We need courage in the pulpit, courage in the pew

Barna research has reported that "Half of Christian pastors says they frequently (11%) or occasionally (39%) feel limited in their ability to speak out on moral and social issues because people will take offense. The other half of pastors say they only rarely (30%) or never (20%) feel limited in this way."

https://www.barna.com/research/pastors-speaking-out/

No, despite their expressed feelings, the first cited group of Christian pastors are not "limited in their ability to speak out on moral and social issues because people will take offense." They are limited by their own fear.
These pastors need courage.
They and we all need to imitate the courage of the early Church martyr Stephen, who spoke truth even at the cost of his own life.
Stephen did not shrink from controversy; he did not avoid conflict; he did not soften the Message to appease the hearers. Stephen confronted people with uncompromising, soul-challenging, sharply dividing Truth:

“You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.”

"Now when they heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at him. But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God ... (Acts 7:51-55)."

Stoning of Saint Stephen - Rembrandt

Following Christ requires counting the cost. We must give up all to gain all.
"Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 16:24-25).
May God gives us courage to stand and speak His truth regardless of opposition, and God give us leaders of courage to lead.

Disassembling the abortion v. childbirth safety myth

The American Academy of Medical Ethics recently filed a brief in a very important upcoming Supreme Court case on abortion, June Medical Services v. Gee. The case centers on safety and health requirements on abortion clinics, and the brief dismantles the abortion industry's spurious argument that abortion is supposedly safer than childbirth.

The abortion industry launched a lawsuit after the state of Louisiana passed Act 620, which required “that every physician who performs or induces an abortion shall ‘have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced.’” To many observers, such a requirement obviously would help protect women who experience adverse events from an abortion.

Abortion business advocates, however, viewed the Louisiana law as a threat to its own economic survival specifically and to the prevalence of abortion in general. The abortion industry has been long accustomed to political preference that has helped them skirt the standard health and safety oversight measures applied to similar facilities.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell operated this deadly house of horrors
for years without proper health and safety oversight, due to
pro-abortion political influence.

In Pennsylvania, for example, a grand jury report documented how political determinations had exempted the abortion industry from health and safety inspections. That political favoritism and lack of health and safety oversight allowed the infamous Dr. Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia to criminally operate a filthy and deadly abortion clinic that became known as a "House of Horrors."

As the Washington Post reported, "The grand jury report is full of horrific and gruesome details about the clinic that Gosnell ran for more than three decades. Patients were neglected; providers were not certified; and cats were allowed to roam and defecate in the clinic.

"'Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them,' the report said. "He didn’t call it that. He called it 'ensuring fetal demise.' The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord.'

"How did this happen? This is one of the questions that the grand jury seems to have grappled with: How did Gosnell run a non-compliant clinic for three decades? Much can be attributed to an egregious lapse in regulatory oversight, the report said."

Ultimately, the grisly Gosnell was "found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of patient Karnamaya Mongar who died at his late-term abortion clinic, and three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of four babies allegedly born alive inside the Women's Medical Society abortion clinic in West Philadelphia, Pa., that he operated for 40 years."

Obviously, for Gosnell's patients and the babies whom he dismembered, abortion was hardly "safer than childbirth."

Decades before the revelation of the Gosnell horrors, that oft-repeated myth served as a flimsy foundation for the Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade decision. The Court's decision in Roe asserted that the relative safety of (early) abortion over childbirth is “now-established medical fact.”

One the contrary, the American Academy of Medical Ethics' brief notes, "The claim that abortion is safer than childbirth is a myth, resting on demonstrably flawed premises and refuted by study after study. The common claim of abortion advocates that abortion is safer than childbirth is based upon incomplete data and flagrantly inapt comparisons. The published medical evidence strongly suggests that abortion is more dangerous, not less, than childbirth."

Read more of the evidence and arguments from this important brief at www.cmda.org/abortionbrief.

Christian Medical Association court cases: Good news and bad news

This month's blog provides updates on two Christian Medical Association (CMA) federal lawsuits. Following case updates is information and help for health professionals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of their faith and conscience.

