Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts

Friday, June 17, 2022

Oblivious Biden


Published in The Washington Times, June 18, 2022

By Jonathan Imbody

As polls indicate that roughly only one in three Americans approve of his performance, President Biden has responded incongruously with self-congratulatory rhetoric. The inverse relationship between the president's popularity and pronouncements is striking:

As inflation races past income and families choose between eating or driving, Biden responds blithely, "Look, here’s where we are. We have the fastest growing economy in the world. The world. The world."

Monday, June 13, 2022

Biden, the IRS and true healthcare reform


Op-ed published June 11, 2022 in The Western Journal as "Op-Ed: Pay Attention to What Biden and the IRS Are Conspiring On, Because It's Big"

By Jonathan Imbody

With a split Senate and free-falling poll numbers, President Biden is mucking about the bureaucratic swamp to salvage his leftist agenda.

Biden's latest end run around Congress turns a scandalously compliant IRS into a political tool. An Executive Order and presumed behind-the-scenes White House lobbying have convinced the supposedly apolitical tax agency to issue a statute-defying regulation that creates a new government healthcare subsidies affordability test. The White House unwittingly boasts that the plan could reduce the number of uninsured by 200,000, but CBO and health experts estimate that tiny change would cost taxpayers $225,000 per person.

The administration's goal in expanding federal health insurance subsidies is simple and clear--to get more citizens on the government dole and beholden to the party of wealth redistribution.

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

Biden's Catechetical Dementia


Edited and published in The Federalist, April 27, 2022. Original version is below:

How the administration's abortion ideology-driven assault on faith and conscience threatens care for millions of needy individuals

By Jonathan Imbody[i]

The year is 2024, and the Biden administration's assault on conscience freedoms has taken a tragic toll on the healthcare landscape.

Since the 2022 elimination of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conscience protections for health professionals, government-sanctioned discrimination has driven out of medicine persons of faith and pro-life convictions, accelerating and exacerbating the long-predicted physician shortage crisis. The shortage leaves millions of patients, especially the poor and marginalized, without the faith-based care on which they had depended.

From medical students to doctors to hospitals and clinics, no one who hews to Hippocratic or Judeo-Christian ethics can survive the administration's ideological purge of healthcare.

Wednesday, March 30, 2022

Fauci and subjective scientists

 





By Jonathan Imbody - - Tuesday, March 22, 2022

OPINION:

By now, many Americans have had it with medical experts, and for good reason.

Too many once-trusted doctors have lied, propagandized and trampled constitutional principles in their pronouncements and mandates.

We now know that the coercive COVID-19 shutdowns and mandates urged by medical experts have had the unintended but predictable consequences of retarding our children’s learning, increasing mental health crises, hamstringing the economy, hampering our military preparedness, dividing the citizenry and much more.

Thursday, February 17, 2022

What are core conservative values?


True Republican values - published in The Washington Times

In "What Republicans should stand for: A midterm legislative agenda for all Americans," (Commentary, Tuesday) Robert Tracci aptly details legislative priorities to advance Republican core values. But how many Americans even know what are core Republican values?
Simple, practical, inspirational core values--articulated by tough and winsome candidates--are the key to conservative victories at the ballot box.
An offering of three simple core conservative values to take to the voters:
1. God grants human rights--not the government. The right to life is the most fundamental, followed by the right to practice our faith, speak our mind and pursue good goals in life.
2. You make better decisions for yourself than the government does. The more power the government has, the less power you have to control your own destiny. You should be making your own decisions in healthcare, education and business with the least possible interference from government.
3. Military might is the best path to peace internationally, and the rule of law and a civil society the best path to peace domestically. The purpose of military is to protect us and others by either posing the threat of destruction or by exercising destruction. The purpose of police is to enforce the laws of the people, through the humane and just but unflinching use of force when necessary. But ultimately, domestic peace hinges on a civil society, a people of moral character and values preserved in community.
JONATHAN IMBODY
GLEN ALLEN, VA

Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Propaganda from political appointees in government health agencies


In a Washington Times opinion piece ("Ministry of Public Enlightenment and COVID-19 fact-checking" Tuesday), Kelly Sadler quotes a virologist explaining how pandemic propaganda today mirrors Nazi propaganda: "The … leaders come in and say, ‘You have this pain, and I and I alone can solve it for you’…. The data is irrelevant."

Political propagandists--who now unfortunately seem to include political appointees in government health agencies--should not be able to survive in a society with a free press. Yet they do so because many journalists today are no more than activists with press passes, ideologues who pass along propaganda from their own party and stifle opposition from opposing parties.

