Source: https://www.consciencelaws.org/archive/news/releases-2007.aspx
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:06:15+00:00

Document:
Standard Newswire/ -- The nation's largest faith-based association of physicians, the 15,000-member Christian Medical Association (www.cmda.org), today joined other leading national organizations in challenging The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to stop its attack on the conscience rights of pro-life physicians.
A letter, drafted by CMA and signed by other national organizations, blasted ACOG's Committee on Ethics position statement, "The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine." CMA's letter noted that the statement "suggests a profound misunderstanding of the nature and exercise of conscience, an underlying bias against persons of faith and an apparent attempt to disenfranchise physicians who oppose ACOG's political activism on abortion." CMA CEO David Stevens, MD said, "ACOG is not only out of touch with conscience-driven physicians, but also with our long-standing American tradition to protect the rights of citizens to not participate in conscience-violating actions-especially when those actions would take a human life. That American tradition rests on constitutional principles of religious freedom and speech."ACOG's position paper targets pro-life physicians, insisting that abortion-objecting physicians refer patients to get abortions and declaring that physicians who will not participate in conscience-violating procedures and prescriptions must actually move close to doctors who will. Dr. Stevens added, "Many physicians had been realizing that because of their aggressive abortion lobbying, ACOG officials do not represent the values of most physicians and mainstream medicine. This statement goes a step beyond not representing our life-affirming values to actually advocating policies to prevent us from exercising those values. ACOG's attitude seems to be, 'If you don't toe the ACOG line on abortion, the 'morning-after pill,' and the application of reproductive technology, then you shouldn't be practicing obstetrics--and if you do, we're going to do everything in our power to force you to accommodate our abortion agenda."
CMA Executive Vice President Gene Rudd, MD, an obstetrician and gynecologist, noted, "I have withdrawn my ACOG membership of over 25 years. My conscience can no longer support their lack of conscience. ACOG's strategy seeks to marginalize dissenting opinions. I as an obstetrician have a moral obligation not only to act in my patient's best interest, but also in the best interest of the developing baby, and of society as a whole."
A federal court Thursday confirmed that the right of Washington pharmacists to obey their conscience when they object to dispensing abortion-inducing drugs on religious grounds will be protected while a lawsuit by two pharmacists and a pharmacy owner moves forward. The court halted newly passed regulations, which the pharmacy and pharmacists are challenging, until a decision is reached in the case. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and ADF-allied attorneys filed the lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction in July.
"The government shouldn't force pro-life pharmacists or any other health care providers to violate their religious beliefs simply to appease a political agenda," said lead counsel and ADF-allied attorney Kristen Waggoner of the Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. "The right to conscientiously object to the taking of human life is deeply rooted in our nation's history and laws. The 'morning-after' pill can unnaturally and deliberately kill innocent human life."
The court's order stated, "the regulations appear to target religious practice in a way forbidden by the Constitution" and "appear to intentionally place a significant burden on the free exercise of religion for those who believe life begins at conceptionâ€¦."
"This is not an uncompromising battle between access and conscience," said Steven O'Ban, also of Ellis, Li & McKinstry. "Despite the fact that Plan B is widely available in Washington, the new regulations prohibit pharmacies from refusing to stock the drug because of religious objections. This is neither necessary nor constitutional."
Before the new regulations were passed, Kevin Stormans, an owner of Ralph's Thriftway, received a phone call inquiring about whether the store carried Plan B. After researching the abortion-inducing drug and its effects, Stormans, a Christian, decided that his store would not stock the drug based on religious and moral grounds. Activists then began to picket Ralph's and filed complaints with the Washington Board of Pharmacy. The board investigated Ralph's for over a year and then referred the matter to legal counsel.
When it became apparent the board would pursue charges, Stormans contacted Ellis, Li & McKinstry. They and ADF attorneys represent Stormans, Inc., doing business as Ralph's, along with two Christian pharmacists.
"The court correctly held that the regulations force health care providers to 'dispense a drug that ends a life as defined by their religious teachings.' No health care professional should be forced to participate in destroying human life to preserve his or her professional license," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb.
Alliance Defense Fund allied attorneys Kristen Waggoner and Steve O'Ban will be available to answer questions from the media Wednesday following a court hearing on their motion for preliminary injunction filed against the Washington State Pharmacy Board. The lawsuit Stormans v. Selecky seeks to protect the rights of pharmacists and pharmacies which choose not to stock or distribute abortion-inducing drugs on religious or moral grounds.