Good News: Victory in transgender mandate case

Becket, one of the nation's premier religious freedom law firms, has represented the interests of CMA members in challenging a 2016 mandate issued by the Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Becket provides a synopsis of how the case has developed:

CASE SNAPSHOT

A federal mandate issued in 2016 required doctors to perform gender transition procedures on any patient, including a child, even if the doctor believed the procedure would be harmful. That rule was struck down in court after it was challenged by nine states, several religious organizations, and an association of over 19,000 healthcare professionals [CMDA]. In May 2019, HHS proposed bringing its regulations into compliance with those decisions and ensuring that the personal decision to undergo gender transition procedures is kept between patients and their doctors, free from government interference.

STATUS

On May 24, 2019, HHS proposed a new rule that follows a court ruling, complies with accepted medical research and protects both the medical judgment of the doctor and the unique, individual needs of the patient.

Meanwhile, on October 15, 2019, a federal judge confirmed his earlier ruling that the government's 2016 HHS mandate is unlawful, ensuring that doctors can continue practicing in their field of medicine without being forced to perform procedures that violate their faith.

Left unchallenged by our lawsuit, this unlawful and ideologically driven mandate would have imperiled the careers of many health professionals, by denying the ability to follow medical judgment and conscience. This court victory now protects the religious freedom and medical judgment not only of CMA members but also of health professionals nationwide.

Bad News: First-round loss in conscience rule case

Becket also represents the interests of CMA members in a lawsuit to defend the recent HHS conscience protection rule for health professionals. Becket provides the following synopsis:

CASE SNAPSHOT

Dr. Regina Frost

Regina Frost is an OB-GYN and a member of the Christian Medical Association. Religious healthcare professionals like Dr. Frost care for all patients and are consistently on the frontlines serving the most vulnerable members of our society, including underserved poor and migrant communities; victims of gang violence, sex trafficking, opioid addiction, and deadly epidemics and prisoners living with HIV. In May 2019, HHS released a new Conscience Rule enforcing existing laws that allow religious healthcare professionals to continue their important work without having to perform certain procedures which would be inconsistent with their beliefs. But several states, including the state of New York, are now suing to block this rule and force Dr. Frost and others to either violate their conscience or end their practice. Becket is defending medical conscience rights for religious healthcare professionals nationwide so that they can continue their ministry providing compassionate care across the globe.

STATUS

On June 25, 2019 Becket moved to intervene on behalf of Dr. Frost and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations in federal court, arguing that no healthcare professional should be forced to choose between violating her conscience or providing compassionate medical care. On November 6, 2019, a federal court ruled against the Conscience Rule, threatening the ability of religious doctors like Dr. Frost to serve communities without being forced to perform procedures against their beliefs.

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. 

What can you do if you have experienced discrimination?

While we await the government's decision to appeal this case, health professionals should know that while this loss represents a significant weakening of protections, existing federal conscience protection law remains in effect and HHS continues to receive complaints.

Filing a complaint with HHS is simple and straightforward: You simply relate your story of what happened--who, what, when, where: www.freedom2care.org/regulations.

Our Freedom2Care website also provides you with links to religious freedom law firms that provide pro bono legal aid: www.freedom2care.org/legal-help.

Message at Supreme Court: Constitution protects both minority and majority viewpoints

Speakers included the mother (center, in red) of a girl
who transitioned against the mother's will through
the intervention of government authorities.

I recently spoke outside the Supreme Court in the face of raucous protests on the day of oral arguments in a case involving transgender individuals and alleged sex discrimination, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Speeches had resumed outside the court after a bomb scare had prompted police to clear the area.

Speeches resumed after police cleared the area for a bomb scare.

