Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s ‘Conscience’ Rule, Calling It Unconstitutionally Coercive, Arbitrary
The rule makes it easier for medical personnel to avoid assisting in procedures that they say violates their morals. "Wherever the outermost line where persuasion gives way to coercion lies, the threat to pull all HHS funding here crosses it," said U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan, noting that the rule would have let HHS withhold billions from hospitals, clinics, universities and other healthcare providers that did not comply. Engelmayer also wrote that the “stated justification for undertaking rule making in the first place — a purported ‘significant increase’ in civilian complaints relating to the conscience provisions — was factually untrue.”
The New York Times:
Judge Voids Trump-Backed ‘Conscience Rule’ For Health Workers
A federal judge on Wednesday voided the Trump administration’s “conscience rule,” which would have made it easier for health care workers to avoid assisting with abortion or other medical procedures on religious or moral grounds. Hospitals, insurance companies or local governments that violated their employees’ rights under the rule could have faced a loss of federal funds. (Weiser and Sanger-Katz, 11/6)
Reuters:
Trump's 'Conscience' Rule For Healthcare Workers Struck Down By U.S. Judge
U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan said the "conscience" rule was unconstitutionally coercive because it would let the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) withhold billions of dollars of funding from hospitals, clinics, universities and other healthcare providers that did not comply. "Wherever the outermost line where persuasion gives way to coercion lies, the threat to pull all HHS funding here crosses it," Engelmayer wrote in a 147-page decision. (Stempel, 11/6)
The Wall Street Journal:
Federal Judge Strikes Down Rule On Conscience Provisions For Medical Providers
“The court’s finding that the rule was promulgated arbitrarily and capriciously calls into question the validity and integrity of the rulemaking venture itself,” U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote in his decision. “Indeed, the Court has found that HHS’s stated justification for undertaking rulemaking in the first place—a purported ’significant increase’ in civilian complaints relating to the conscience provisions—was factually untrue.” (Armour, 11/6)
Medpage Today:
Federal Judge Voids 'Conscience Rule'
Two sets of arguments underpinned the plaintiffs' case. One was procedural: that the "Conscience Provisions" to which Engelmayer referred -- stipulations in several existing laws that aimed to protect against religious discrimination on the job, which HHS claimed as its statutory authority -- don't give HHS the authority "to promulgate regulations with the force of law, or to withhold all federal funds for violating such laws," as the judge put it in summarizing the plaintiffs' arguments. Additionally, the administration's process for developing the rule failed to follow established procedures and violated a number of other statutes, including the Affordable Care Act. The other set was constitutional. One of these was grounded in the First Amendment, in that the rule requires employers "to conform their business practices to the religious practices of their employees." (Gever, 11/6)
Modern Healthcare:
Trump's Religious Conscience Rule For Providers Gets Blocked Nationally
The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association and Public Health Solutions, the plaintiffs in the suit, said the rule would force providers to employ individuals who refuse to perform essential job functions, without regard for the well-being of patients or public safety. For instance, they argued, a hospital receptionist could refuse to schedule an appointment for a patient seeking gender dysphoria treatment, or an orderly could refuse to transfer a patient to the operating room for an emergency abortion. (Meyer, 11/6)
The Washington Post:
Trump’s ‘Conscience Rule’ For Health Providers Blocked By Federal Judge
Many physician and health advocacy groups contended that the rule would have disproportionately harmed certain groups of patients, including LGBTQ patients. “We are heartened by today’s ruling, and we will not stop fighting to prioritize patients’ need for standard medical care over health-care personnels’ personal religious or moral beliefs,” the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association said in a statement. (Abutaleb, 11/6)
Politico:
New York Judge Tosses Trump Administration's Conscience Rule
The ruling is part of an ongoing series of legal battles as administration officials boost socially conservative policies in federally funded health programs. The most high-profile example is the Title X family planning program, where Planned Parenthood is fiercely fighting new restrictions that have prompted the clinics to withdraw from the program. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said the agency along with the Justice Department is reviewing the court's opinion, "so will not comment on the pending litigation at this time." Backers of the rule say it protects health care workers from having to violate their personal beliefs. (Luthi, 11/6)
NPR:
Judge Scraps 'Conscience' Rule Protecting Doctors Who Deny Care For Religious Reasons
Complaints of such violations are relatively rare — for a decade, the office would receive an average of one complaint like this each year. Severino frequently pointed to a jump in those complaints to 343 last year as proving the need for this rule. He attributed that increase to a strong message from his office that they were "open for business" when it came to issues of religious freedom. However, that increase in the number of complaints is "demonstrably false," according to Engelmayer's ruling. Nearly 80% of all the complaints given to the court were about vaccinations — unrelated to health care workers and their religious beliefs in providing care. (Simmons-Duffin and Dwyer, 11/6)
CNN:
Judge Blocks Trump Administration 'Conscience Rule' For Health Care Workers
The so-called conscience rule, which was slated to go into effect on November 22, has drawn eight challenges across four different federal district courts filed by a slew of states and reproductive health groups. Reproductive rights advocates argue that the rule would hurt those seeking reproductive care and in the LGBTQ community, with the idea of religious liberty used to justify endangering patients. (Kelly, 11/6)
The Hill:
Judge Strikes Down Trump Rule On Health Care 'Conscience' Rights
The Trump administration had touted the rule as important protection for people’s religious beliefs, specifically citing abortion. “This rule ensures that healthcare entities and professionals won’t be bullied out of the health care field because they decline to participate in actions that violate their conscience, including the taking of human life,” Department of Health and Human Services official Roger Severino said when the rule was proposed in May. (Sullivan, 11/6)
CQ:
Judge Blocks HHS Rule Affecting Abortion And LGBT Rights
Lawmakers and legal groups were quick to respond to the ruling Wednesday. “This decision is absurd mush. The point of the First Amendment — especially the free exercise of religion — is to protect the conscience rights of Americans,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., a Senate Judiciary Committee member. “The Trump Administration ought to defend basic conscience rights all the way to the Supreme Court.” First Liberty Institute, a religious liberty legal organization, similarly slammed the ruling. (Raman, 11/6)
