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.

New Obama administration rule will fuel prosecution of health professionals who follow biology over ideology

If you as a health professional or your healthcare institution stick to the scientific view of male and female as biologically determined, the Obama administration and lawyers around the country now have a new weapon with which to stick it to you.

Any health professional or institution that receives federal (HHS) funding and treats or counsels transsexual patients, prescribes hormone therapy, performs procedures related to sexuality or has a gender-specific bathroom, changing facility or shower area will suddenly encounter sweeping new dictates designed to enforce a non-biological, ideological view of human sexuality.

Action Opportunity: If you as a health professional and/or your healthcare institution have been or may be affected by these new regulations, please use the Christian Medical Association's Freedom2Care form to let us know.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) soon will begin enforcing new Obama administration rules on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, designed to control your professional practice and constrain the exercise of your conscience.

Effective July 18, 2016, new federal transgender regulations will apply to the healthcare services provided by virtually every physician, hospital, and healthcare professional in the country. And they apply to the health insurance provided by many employers, including not only healthcare professionals but also many educational institutions.

The new regulation is breathtakingly broad, applying to "any entity that has a health program or activity, any part of which receives Federal financial assistance from the Department, any health program or activity administered by the Department, or any health program or activity administered by an entity created under Title I of the ACA [Affordable Care Act]."

After consulting with legal experts in this area, here's the lowdown on this new weapon in the aggressive assault on science and sanity regarding sexuality:

1.    What do the new rules require?

The new rules purport to implement a ban on sex discrimination under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. But they dramatically expand the definition of “sex” to include sexual orientation, gender identity, sex stereotypes, and abortion decisions. Thus, the rules say that it is “discrimination” to provide healthcare services or coverage to the general population while declining to provide the same services or coverage to a transgender individual who wishes to transition to a different sex. So, for example, services and situations impacted by the reg include, but are  not limited to:

·         treating or counseling a gender-questioning individual

·         prescribing hormone therapy

·         performing hysterectomies, mastectomies, plastic surgery or genital reconstruction surgery

·         offering a gender-specific bathroom, changing area or shower

·         providing health benefits such as insurance or working with an insurance company that does

In the case of the above-mentioned services, all health professionals and institutions under the new reg may be required to provide the same service to a transgender individual who wishes to transition to the opposite sex.

Covered employers (including virtually any employer that receives HHS funding and provides health benefits to employees) or healthcare issuers (like Aetna) that provide insurance coverage for gender-applicable healthcare services may be required to cover the same services when requested for gender transition (e.g., a hysterectomy for a woman seeking to transition to living as a man);

Covered entities (like hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians’ offices) must treat individuals consistent with their gender identity. That means, for example, that various facilities such as:

·         hospital rooms

·         nursing home apartments

·         shower and changing facilities

must be opened to individuals based on their declared gender identity.

2.    Who is subject to the rules?

The new rules apply to any entity that receives any funding provided by or administered by HHS. This includes any healthcare professional who accepts Medicare or Medicaid. It also includes a wide variety of HHS funding, such as:

·         Federal financial assistance, including wages, loans, grants, and scholarships on behalf of students

·         Grants

·         Loans

·         Credits

·         Subsidies

·         Contracts (other than procurement contracts, but including an insurance contract)

·         Services of federal personnel

·         Real property

·         Proceeds from a transfer of property

·         Tax credits under Title I of the Affordable Care Act

·         Subsidies for health-related insurance
Qualified healthcare professionals impacted by the reg include, but are not limited to:

• Physician offices
• Hospitals
• Nursing homes
• Insurance providers
• Counseling centers
• Plastic surgeons

3.    What penalties could I suffer?

The new rules expose covered entities to significant liability, including :

·         loss of federal funding

·         enforcement proceedings brought by the Department of Justice

·         private lawsuits brought by individuals for damages and attorneys’ fees.

One hospital system has already been sued by the ACLU under the new rules, even though they do not officially take effect until July 18, 2016.

4.    Is any exemption provided for my religious convictions?

No. HHS was asked to include a religious exemption due to the obvious implications for religious healthcare professionals but declined to do so. While HHS very aggressively expanded and reinterpreted existing law regarding discrimination based on sex, the department took a decidedly passive approach regarding discrimination based on religious convictions. The rule simply states that existing religious freedom laws should suffice.

What can I do to protect my professional and moral decision-making?

This new regulation remains to be tested in the courts.