Wednesday, July 14, 2021

Biden's catechetical dementia on Hyde


President Biden's recently released budget request to Congress reveals the self-professed Catholic's catechetical dementia regarding the sanctity of human life.

Besides squandering our children's inheritance with a reality-detached spending spree, Biden's budget also kills several longstanding life-protecting provisions he previously supported, such as the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of our taxpayer dollars for most elective abortions.

Passed every year since 1976 on a bipartisan basis and backed by a solid majority of Americans, Hyde provides that "None of the funds appropriated in this Act … shall be expended for any abortion." The amendment, long a demilitarized zone in the abortion war, provides for exceptions in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.

Joe Biden's evolution from protecting to killing Hyde illustrates how a lifetime of moral compromise eventually darkens the mind and sears the soul.

Friday, May 7, 2021

Vaccine resistance and public health messaging

By Jonathan Imbody




The Washington Post recently published my commentary below in response to an article ("'I’m still a zero’: Vaccine-resistant Republicans warn that their skepticism is worsening") that examined the vaccine hesitancy of conservatives. I aimed simply to explain a divergent point of view that many Americans hold about COVID vaccines—one that rejects the messages of U.S. public health agency officials:

"Conservatives who value limited government, federalism and checks on individual power will disdain what they view as vaccination propaganda from partisan politicians who have used the pandemic as a blatant power grab. Trump supporters won’t abide vaccination rhetoric of public health officials such as Anthony S. Fauci, who publicly dissed President Donald Trump.

"Conservatives also respect conscience convictions. While I have received the Moderna vaccine and have written of ethical and practical reasons for taking the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, I understand the apprehensions of conservative colleagues who voice concerns about the use of a fetal cell line in testing, the new mRNA technology and the lack of longitudinal studies.

"Conservative vaccine resisters view the 'impending doom' pandemic rhetoric of this administration as alarmist, manipulative, condescending and coercive. Some, however, may still respond to respectful, common-sense messages from trusted faith leaders and local health experts who can reasonably and transparently lay out the risks of coronavirus vaccination vs. infection."

Friday, April 30, 2021

Why some conservatives are vaccine ‘hesitant’


Published in The Washington Post, April 26, 2021

Regarding the April 21 Politics & the Nation article “ ‘I’m still a zero’: A warning from vaccine skeptics.”:

Conservatives who value limited government, federalism and checks on individual power will disdain what they view as vaccination propaganda from partisan politicians who have used the pandemic as a blatant power grab. Trump supporters won’t abide vaccination rhetoric of public health officials such as Anthony S. Fauci, who publicly dissed President Donald Trump.

Conservatives also respect conscience convictions. While I have received the Moderna vaccine and have written of ethical and practical reasons for taking the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, I understand the apprehensions of conservative colleagues who voice concerns about the use of a fetal cell line in testing, the new mRNA technology and the lack of longitudinal studies.

Conservative vaccine resisters view the “impending doom” pandemic rhetoric of this administration as alarmist, manipulative, condescending and coercive. Some, however, may still respond to respectful, common-sense messages from trusted faith leaders and local health experts who can reasonably and transparently lay out the risks of coronavirus vaccination vs. infection.

Jonathan Imbody

The writer is a federal policy analyst for the Christian Medical Association.

Tuesday, March 2, 2021

The "Equality Act" will erase religious freedom and medical judgment

 


The U.S. Congress has taken one step closer to ending religious protections—and medical judgment for health professionals—on gender issues, by passing the Equality Act by a largely partisan vote in the House of 224 – 206.

This radical legislation, a top priority of the Biden administration and the Democrat party that controls Congress, would literally remove religious freedom protections on gender issues and replace medical judgment with governmental coercion regarding treatment of children and adult patients experiencing gender dysphoria.

The Christian Medical Association (CMA), which has been fighting in court to strike down a similarly coercive Obama-era transgender mandate, outlined reasons for opposing the Equality Act in a letter to Members of Congress.

Friday, October 23, 2020

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."

Monday, September 28, 2020


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:

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 

Friday, June 26, 2020

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."

Monday, June 22, 2020

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:



Monday, March 23, 2020

Coronavirus Response Reveals Character of Governments


American novelist James Lane Allen wrote, "Adversity does not build character; it reveals it." The response by the governments of countries around the world to the Covid-19 Coronavirus is revealing the fundamental character of those governments.
As the U.S., state and local governments and healthcare professionals labor tirelessly in compassionate and effective efforts to protect American citizens from the spreading Covid-19 Coronavirus, governments in certain countries instead are reportedly exposing persecuted religious groups to the threat.
So charges the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in a just-released report, "The Global Response to the Coronavirus: Impact on Religious Practice and Religious Freedom."