"The government cannot force pro-life or any other health care providers to violate their conscience simply to appease special interests. Society has long accepted that those with religious objections to killing in a time of war should be exempt from military service. If we exempt a soldier from killing an enemy combatant who threatens our nation, surely we ought to exempt a pharmacist who sincerely believes he or she is being forced to help destroy an innocent child in the womb," Waggoner said. "No one should be forced to choose between keeping their job and keeping their faith."
"The flawed process that led to the adoption of the rule stripping our clients of their right of conscience is deeply disturbing," said O'Ban. "In 2006, Governor Gregoire actually threatened to fire the entire Board of Pharmacy when it appeared they might adopt rules that would protect the right of conscience. Because the board capitulated to the governor, our clients must now sue to get their rights back."
Waggoner, O'Ban, and ADF represent Stormans, Inc., along with two Christian pharmacists, Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen. Both choose not to dispense the pill, "Plan B," based on their moral and religious beliefs about the sanctity of human life. The pill can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, effectively killing it. Many health care providers, including the plaintiffs, believe that human life begins at fertilization and that the pill destroys innocent life.
In March 2006, ADF attorneys sent a letter to the pharmacy board urging them to adopt a "conscience clause" protecting the right of conscience for pharmacists. In July, Waggoner, O'Ban, and ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction on behalf of Stormans, Inc..
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court on behalf of an Illinois clinical psychologist who lost his contract with the city of Minneapolis because of his membership with a politically conservative, pro-family organization [Campion v. City of Minneapolis].
"Pro-family, Christian conservatives cannot be treated as second-class citizens," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. "Government officials do not have the right to end someone's contract on the basis of religion or political viewpoint. The city of Minneapolis is engaging in viewpoint discrimination, and that is clearly unconstitutional."
Dr. Michael Campion, a Christian, is a licensed clinical psychologist who taught at the College of Medicine at the University of Illinois for 18 years and whose expertise the U.S. Department of Justice sought for three of its research projects. In early 2005, the city of Minneapolis hired him as an independent contractor, and Campion enjoyed a successful professional relationship with the city, providing for them pre-employment testing, fitness for duty testing, and other services.
After an Illinois Times author wrote an article in May 2005 criticizing Campion's affiliation with the pro-family organization Illinois Family Institute, the city "suspended" him. The city then hired an independent psychological testing company to evaluate Campion and see if his process for reviewing applicants for employment with the city was inherently flawed or biased. In July 2006, the testing company submitted its conclusions to the city, having found no evidence of bias and having found Campion's processes to be consistent with or beyond expectations for good psychological and statistical practice, adding that Campion is "clearly an expert in this line of work."
Despite those findings, the city rescinded its agreement with Campion to conduct 62 pre-hire screening tests in October. Instead, the city, using taxpayer money, hired a consulting company, which was significantly more expensive and less qualified to conduct such tests.
Later, the city received bids for the psychological testing that Campion had performed in the past. Campion submitted a bid but was rejected in favor of another firm.
"City officials in Minneapolis should base their contract decisions on experience and qualifications," said Raum. "Dr. Campion is a highly qualified, experienced professional, and the city was absolutely wrong to fire him."
(Washington, D.C.) - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) today praised a ruling by the U.S. District Court in Springfield, Illinois denying a motion by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a former Wal-Mart pharmacist arising out of his suspension for refusing to sell "Plan B" and other drugs he considers abortifacient. In a decision released late yesterday, Judge Jeanne E. Scott of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, ruling in the case of Ethan Vandersand v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., held that Vandersand has the right to proceed with his case against Wal-Mart under both the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act and Title VII, the federal statute that prohibits employment discrimination.
"This ruling is a huge step forward in the ongoing struggle to ensure legal recognition of pharmacists' right to practice their chosen profession without violating their moral and professional integrity," said Francis J. Manion, ACLJ Senior Counsel. "Wal-Mart's arguments, now soundly rejected by this Court, may no longer be used by corporate or governmental officials to squeeze out of the profession pharmacists with a high regard for the sanctity of all human life."
The case is one of a series of similar cases that have arisen since April of 2005 when Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich issued an Executive Order requiring that all Illinois retail pharmacies make available "without delay" Plan B and other forms of "emergency contraception." More than a dozen Illinois pharmacists who voiced religious objections to dispensing the drugs have been fired or suspended over the issue by employers purportedly implementing the Governor's order.
Ethan Vandersand, who worked at a Wal-Mart pharmacy in Beardstown, Illinois, was suspended by Wal-Mart after he responded to a telephone inquiry from a Planned Parenthood nurse about whether or not he dispensed Plan B. In his lawsuit he contends that it is his right to step away from prescriptions such as Plan B and that, by suspending him, Wal-Mart violated both the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act and Title VII. In support of its motion to dismiss the case, Wal-Mart argued that the Right of Conscience Act did not cover pharmacists and that, under the Act's definitions, pharmacists are not considered health care providers who participate in the furnishing of health care services. The retailer also contended that it could not accommodate Vandersand's beliefs (as required by Title VII) because it was merely implementing the Governor's Executive Order.