Courts may view sympathetically assertions of religious freedom and speech protections. Courts also may view antagonistically the fact that unelected federal bureaucrats have taken for themselves a legislative role, blatantly twisting the clear meaning of existing federal law on sex discrimination.

Protect Yourself: If you as a health professional and/or your healthcare institution have been or may be affected by these new regulations, please use the Christian Medical Association's Freedom2Care form (http://www.freedom2care.org/action/page/share) to let us know. Please specify how you are impacted and if you or your institution receive any federal funding, including Medicare and Medicaid and the other funding sources listed in #2 above.

You will have the option of either keeping your comments confidential or adding them to others' comments viewable on the Freedom2Care website.

Note: While the Christian Medical Association (CMA) often advances its public policy objectives by working with like-minded legal organizations, CMA is not qualified to provide legal counsel and advises members to obtain legal counsel before pursuing any claim.

Excerpts from new book that encourages and equips people of faith to engage on controversial issues

Faith Steps

Logion Publishing, Washington, DC - published 2015

How can we remain true to the core teachings of our faith and winsomely engage others on controversial issues like sex, marriage, abortion, religious freedom, human trafficking and end of life issues?

As aggressive activists and ideologues try to eject persons of faith from the public square, we need to know and hold fast to the truth … and help others choose the path that leads to life, liberty and true happiness.

Excerpts

Engaging others: "People make their own choices; we are simply informing their self-interest. In love and compassion, offering evidence and reason, we simply present the clear choices and draw a line to the benefits or harms likely to result from those choices."

Marriage: "By uprooting and replacing the definition of marriage with a subjective notion based on emotional relationship … no rational parameters remain that would exclude further redefinitions of 'marriage' as between multiple partners, related persons, or even persons and non-persons."

Faith freedom: "While we can take comfort in the companionship of such a 'great cloud of witnesses' who have suffered for the faith, we also must fight for religious freedom while we have the freedom to do so."

Abortion: "Abortion advocates commonly contend that health and safety regulations, such as regulations required of other surgical facilities, would shut down their clinics. What does that tell you about the level of safety women encounter in abortion clinics?"

Worldview: "If we are each making up our own truth, each arriving at different conclusions, what do we do when our individually made-up worldviews conflict? One of two things can happen: coexistence or domination."

­­­Euthanasia: "Then, Xandra says, her father-in-law suddenly cried out. He said, 'I don’t want to die!' Xandra frantically looked to the doctor and at the others in the room. 'But no one was reacting.' Franz died from that second injection, whether he really wanted to or not."

Human trafficking: "The big ideas in our White House meeting agenda included developing a strategy to conduct medical research to establish the links between human trafficking and prostitution, AIDS, tuberculosis and other communicable diseases."

Sex ed: "Totally bereft of any reason to convince teens to wait, 'comprehensive' sex education focuses on trying to merely reduce rather than avoid the harm."

Faith & politics: "Christian engagement in government and policy advocacy offers an opportunity to show skeptics that faith can work in the real world–even in the intensely challenging, often battering world of public policy."

Engaging in culture: "We will seek to understand critically where a work of art, music or literature syncs with God's principles and where it diverges."

Endorsements

"Faith Steps is a perfect book for our time. Mr. Imbody offers solutions for how we can--and must--take back the high ground. This book is exceptionally well written by a man of great courage, knowledge and commitment." – Diana Lightfoot, Advisor, Carson for President

"A clear, poignant presentation of how to become a person of faith and have that faith transform your life and culture." – Gene Rudd, MD, Exec. VP, Christian Medical Association

"The chapter on worldview is worth the cost of the book by itself! A must-read for anyone who is serious about living out their faith." –Col. Donald Thompson, MD, Director, Global Health Outreach

Author

Jonathan Imbody (cmawashington@icloud.com) draws on decades of insider experience in Washington, DC in government relations and communications. He directs the 30,000-strong Freedom2Care coalition on freedom of faith, conscience and speech. He is also VP for Govt. Relations for the Christian Medical Association. His commentaries are frequently featured in USA Today, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times and other national media.

Get it today...

