Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a145_gfbi.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

DR. A v. HOCHUL 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

arguing that the State’s conduct violates the First Amend-
ment and asking us to enjoin the enforcement of the man-
date against them until this Court can decide their petition
for certiorari. 

Respectfully, I believe they deserve that relief. 

I 
A 
The doctors and nurses who filed this suit and a compan-
ion case have gone to great lengths to serve their patients
during the COVID–19 pandemic.  Consider two of their sto-
ries. 

Dr. J. is an OB/GYN who works in a New York hospital.
She  is  also  a  devout  Catholic.  During  the  pandemic,  she
has consistently treated patients infected with COVID–19
in spite of the risks to herself.  Sometimes, in emergencies, 
she has had to rush into a delivery room without knowing
whether  a  delivering  mother  is  infected  with  the  disease.
Dr. J. has done all this even while pregnant herself.

Dr. F. serves a rural town as an oral surgeon.  Like Dr. 
J., he is Catholic and has never turned away a patient in-
fected with COVID–19.  Instead, he has faced open wounds
and mouths even when it involved risks to his own health. 
Dr. F. says he has done so because, if he had refused, many
of his patients seeking care could not have obtained it else-
where. 

These applicants are not “ ‘anti-vaxxers’ ” who object to all
vaccines.  Complaint in No. 21–CV–01009 (NDNY), ¶ 37(g). 
Instead,  the  applicants  explain,  they  cannot  receive  a
COVID–19 vaccine because their religion teaches them to
oppose abortion in any form, and because each of the cur-
rently  available  vaccines  has  depended  upon  abortion-de-
rived fetal cell lines in its production or testing.  The appli-
cants acknowledge that many other religious believers feel 
differently about these matters than they do.  But no one 
questions the sincerity of their religious beliefs.