ASCEND has released a statement entitled, "The HHS List of "Evidence-Based" Sex Ed Programs Presents Dubious Claims of Effectiveness." It explains how the administration continues to promote "comprehensive" sex ed despite a dearth of reliable scientific evidence:
------------------------------
Since 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services has provided revisions and additions to a list of Teen Pregnancy Programs they claim are “evidence-based.” The touted list is treated as a seminal guide for those who implement programs across the country to reduce teen pregnancy.
Spring 2016 saw yet another expansion of the so-called “approved” list increasing the total number of programs to 44. To earn a place on the list, a rigorous criteria for research design and implementation is set forth.
However, for many programs, a closer look shows serious breaches of many established research protocols.
And yet, these programs are presented as “national models,” meaning that when implemented the same positive results can be expected. So what has a closer look revealed?

"Model" programs are actually making matters worse 

For a program to be deemed a “national model,” at least one replication, with the same results, must be achieved. But only 16% of the programs on the list have even been replicated.
Of those that have, dubious and even dangerous results were reached.
Of the seven programs that have been replicated, six showed either “no change” or worse. Three programs demonstrated students faring worse than students who did not receive the program at all by being more likely to have sex, have more sexual partners, or less likely to use contraception.
And, disturbingly, these are offered as  “models” of programs designed to reduce teen pregnancy. 
Another concern includes the implication that positive findings from a program conducted in a clinical setting, for instance, can also be expected for those in a classroom setting.  However, such a generalization of findings from one setting to an entirely different setting is a violation of the most elementary research protocols.

Whatever happened to truth? 

The fact of the matter is the much celebrated “evidence-based” list of programs are not national models and should not be promoted as such.
They simply do not meet the expected standard of replication to be so deemed. Communities and schools across the country need to know the truth. 
Those who care about teen pregnancy and the growing epidemic of STDs among youth deserve research that produces honest information. We have some. But it is important that we do not say what we cannot say.
It is time for honest research to inform our efforts in working with teens on this most important issue. It is time to stop promoting approaches to sex education that have more to do with political and ideological agendas than with the health and well-being of youth.
------------------------------

Congress steps in

Thankfully, the current Congress is cognizant of the benefits of sexual risk avoidance education and has allocated funding for it. Accordingly, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) last week released a Funding Announcement for a new Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) Education Program. As ASCEND explains:
The new SRA program is the result of Ascend’s work with Congress to bring more sex education choice to communities. The FY 2016 federal budget contains $10 million for a sex education approach that is focused solely on giving youth the skills to avoid all of the risks associated with teen sex.
The goal of the new programs is to “implement sexual risk avoidance education that teaches participants how to voluntarily refrain from non-marital sexual activity ... and teach the benefits associated with self-regulation, success sequencing for poverty prevention, healthy relationships, goal setting, and resisting sexual coercion, dating violence, and other youth risk behaviors such as underage drinking or illicit drug use without normalizing teen sexual activity.”
The award process for the  FY2016 SRA Education program allows for annual awards over a 3-year project period as funds are available. 
As pending legislation, the Healthy Relationships Act, notes, 
The unambiguous message that postponing sexual activity is the optimal sexual health behavior for youth must be the primary emphasis and context for each topic covered by the education. The education must be age appropriate, medically accurate, and evidence based.
If Congress continues to fund sex education, the requirements of this legislation seem quite reasonable, especially given the serious health and emotional consequences of teen sexual activity.

Monday, May 16, 2016

SCOTUS uncharacteristically equivocal on bullying by Government (with a capital G, as in God)

With uncharacteristic restraint, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) today decided that, well, it just can't decide on a landmark religious freedom case.
You've heard all about this case (Zubik v. Burwell), which consolidated cases against the Obama administration by the following plaintiffs:

  • Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged (pictured)
  • Priests for Life
  • Southern Nazarene University
  • Geneva College
  • Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington
  • East Texas Baptist University