China demonstrates contempt for religious minorities

China withheld a potentially lifesaving Coronavirus alert.
Chinese Communist officials clearly view religion as a threat to the power of the state. Besides rampant and systematic persecution of individual pastors and believers, the Chinese government literally has dynamited Christian churches. The persecution extends to adherents to virtually any religion besides the state's de facto religion, Communism.
The USCIRF report now notes, "Human rights advocates are concerned that COVID-19 — and the [Chinese] government’s response—risk exacerbating ongoing religious freedom violations. As noted in USCIRF’s 2019 Annual Report, the Chinese government has detained more than 1 million Uighur and other Muslims in concentration camps in Xinjiang since April 2017. The combination of limited access to medical resources and large concentrations of elderly detainees could lead to a humanitarian disaster if the virus reaches any of those camps.
"In addition, there are reports that authorities have forced Uighurs to work in factories throughout the country to compensate for decreased output during the quarantine. In January, authorities quarantined millions of people across Xinjiang without advance warning. There are reports that some Uighur residents in the city of Ghulja have limited access to food and local officials have demanded payments in order to bring supplies."

Iran charged with ignoring risks to religious prisoners

Government officials in Iran, another religion-repressive regime, now are charged with intentionally putting religious minorities at risk.
USCIRF reports, "Iran has long imprisoned hundreds of people who are members of religious minority groups. Activists have expressed concern that prison authorities are not taking sufficient precautions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, which has already appeared in Evin, Urmia, and Ghazalhesar prisons.
"On March 3, Iran announced it would release 54,000 prisoners on furlough, and it later released a total of 70,000. However, 16 Sufi prisoners at Great Tehran Penitentiary (GTP) reportedly were moved to a ward with known cases of COVID-19, and 8 Sufis from Evin prison were moved to the same ward within GTP. Additionally, eight Sufis in Ghazalhasar Prison were moved to an overcrowded ward at that prison where they are at an increased risk of contracting the virus."

Why American Christians care

Why do Christians in the United States care about the persecution of non-Christians in countries well beyond our borders?
1.      Because religious freedom is a God-given right, we must protect this freedom for all persons.
My friend and colleague Luke Goodrich, an attorney with Becket who has represented the Christian Medical Association in court, explains this right in his book, Free to Believe:
"This understanding is also consistent with how God created us and interacts with us. God never forces anyone to love Him, because forced love is not love at all. And if God doesn’t force anyone to love Him, how much less should the government try to do so?"[i]
"So when the government needlessly interferes in our relationship with God, it is committing an injustice in two respects. First, it’s exceeding its God-given realm of authority and attempting to exercise authority that belongs to God alone. Second, it’s taking away something every human being deserves—an opportunity to respond freely (even if erroneously) to God."[ii]
2.      Because the United States also can lose religious freedom.
The record of other countries and history provide us with a roadmap of how religious freedom can be advanced or restricted.
Consider two revolutions, for example: The French Revolution and the American Revolution. In France, radical secularists guillotined clergy during a merciless purge of religion. China and Iran demonstrate a similar anti-religious, totalitarian character today.
By contrast, after the revolution in America--a country settled by persecuted religious groups--our founders enshrined religious freedom in our Constitution. Though imperfectly implemented through the years, this protection has produced a freedom and prosperity previously unknown in history.
Yet today we face increasing onslaughts in the United States against our historic religious freedom—typically under the guise of eradicating discrimination. For example, the U.S. House Oversight Committee recently held a hearing entitled, "The Administration’s Religious Liberty Assault on LGBT Rights."
But the strong arm of the U.S. government is hardly aimed at oppressing the LGBT community, which arguably has become one of the most culturally celebrated groups in the country. No, government assaults and coercion have been overwhelmingly against persons of faith, who simply decline to comply with demands that compromise their most deeply held convictions. A few examples:
·         Under the vast governmental powers granted by Obamacare, the previous administration attempted to force the Little Sisters of the Poor Catholic nuns to participate in its contraceptives mandate.
·         The U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission during that administration attempted to dictate the hiring practices of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School.
·         In Colorado, the government prosecuted cake artist Jack Phillips for sexual orientation discrimination simply because he had declined to create a same-sex wedding cake, despite serving LGBT customers otherwise.
·         The Obama Dept. of Health and Human Services gutted the conscience freedom rule that helped protect health professionals from coercion to participate in abortion and other morally controversial procedures.
·         The state of Washington prosecuted flower shop owner Barronelle Stutzman for acting consistent with her faith when she declined to use her creative skills to celebrate the same-sex ceremony of a longtime customer.
The list of government coercion of religious conscientious objectors goes on, with each instance holding a corrosive potential to erode our fundamental religious freedoms. Full-blown government persecution can begin with just such a gradual erosion of religious freedoms. Government incursion into our fundamental freedoms will never advertise itself as a path to persecution. These incursions will always be perpetrated under the guise of something that sounds good--like preventing discrimination, ensuring "reproductive freedom" or protecting health.
So as we ponder this new, invisible enemy, let us pray and work to prevent the literal virus we now face from serving as an international transmitter of government coercion.
Thankfully, a number of outstanding U.S. government officials who are persons of faith are leading the charge for international religious freedom. I have had the privilege of meeting with each of them, even on a regular basis, to discuss programs, developments and strategies.
Please pray for these individuals in our government and the many more in the U.S. and around the globe who are working tirelessly to preserve our God-given freedom to believe:
·         Sam Brownback - Ambassador at Large For International Religious Freedom;
·         Tony Perkins – Chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom;
·         Mike Pompeo – U.S. Secretary of State;
·         Roger Severino - Director, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services.