Amazon paperback: http://tinyurl.com/nhanq29

Kindle e-book: http://tinyurl.com/p2q8ywg  

---

 

Visit and "like" the Faith Steps Facebook page

Faith Steps excerpt: How to lovingly and reasonably communicate in public the rationale for valuing true marriage

Given today's Supreme Court ruling on marriage, below is an excerpt from Faith Steps, Chapter 14, "Freedom of Faith, Conscience and Speech":

While many followers of Christ draw from Scripture the concept of marriage as solely between a man and a woman, secular governments for centuries also have advanced such conjugal marriage because of its benefits to children, the economy[1] and social stability.[2]

Unfortunately, the modern debate over marriage often has been marked by more passion than reason, with relationships and reputations suffering as a result. Some who name the Name of Christ unfortunately have violated the highest tenets of our faith by showing only disgust and not love for those who practice homosexuality. This fuels a public misperception that all opponents of same-sex marriage are hateful bigots.

Other believers do show love toward homosexuals yet remain unpracticed in presenting rational arguments for a secular audience in the public square. They feel at a loss to cogently defend what they know is a cornerstone of biblical teaching–namely, that sex is reserved for the marriage of a man and a woman. So they just accept same-sex marriage even though it counters what they know true marriage to be.

Believers, however, need not take either a position of bigotry or of defeatism regarding marriage. We can communicate love and simultaneously advocate for the truth about marriage.

A public message advocating for conjugal marriage might sound something like this:

We love and respect those who practice homosexuality and support policies that protect their dignity and appropriate[3] equal protection under the law. But marriage remains a consensual, exclusive and lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, expressed in a physical union uniquely designed to produce and nurture children.

Removing these objective defining factors makes marriage meaningless. By uprooting and replacing the definition of marriage with a subjective notion based on emotional relationship, divorced from the natural and objective marital elements of physical union and procreation, no rational parameters remain that would exclude further redefinitions of "marriage" as between multiple partners, related persons, or even persons and non-persons.

An affirmation of the exclusivity of marriage as between one man and one woman does not preclude separate personal, societal or legal sanction of any other consensual relationship. The core debate hinges not on a moral evaluation of various types of relationships, but rather on the objective qualities that make marriage, marriage.

Even those who lovingly and reasonably communicate in public the rationale for valuing conjugal marriage, however, face an incredibly harsh and judgmental reaction from activists, the media, politicians and other segments of society. We technically may still live in a democracy, but the intolerance of divergent views often seems more akin to a totalitarian state that systematically erases ideological diversity.

The drive toward ideological conformity looks like this:

1.      First the culture makes a controversial practice socially acceptable.

2.      Then policy makers and the courts make the practice legal.

3.      Finally, the culture and the government join to enforce the practice–including punishing objectors.[4]

With that in mind, consider urging your legislators to protect our First Amendment freedoms of thought and belief, by quickly passing legislation to protect conscientious dissenters from discrimination regarding marriage. We urgently need to pass the federal First Amendment Defense Act.

Read more: 

Amazon paperback: http://tinyurl.com/nhanq29

Kindle e-book: http://tinyurl.com/p2q8ywg  

---

[1] See, for example, Patrick Fagan, “The Wealth of Nations Depends on the Health of Families,” Public Discourse, February 6, 2013, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/02/7821/, accessed July 10, 2014.

[2] For a thorough discussion of these characteristics, see Sherif Girgis, Ryan T Anderson and Robert P George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York: Encounter Books, 2012).

[3] The word "appropriate" indicates that equal protection under the law means that while the law must be applied without unjust bias, that does not mean that every law must apply to everyone in exactly the same way. A law pertaining to pregnancy will not apply to everyone because by definition, the state of pregnancy can only apply to women. A law pertaining to American citizens, such as the guarantee of a trial by a jury of peers, does not apply to enemy combatants.

[4] For example, the women's movement and other cultural forces made abortion acceptable. The Supreme Court made it legal in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The Obama administration enforced the practice and punished objectors through federal agency policies.

Marriage and Religious Freedom Act gets boost from pro-family groups

A bill to protect citizens from coercion and censorship for their views on marriage, the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, got a boost recently from myriad pro-family groups urging its passage. Their letter is below:

Senator Mike Enzi

379A Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator Mike Lee

316 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senators Enzi and Lee:

We, the undersigned, representing hundreds of thousands of Americans, want to thank you for your leadership in reintroducing two key pieces of legislation designed to ensure that charities, non- profits, and small business owners with religious beliefs or moral convictions about marriage are not penalized by the government for their beliefs.

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act would prevent the federal government from discriminating in programs, grants, contracts, and tax treatment against individuals who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Such protections are urgently needed in light of new federal agency conditions requiring endorsement of same-sex relationships in order to compete for certain federal grants. In addition, the President’s problematic July 2014 Executive Order jeopardizing the ability of businesses and faith-based organizations that contract with the federal government to hire and administer programs according to their religious beliefs is deeply troubling. The government should not deem longstanding providers of important public services ineligible to compete for federal funding simply because of their beliefs about marriage. This bill would stop these harmful and arbitrary government penalties.