  •  The cases arose because President Obama insisted on using Obamacare as a vehicle to make even elderly nuns participate in his divisive mandate that every woman in America have free contraceptives. The mandate includes drugs like Ella that the FDA says may "affect implantation," i.e., terminate the life of a human embryo.
    The nuns, Christian colleges and other faith-based ministries said they could not morally participate in the program. The administration refused to exempt them or reasonably accommodate their conscience concern, insisting that objectors sign what amounted to a permission slip directing their insurers to provide the objectionable contraceptives and potential abortifacients.
    After oral arguments in the case, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the opposing parties to see if a mutually satisfactory compromise might be possible. The administration, which for years had held the hammer over the head of the ministries with no indication of willingness to compromise, apparently recognized the weakness of its legal position and conceded that maybe it could find a different way to reach its goal of universal contraceptive coverage.
    In its ruling handed down Monday, the Court directed the lower courts to give the parties "an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans 'receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.'”
    Suddenly shy and deferential, the Court expressed "no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest." A ruling protecting religious freedom would have been extremely helpful, and the fact that the administration suddenly conceded that in fact it could change its tactics indicates that it had not pursued the least restrictive means of accomplishing its goal.
    SCOTUS never displayed such indecisive deference when mandating for the entire nation same-sex marriage or abortion on demand. This indecision comes despite the fact that the First Amendment clearly protects citizens of faith from government restriction ("no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."). Congress, through the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act, also clearly prevents the government from abridging religious rights without a compelling interest and using the least restrictive means to achieve its aims.
    So now it's up to the lower courts (where a bunch of these cases were decided with differing conclusions) to guide the Obama administration and religious objectors to a compromise in which everyone's happy. Nuns don't have to participate in what they are convinced are morally reprehensible actions and President Obama gets to find a way to get free contraceptives to every woman in America, coast-to-coast coverage from the Hamptons to Beverly Hills.
    Such a solution may let the nuns and other objectors avoid the millions in dollars of annual fines threatened by the Obama administration, and that's worth celebrating. But it's highly unlikely to satisfy ideologues whose goal appears to be making everyone dependent upon and subservient to the Government. To them, Government (spelled with a capital G, as in God) is not a protector of individual freedom and conscience but a hammer to pound every citizen into submission to state dogma.
    Thankfully, a group of nuns and other courageous "Daniels" of our day, as in biblical times, refused to bow down and submit to the king's decree and escaped the lions' paw and maw. God give us more like them...and make us likewise courageous.

    Friday, April 1, 2016

    Obamacare "conscience" accommodation: Like making conscientious military objectors designate proxies for combat

    The US Agency for International Development boasts that the United States is “the world’s largest family planning bilateral donor for 50 years, ” “supports voluntary family planning” and “takes a rights-based approach to family planning.” Here at home with its own citizens, however, the administration has taken the opposite tack.
    Rather than directly providing contraceptives for voluntary use as it does overseas, the Obama administration instead has mandated coverage through employer-paid insurance plans. Not even nuns who care for the elderly—like the Little Sisters of the Poor, who this week had to ask the Supreme Court for protection—can claim a conscientious objection.
    The administration’s “accommodation” of conscientious objectors is to force the nuns to sign a form that tells the government to make their insurance company provide contraceptives. That’s like making a conscientious objector to military conscription designate a proxy for combat.
    The nuns and other religious objectors simply seek the freedom to follow their beliefs without fear of government punishment—in this case, draconian fines that would wipe out the ministry. At stake is not only the First Amendment freedom of religious exercise, but the rights of all citizens to speak and act in accordance with their beliefs—even when those beliefs challenge the government’s ideology and power.


    [Note: The Christian Medical Association has filed an amicus brief in this case, Zubik v. Burwell. A dvidided Supreme Court recently asked both parties to consider and report back new solutions.]

    Monday, February 29, 2016

    Wink-wink, nod-nod:The Obama administration's approach to enforcing laws they don't like

    From Capitol Hill...

    Chairman Joe Pitts (R-PA) recently questioned Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell regarding her agency’s failure to resolve the ongoing violation of federal conscience laws by California’s Department of Managed Care. Responding to Rep. Pitts’ question, Burwell acknowledged that the administration has not moved fast enough on this issue.  

    Background

    In August of 2014, the California Department of Managed Care (DMHC) issued a directive requiring all plans under the DMHC authority to immediately include coverage for all legal abortions even if the abortion-excluding plan had been previously approved by DMHC.
    As a result abortion was immediately inserted into the plans of pro-life churches and schools without their consent.
    This action was taken despite the Weldon amendment (to the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill) which clearly states that no funds may be made available to a state if the state subjects a health care entity (including insurance plans) to discrimination because it does not provide coverage of abortion.
    The only recourse for victims of a violation of the Weldon amendment is to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.  Complaints were filed in the fall of 2014 by the California Catholic Conference and a group of evangelical churches.  An investigation was opened in December of 2014 after pro-life Members of Congress urged the Secretary to do so.
    When Burwell appeared before Chairman Pitts in early 2015 she assured him the investigation would be expeditious.
    As Chairman Pitts pointed out yesterday, it has been a year since she made that statement and still no corrective action has been taken. 
    This article titled “Republicans accuse Obama of failing to enforce the law” provides additional information about the mandate and inaction by the administration. 

    Obama health chief admits abortion law inquiry too slow

    By Peter Sullivan - 02/24/16 01:12 PM EST
    Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell acknowledged Wednesday that the administration has not moved fast enough in investigating an alleged violation of abortion law.
    Burwell was questioned at a congressional hearing Wednesday about a California state agency’s decision in 2014 to require all health insurance plans in the state to cover abortions, which Republicans say is a clear violation of the federal Weldon Amendment, protecting insurance plans from discrimination if they decline to cover abortions.
    The HHS Office of Civil Rights, which has the responsibility of enforcing the Weldon Amendment, said in December 2014 it had opened an investigation into California’s actions. But the investigation is still not complete.
    “I would like for it to have moved more quickly than it has moved, but the investigation is open, and until it is closed, I am not at a place to discuss in terms of what the investigation has yielded or will yield,” Burwell said.
    Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) asked her for a time frame on when the investigation will be complete.
    “I am not satisfied with our speed. We’ll continue to work on that issue, but I don’t feel I can give you a specific time frame because it is an investigation and I need it to run its ability and its course,” Burwell replied.
    A collection of churches and other religious groups have argued that the rule has effectively forced them to violate their religious beliefs by offering insurance plans that cover abortions.
    Congressional Republicans have been frustrated by the lack of results.
    Pitts pointed to comments Burwell made last February when she was asked about the same issue at a hearing. She said then her department would move “expeditiously.”
    Asked Wednesday if the process had in fact been expeditious, Burwell acknowledged that it could have moved faster.
    Still, she said, “I take seriously the issues that you’ve raised.”
    Actually, taking the issues seriously means enforcing the law. But this administration only enforces its ideology.