Members of the LGBT community relentlessly hassled and harried speakers on our side of the argument by launching wailing sirens, shouting with bullhorns in the faces of speakers and chanting mantras like "homophobe" while we spoke (a special irony given that our speakers included a lesbian and a former transgender man). I imagine their side had some reasonable arguments to make, but I could hear none over the sirens, bullhorn and chanting.
My remarks follow:

In a recent national poll of faith-based health professionals, virtually all of them declared, "I care for all patients in need, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identification, or family makeup, with sensitivity and compassion, even when I cannot validate their choices."
In that same poll, 91% of those faith-based health professionals also said they oppose "Redefining 'sex' in federal discrimination laws to mean gender identity, defined as one's internal sense of being 'male, female, neither or a combination of male and female.'"
So they treat all patients with care and compassion, but they need the freedom to recognize and rely on biology when treating their patients.
But some people think that to show compassion and respect for transgender individuals, the government has to force everyone to ignore not only the clear evidence of biology but also the clear meaning of the law.
That's why a few ideological members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and activist judges have rejected the plain meaning of sex discrimination that Congress, women and doctors have all understood and relied upon for decades.

Reading transgenderism into decades-old sex discrimination law
threatens women's rights and sports, as track star Selina Soule
(above) discovered. Photo: Alliance Defends

In the process, these activists are threatening to undermine the very protections against sex discrimination that Congress enacted, which have transformed opportunities for women.
So this case today is as much about the law and individual freedom as it is about gender.
We will have no individual freedom in our country if the government can require you to believe whatever the government wants you to believe.
The genius of our nation's constitutional protection of individual rights and freedom is not only that the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority, but also that the majority is protected from the tyranny of the minority. The goal of our democratic republic is protecting the greatest freedom for each one of us, protecting us from government coercion, whether our views align with the majority or with a minority.
So let's all work together to protect each other's freedom to choose our beliefs, and to act in accordance with those beliefs, without government coercion. 

.

Dr. Allen Josephson (left), former chief of the
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and
Psychology at the University of Louisville, spoke
about how he lost his position after expressing his
professional opinions on the treatment
of youth experiencing gender dysphoria.

Thank you.

As expected, mainstream media coverage slanted toward
stories sympathetic to the LGBT community.

National poll: Faith-based health professionals care for all but need conscience protections on moral issues

By Jonathan Imbody, VP for Government Relations - Christian Medical Association and Director - Freedom2Care

Faith-based health professionals care with compassion and respect for all patients, but they will leave medicine rather than violate their conscience if forced to participate in morally objectionable procedures and prescriptions.

I recently delivered that message from our members, based on a professionally conducted poll, at the White House to the President's advisors; at the U.S. Capitol to Congressional staffers; at a U.S. House of Representatives office to legislators and staffers; and at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to agency officials.

The survey, a nationwide poll of faith-based health professionals, conducted by Heart and Mind Strategies, LLC, found that 91 percent said they would have to "stop practicing medicine altogether than be forced to violate my conscience." That finding holds significant implications for millions of patients, especially the poor and those in underserved regions who depend upon faith-based health facilities and professionals for their care. 

The survey of faith-based health professionals also found that virtually all care for patients "regardless of sexual orientation, gender identification, or family makeup, with sensitivity and compassion, even when I cannot validate their choices." The finding puts the lie to the charge that somehow conscience protections will result in whole classes of patients being denied care. 

"Faith-based health professionals actually seek out and serve marginalized patients to provide compassionate care," explained CMDA CEO Emeritus Dr. David Stevens in a news release. "All we ask as we serve is that the government not intrude into the physician-patient relationship by dictating that we must do controversial procedures and prescriptions that counter our best medical judgment or religious beliefs." 

Key poll findings include:

• Faith-based health professionals need conscience protections to ensure their continued medical practice.
• Conscience-driven health professionals care for all patients.
• Religious professionals overwhelmingly support a biological—not ideological--definition of sex.
• Religious health professionals face rampant discrimination.
• Access for poor and medically under-served patient populations depends on conscience protections.

Detail on the poll of faith-based professionals can be found at www.Freedom2Care.org/polling.

CMA is currently represented by the Becket law firm in two cases on which this poll has bearing: Franciscan Alliance v. Azar, which addresses an Obamacare transgender mandate, and New York v. HHS, which addresses a new federal conscience protection rule.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently introduced two new regulations on which the poll has bearing: a final conscience protection rule and a proposed gender rule. For more information on these rules, see https://www.freedom2care.org/laws-regs-cases and click on Regulations.