[i] Goodrich, Luke. Free to Believe (p. 153). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[ii] Ibid., p. 154.

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Christian Medical Association applauds administration move to bind human tissue research to ethical considerations


Washington, DC –June 5, 2019--The 19,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) today voiced strong support for the administration's move to stop taxpayer funding of the use of fetal tissue, from elective abortions, for research purposes.
"This courageous and right decision gets the government and our tax dollars out of the sordid business of using tissue from developing babies who have died as a result of elective abortions," noted Jonathan Imbody, CMA Vice President for Government Affairs. 
"Our government now will focus our resources instead on developing sustainable, ethical research that has real potential to save real lives.
"This combination of adhering to life-honoring ethical standards while also aggressively pursuing and investing in scientific innovation is the best path to solid advances in medicine that every American can support and many patients can embrace for healing."
The National Institute of Health (NIH) is ending all intramural research that involves fetal tissue obtained from abortions. In the future, an ethics advisory board convened by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) will evaluate projects that propose to use fetal tissue obtained from abortions. The NIH recently announced a $20 million research program to develop models that do not use fetal tissue from abortions.

Friday, May 24, 2019

Plaintiff Christian Medical Association welcomes intent of new HHS rule to restore intent of Congress on sex discrimination




Washington, DC, May 24, 2019--The 19,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org and www.Freedom2Care.org) today welcomed as "a move toward restoring rationality regarding sex discrimination in healthcare" a new rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that aims to restore the intent of Congress regarding sex discrimination in healthcare.
CMA CEO Designate Dr. Mike Chupp said, "While we and our attorneys are still reviewing this new rule, we welcome the intent of this new proposed rule as a move toward restoring rationality regarding sex discrimination in healthcare. We physicians know that prescriptions and medical procedures differ based on biological sex and that we must base our medical decisions on objective biology—not ideology.
"We will continue as always to care for all patients with compassion and competence while exercising professional, evidence-based medical judgment, adhering to objective ethical standards and at times, exercising conscience based upon moral standards."
CMA is party to a 2016 lawsuit that resulted in a federal court's preliminary injunction against the previous administration's HHS rule that attempted to redefine sex apart from biology to include internal perceptions of sex. Becket represents the CMA in that case. As also noted in that lawsuit, under the previous administration's rule, "HHS declined to add an explicit carve-out for abortion and abortion-related services parallel to the carve-out included in Title IX…."
The new rule, according to an HHS news release today, "proposes a return to the plain meaning of the words used by Congress in prohibiting sex discrimination."
Jonathan Imbody, CMA VP for Government Relations and Director of Freedom2Care, noted, "The proposed rule's stated purpose appears to be in line with what the American people have expressed through their elected representatives in Congress regarding sex discrimination, which is to ensure a level playing field for females and males, and also regarding abortion, which is to preserve conscience freedoms in healthcare.
"In the past, unelected agency officials attempted to use the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to force an ideological gender agenda upon virtually all healthcare institutions and professionals, regardless of professional judgment, ethical norms or religious convictions. Effective care for patients requires distinguishing biology from ideology."


HHS issues new rule to restore intent of Congress on sex discrimination

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services today takes a step toward restoring the intent of Congress in enacting sex discrimination legislation. The court case mentioned in the HHS news release below, which resulted in a preliminary injunction to stop the "transgender mandate," was on behalf of the Christian Medical Association and other health professionals and several states. 

Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Contact:  HHS Press Office May 24, 2019                                                                                    media@hhs.gov

HHS Proposes to Revise ACA Section 1557 Rule to Enforce Civil Rights in Healthcare,
Conform to Law, and Eliminate Billions in Unnecessary Costs

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulatory reform related to regulations issued under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The proposed rule would maintain vigorous civil rights enforcement on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, and sex, while revising certain provisions of the current Section 1557 rule that a federal court has said is likely unlawful. The proposal also would relieve the American people of approximately $3.6 billion in unnecessary regulatory costs over five years.

Conforming to the Text of our Laws

In Section 1557 of the ACA, Congress directed HHS to apply existing civil rights laws and regulations to healthcare and the ACA Exchanges, including a 1972 law (Title IX) prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in certain federally funded programs. In 2016, HHS issued a new rule that redefined discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include termination of pregnancy and gender identity which it defined as one’s internal sense of being “male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”

In response to a subsequent lawsuit by several states and healthcare entities, on December 31, 2016, a federal court preliminarily enjoined the rule’s gender identity and termination of pregnancy provisions on a nationwide basis, finding them contrary to the applicable civil rights law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. A second federal court agreed. Because the preliminary injunction continues to be in effect, HHS cannot, and has not since the date of the injunction, enforced the rule’s provisions the court said are likely unlawful. The proposed rule would revise the provisions subject to those injunctions to conform with the plain understanding recognized by the court.

When Congress prohibited sex discrimination, it did so according to the plain meaning of the term, and we are making our regulations conform,” said OCR Director Roger Severino. “The American people want vigorous protection of civil rights and faithfulness to the text of the laws passed by their representatives,” said Severino. “The proposed rule would accomplish both goals.”

Continued Robust Enforcement of Civil Rights Law

Under the proposed rule, HHS would continue to vigorously enforce prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, and sex in healthcare, as Section 1557 provides. The proposed rule would also retain protections under the 2016 regulation that ensure physical access for persons with disabilities to healthcare facilities, and appropriate communication technology to assist persons who are visually or hearing-impaired. HHS’s proposed rule would also retain protections for non-English speakers, including the right to meaningful language access to healthcare, qualification standards for translators and interpreters, and limitations on the use of minors and family members as translators in healthcare settings. Regulated entities would also continue to be required to provide written assurance to the Department that they will comply with Section 1557’s civil rights provisions and the proposed regulation.

“We are committed to full enforcement of civil rights laws before, during, and after any rulemaking,” said Severino. “We are also committed to the elimination of regulations that contradict law or raise the costs of healthcare without achieving intended results.”

Removing Costly and Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens

The proposed revisions would eliminate $3.2 billion in unneeded paperwork burdens imposed by the 2016 rule. Covered entities report that the 2016 rule requires them to send billions of “tagline” notices each year informing patients and customers of their ability to have “significant documents” translated in at least 15 languages. When HHS adopted the 2016 rule, it projected notice and taglines costs of about $7.2 million in the first five years. Because the 2016 rule did not fully account for printing and mailing costs associated with these notices and taglines, it underestimated the burden of these requirements by over three billion dollars over five years. Instead of requiring regulated health companies to mail billions of paper taglines to mostly English speakers, the money saved could be used to more effectively address individual needs of non-English speakers such as by providing increased access for translators and interpreters.

The proposed Section 1557 rule estimates an additional savings of approximately $400 million over five years by eliminating duplicative requirements and reverting to well-established language access guidance, resulting in a total savings of approximately $3.6 billion in the first five years after finalization.

“As a child of Hispanic immigrants, I know how vitally important it is that people receive quality healthcare services regardless of the language they speak, and this proposal grants providers the needed flexibility for achieving that goal,” said Severino. “The American people are tired of unnecessary regulations getting in the way of access to affordable healthcare, and today’s proposal would remove $3.6 billion in regulatory burdens that are ultimately being passed down to patients, Severino concluded.


Click to read the proposed regulation Factsheet on Section 1557- PDF.

###

*This HHS-approved document is being submitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for publication and has not yet been placed on public display or published in the Federal Register.  This document may vary slightly from the published document if minor editorial changes are made during the OFR review process.  The document that will be published in the Federal Register is the official HHS-approved document. 

*People using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in these files at this time.  For assistance, please email OCR at OCRMail@hhs.gov or contact the OCR Call Center at (800) 368-1019.

*A Spanish version of this press release and the Factsheet will be provided in the near future.

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...