Similarly, S. 667, the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act, would ensure that faith-based adoption and foster care providers working with birth moms, parents, and community stakeholders to serve needy children can continue to provide services in their respective locales. S.667 would address discriminatory actions like those taken by Illinois, Massachusetts, D.C. and San Francisco to force faith-based providers to halt services simply because of their belief that kids do best with a mom and a dad. Indeed, the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act reflects its name—it ensures the inclusion of all providers and particularly those faith-based entities who have offered the bulk of orphan care since our nation’s founding. States that choose to discriminate against faith-based organizations despite this bill’s prohibition would face a reduction in federal funding under this bill, an important deterrent to future targeting.

We as individuals and organizations wish to remain active participants in and contributors to our communities. These bills ensure that we can continue to do so while also living in accordance with our beliefs about marriage and the family. Significantly, an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that we should have this freedom. Just last month, new polling from WPA Opinion Research and Family Research Council showed that 81% of Americans believe that individuals like us should be able to live and work in accordance with our belief in marriage as between a man and a woman.

While Americans in general continue to debate the meaning of marriage in the lead up to Supreme Court review of state marriage laws this spring, one thing is clear: millions of Americans who continue to affirm the historic understanding of marriage should remain free from government discrimination.

Again, we thank you for your leadership in introducing and advocating for this important legislation.

Sincerely,
Tony Perkins
President
Family Research Council

Gary L. Bauer
President
American Values

David Stevens, MD, MA (Ethics)
CEO
Christian Medical Association

Tom Minnery
President and CEO
CitizenLink

Richard A. Viguerie
Chairman
ConservativeHQ.com

Mathew Staver
Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Michael A. Needham
CEO
Heritage Action

Dr. Ron Crews
CH (COL) USAR Retired Executive Director
Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty

Most Reverend Thomas Wenski
Archbishop of Miami
Chairman, USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development

Most Reverend William E. Lori
Archbishop of Baltimore
Chairman, USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty

Most Reverend Salvatore J. Cordileone
Archbishop of San Francisco
Chairman, USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage

Russell D. Moore
President
Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Penny Nance
President and CEO
Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Chairman
High Impact Leadership Coalition

Star Parker
President
Center for Urban Renewal and Education

Carrie Gordon Earll
Vice President, Government and Public Policy
Focus on the Family

Rick Scarborough
President
Vision America Action

Keith Wiebe
President
American Association of Christian Schools

Thomas J. Cathey, EdD
Director for Legal Legislative Issues
Association of Christian Schools International

Dan Weber
CEO
Association of Mature American Citizens

Joel Grewe
Director
Generation Joshua

Susan A. Carleson
Chairman/CEO
American Civil Rights Union

Andrea Lafferty
President
Traditional Values Coalition

William J. Murray
Chairman
Religious Freedom Coalition

Austin Ruse
President
C-FAM

Elaine Donnelly
President
Center for Military Readiness

C. Preston Noell III
President
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

Robert Knight
Senior Fellow
American Civil Rights Union

Colin A. Hanna
President, Let Freedom Ring
Co-Chair, The Weyrich Lunch

Curt Levey
President
The Committee for Justice

Nicole Theis
President
Delaware Family Policy Council

David Fowler
President
Family Action of Tennessee, Inc.

Dale Bartscher
Executive Director
Family Heritage Alliance Action (SD)

Julie Lynde
Executive Director
Cornerstone Family Council, Idaho

Phil Burress
President
Citizens for Community Values Action

Allen Whitt
President
Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Jim Minnery
President
Alaska Family Action

John Helmberger
CEO
Minnesota Family Council

Kent Ostrander
Executive Director
The Family Foundation (KY)

Michael Geer
President
Pennsylvania Family Institute

Peter Wolfgang
President
Family Institute of CT Action

Rev. Jason J. McGuire
Executive Director
New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms

Joe Ortwerth
Executive Director
Missouri Family Policy Council

Gene Mills
President
Louisiana Family Forum

Andrew Beckwith
President
Massachusetts Family Institute

Jonathan Saenz
President
Texas Values

Len Deo
Founder & President
New Jersey Family Policy Council

Jonathan Gardner
Executive Director
New Mexico Center for Family Policy