In rejecting each of Wal-Mart's arguments, Judge Scott held that the plain language of the Right of Conscience Act, the language of which speaks in terms of "any person," unquestionably shows that it covers pharmacists, and that they are to be considered health care providers who participate in the furnishing of health care services. The court likewise rejected the Title VII argument, pointing out that the Governor's Order placed a duty on pharmacy owners not on individual pharmacists, leaving it up to the owners to fashion a policy for complying with the Order without violating the rights of their individual pharmacist employees.
Manion also said, "In enacting the Right of Conscience Act, the people of Illinois expressed their desire to have the State and private individuals respect the consciences of all the state's citizens when it comes to participating in morally controversial medical services. That this mandate includes pharmacists should never have been in dispute. That it took a lawsuit to establish what should have been obvious from the language of the Act is a testament to the ingenuity of some in our society who would place political advantage or the corporate bottom-line above fundamental human rights. It also shows the need for vigilance and resolve in resisting such encroachments on our freedom."
ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said: "This ruling highlights the importance of our organization's continuing work in this crucial area of protecting religious liberties. The ACLJ is currently involved in a dozen cases across the country seeking to protect the right of conscience and this ruling demonstrates that our work is bearing fruit."
The American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and through its global affiliates works to protect religious freedom and liberty in more than 36 countries worldwide. The ACLJ is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
Seeking to safeguard the rights of pharmacists and pharmacies who choose not to stock or distribute abortion-inducing drugs on religious and moral grounds, ADF attorneys and allied attorneys filed a lawsuit Wednesday in federal court. They also asked the court on Thursday to halt enforcement of newly-passed regulations in the state while the case against the new rules moves forward.
The regulations mandate that pharmacies stock and dispense the so-called "morning-after" pill regardless of whether doing so would violate a health care provider's conscience.
"The government cannot force pro-life or any other health care providers to violate their conscience simply to appease a political agenda," said ADF-allied attorney Kristen Waggoner of Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry, PLLC. "The morning-after pill is widely accessible in this state. The handful of health care providers who have a strong moral objection to participating in taking innocent human life should be allowed to refer customers to someone who does not have a moral objection to stocking or dispensing the drug. Under the new rules, their rights are not respected and they may lose their jobs."
Before the new regulations passed, Kevin Stormans, an owner of Ralph's Thriftway, received a call inquiring about whether the store supplied the pill. After Stormans told the caller that Ralph's did not carry it, he received numerous complaints via phone and e-mail from unidentified individuals. After researching the pill and its effects, Stormans, a Christian, concluded the store would not stock it based on religious and moral grounds. A few activists then began to picket Ralph's and filed complaints with the Washington Board of Pharmacy. The board initiated an investigation about the store's position but took no action. It later opened another investigation against Ralph's and referred the matter to its legal counsel for further review.
ADF and its allied attorneys represent Stormans, Inc., along with two Christian pharmacists, Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen. Both choose not to dispense the pill based on their moral and religious beliefs about the sanctity of human life. The pill can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. Some health care providers, including the plaintiffs, believe that human life begins at fertilization and that the pill destroys innocent life.
"Health care providers should not be forced to choose between keeping their jobs and adhering to their faith and moral code," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. "Honoring a person's right of conscience will not stop anyone from having their prescriptions filled."
In March 2006, ADF attorneys sent a letter to the pharmacy board urging them to adopt a "conscience clause" protecting the right of conscience for pharmacists (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3706).
ANN ARBOR, MI - The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief supporting the right of physicians to refuse to perform medical procedures that violate their sincerely held religious convictions. The brief was filed in a case pending before the California Supreme Court, North Coast Women's Care v. Benitiz.
In that case Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian, sued two doctors who refused to artificially inseminate her-alleging that the doctors discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation in violation of California's civil rights act. The doctors assert that they cannot be held liable for refusing to provide treatment based upon their sincerely held religious convictions because California's constitution protects their right to the free exercise of religion. Benitez is represented by the LAMBDA Legal Defense Fund, one of the leading organizations promoting the homosexual agenda.
According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, "Forcing doctors to violate their conscience smacks of Nazi Germany. Doctors are not 'needles for hire.' Benitez received treatment from other doctors. Her effort to punish these doctors is a mean-spirited effort to exact a pound of flesh from those who refuse to bow to the homosexual agenda based on sincerely held religious conviction."