    Monday, August 10, 2015

    Embryology facts: Science v. Fiction on When Life Begins



    Faced with stomach-turning, videotaped evidence exposing the abortion industry's flagship Planned Parenthood harvesting for sale the body parts of developing babies, heart-hardened abortion apologists and even some embryonic stem cell research advocates have attempted to obscure the fact that these developing babies are, in fact, human.
    In scientific terms, every human being begins as an embryo, who develops into a fetus, who develops into a baby.
    While these terms are sometimes used (for financial and ideological purposes) to obscure the humanity of the developing baby, the scientific observation of of a human being from fertilization through birth reveals a seamless human development. At no stage can this human being ever veer off and develop into some other type of being. The complete DNA of every human being is present and complete at fertilization--the physical beginning of human life, when sperm and egg unite.
    While such facts seem clear and even obvious to anyone with a conscience, those who have seared their consciences apparently remain stubbornly oblivious to this truth. They would deceive us in order to continue their killing and exploitation of developing babies.
    The recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case upheld the right of a faith-based business to decline to obey the Obama administration's mandate that employers must subsidize the provision of embryo-killing drugs such as Ella and Plan B. Americans United for Life attorneys filed an amicus brief in that case on behalf of the Christian Medical Association and other pro-life organizations. The brief outlined the following scientific facts on human development--facts that inform the current debate over harvesting baby body parts and over legislation to ban late-term abortions.
    From the amicus brief:


    It is Undisputed that a New Human Organism is Created at Fertilization.
    It is undisputed that a new, distinct human organism comes into existence during the process of fertilization.[i] Scientific literature states the following:
    ·         “The fusion of sperm and egg membranes initiates the life of a sexually reproducing organism.”[ii]
    ·         “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”[iii]
    ·         “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”[iv]
    ·         "The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place."[v]
    ·         "Fertilization—the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism—is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes."[vi]
    The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the “process of union” of two gametes i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”[vii] Thus, in the context of human life, a new individual human organism is initiated at the union of ovum and sperm.
    One textbook similarly explains the following:
    Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell—a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[viii]
    Thus, a new human organism is created before the developing embryo implants in the uterus—i.e., before that time at which some people consider a woman “pregnant.”
    Defendants and their amici have at times tried to blur this distinct line with semantics about when “pregnancy” begins. Relying on a definition of pregnancy that begins at “implantation,” Defendants argue that “emergency contraceptives” are not “abortifacients.” However, this is a nonresponse to the concern that a drug or device can work after fertilization by blocking the implantation of a developing human embryo. Such drugs might not end a “pregnancy” under Defendants’ definition, but it does end the life of a unique human being. What Plaintiffs—and Amici—conscientiously oppose is not simply the ending of a “pregnancy,” but the ending of human life itself.
    -----
    The information above is excerpted from an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States:
    Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Petitioners, v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., Respondents, and  Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, et al.,  Petitioners, v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.,  Respondents.
    On Writ of Certiorari  to the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third and Tenth Circuits
    Amicus Curiae Brief of Drury Development Corporation, Drury Southwest, Inc., and Drury Hotels Company, LLC, with the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Christian Medical Association, Catholic Medical Association, The National Catholic Bioethics Center, Physicians for Life, National Association of Pro Life Nurses, and National Association of Catholic Nurses in Support of [Plaintiffs]

    Attorneys:

    Denise M. Burke

    Mailee R. Smith

     Counsel of Record
    Anna R. Franzonello

    Mary E. Harned



    [i] See, e.g., Condic, When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective (The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person Oct. 2008), http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf; George & Tollefsen, Embryo 39 (2008).
    [ii] Marsden et al., Model systems for membrane fusion, Chem. Soc. Rev. 40(3):1572 (Mar. 2011) (emphasis added).
    [iii] Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, Nature 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010) (emphasis added).
    [iv] Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, Cell Tissue Res. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012) (emphasis added).
    [v] Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, Reproduction 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).
    [vi] Marcello et al., Fertilization, Adv. Exp. Biol. 757:321 (2013) (emphasis added).
    [vii] National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/fertilization (emphasis added).
    [viii] Moore & Persaud, The Developing Human 16 (7th ed. 2003) (emphasis added).


    Featured Post

    The Equality Act would trample on doctors' religious freedom

    Published in The Washington Examiner by Jonathan Imbody  | March 29, 2021 Imagine you are a family physician who entered medical school mot...