Patrick T. Gillen, the attorney who authored the brief for the Law Center, observed that the case has broad implications for religious liberty. He noted, "if the California Supreme Court accepts Bentiz's argument, the protection that California's constitution provides to the free exercise of religion will be practically meaningless. The California Supreme Court should hold that California's religious liberty provision bars Benitez from holding these doctors liable for their refusal to provide medical care based upon their sincerely held religious convictions."
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Christian Medical Association (CMA, ), the nation's largest faith-based organization of physicians, today issued a statement criticizing the California Attorney General's legal attack on physicians' freedom to refuse to participate in abortions on the basis of conscience. In the case, Lockyer v. United States, heard this month by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the state Attorney General has challenged the constitutionality of a federal statute that provides conscience protections for healthcare providers regarding abortion.
The legislation, known as the Weldon Amendment, provides that no federal agency or program nor any state or local government receiving certain federal funds may discriminate against healthcare providers because they refuse to perform or refer patients for abortions. The Center for Law and Religious Freedom is representing the Christian Medical Association as Intervenor- Defendants in the case.
CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens noted, "The Attorney General's attack on conscience protections is essentially an attack on the First Amendment freedoms of healthcare providers who wish to act consistently with their religious or ethical standards. Our country was founded by individuals who had personally experienced the pain of overreaching governments that tried to force them to deny their religious beliefs. That's why the United States has historically prevented governments from tramping over the religious freedom of expression in the form of conscientious objection.
"The state Attorney General's opposition to these freedoms specifically targets and threatens faith-based hospitals, clinics and providers who provide irreplaceable services to underprivileged patients who otherwise would have nowhere to turn for help. These institutions and individuals will not compromise their conviction that abortion immorally ends a human life. Is the state of California prepared to shut down these vitally needed faith-based hospitals and clinics?"
Senior Vice President and OB/GYN Dr. Gene Rudd added, "Hopefully the court will recognize not only the constitutional freedoms for healthcare providers with deeply held convictions, but also recognize the political motivation behind this attack on conscience protections. If fewer physicians objected to abortion as immoral and unethical, pro-abortion forces would not have to be attempting to force physicians to perform abortions. It is sadly ironic that those who march under the banner of choice are trying to force others to conform to their beliefs.
"It is imperative that we protect the ethical integrity of physicians and the medical profession by allowing them to act on their ethical convictions. We do not want a nation of doctors without conscience."
SAN FRANCISCO - An attorney with the Christian Legal Society will be available for comments to the media outside the Burton U.S. Courthouse immediately following Friday's hearing in State of California v. United States of America, a federal lawsuit involving the conscience rights of pro-life physicians.
"California seeks to fine and criminally prosecute pro-life doctors because they refuse to perform abortions, but the choice of physicians to obey their conscience should not be a crime," said Litigation Counsel M. Casey Mattox of CLS's Center for Law & Religious Freedom. "We are hopeful that the district court will uphold the Weldon Amendment's critical protection for the consciences of pro-life healthcare workers."
Attorneys with CLS and the Alliance Defense Fund represent members of the Christian Medical Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants. The groups intervened in the case because of its effects on their right to refuse to provide abortions and abortion referrals.
Mattox will be asking the court to uphold the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment. Bill Lockyer, the attorney general of California, filed suit against the U.S. government in January 2005, claiming the amendment is unconstitutional. The statute forbids state and local governments that receive federal funds from discriminating against healthcare providers because they refuse to perform or refer patients for abortions.
A lawsuit filed by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys on behalf of a nurse demoted for refusing to distribute the morning-after pill will be permitted to go forward. A Louisiana court today informed an ADF-allied attorney that the denial of the hospital's motion for summary judgment is official.
"This case is about protecting a person's freedom of conscience, particularly when it is guided by religious beliefs," said ADF-allied attorney Brian Arabie of Lake Charles. "The hospital acted unlawfully when it refused to make a reasonable accommodation for Ms. Lemly and instead terminated her full-time position."
Lemly informed hospital staff that she objected to administering the "morning after" abortion pill because of her religious beliefs. In response, St. Tammany Parish Hospital fired Lemly from her full-time position and reduced her to part-time status, working only three days a week. Her demotion resulted in a significant reduction in pay and the loss of employee benefits. The hospital declined several reasonable suggestions made by Lemly, a nurse for 23 years, that would have enabled the facility to continue administering the pill while allowing her to abstain from dispensing it herself. The hospital chose not to act on any of her suggestions.
"Ms. Lemly provided St. Tammany Parish Hospital with options that would have accommodated both her full-time position and their wish to distribute the morning-after abortion pill," Arabie said. "Instead, the hospital chose to engage in discrimination based on her courageous commitment to the unborn. We are pleased that we will now be able to continue to pursue justice on her behalf."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.