Judge Strikes Down New Trump Rule On Religious Objections

18
FILE - In this Tuesday, May 21, 2019 file photo, August Mulvihill, of Norwalk, Iowa, center, holds a sign depicting a wire clothes hanger during a rally at the Statehouse in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest recent abortion bans. On Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2019, a federal judge in New York struck down a rule letting health care clinicians object to providing abortions and other services on moral or religious grounds. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a new Trump administration rule that could open the way for more health care workers to refuse to participate in abortions or other procedures on moral or religious grounds.

Join our WhatsApp group

Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer said the U.S. Health and Human Services Department overstepped its authority and went beyond existing law in issuing the rule. He also said that the measure could be costly, burdensome and damaging to emergency care and that the whole rationale for the rule was based on a lie.

He said the department’s claim that there was a significant increase in complaints about workers being forced to violate their conscience was “flatly untrue.” The HHS rule, he said, is a classic “solution in search of a problem.”

An HHS spokeswoman had no comment.

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, three local governments, health organizations and others had sued to block the rule from taking effect Nov. 22, arguing that it would be discriminatory and would interfere with people’s access to health care.

“Today, the Trump administration has been blocked from providing legal cover for discrimination,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president of Planned Parenthood. “As the federal district court made clear, the administration acted outside its authority and made false claims to try to justify this rule.”

Rosie Phillips Davis, president of the American Psychological Association, said the HHS rule “could have jeopardized the health of some of our most vulnerable populations, including women, LGBT people and people with HIV or AIDS.”

But Sen. Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican, called the ruling “absurd mush” and urged the Trump administration to appeal.

Health care institutions have long relied on federal Conscience Provisions first created in 1973 and amended since then that protected health care professionals from carrying out services that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs.

The new HHS rule broadens the list of health care personnel who can refuse to participate, expanding it to those who counsel, refer, train or make arrangements for a medical procedure.

It also restricts the ability of employers to inquire about employees’ objections and broadens the definition of health care entities to include pharmacists and medical laboratories.

Thus, the judge warned, a hospital or clinic receptionist who schedules appointments, an elevator operator or an ambulance driver could refuse on moral or religious grounds to do their jobs.

He said the rule could force some health care employers to double or triple staff, particularly during emergencies.

“These limits have clear potential to inhibit the employer’s ability to organize workplace arrangements to avoid inefficiencies and dislocations,” Engelmayer said.

Engelmayer, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, said HHS lacked authority to create major portions of the rule, including a provision that said a health care institution’s federal funding can be cut off for violating the measure.

He said it should be left to Congress to decide whether to change the laws regarding employers’ duty to accommodate religious objections.


Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


Connect with VINnews

Join our WhatsApp group


18 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Was a democrat then saw the light
Was a democrat then saw the light
4 years ago

Another leftest Obama appointee ruling that will be over turned like all the rest have been

Herman Segal
Herman Segal
4 years ago

No liberal am I; but I do see the Judge’s point. If an employee is anti gay, under Trump’s Executive Order he could refuse to treat someone who is effeminate. And the employee couldn’t be discriminated against because of his beliefs, including during hiring, wreaking havoc in the medical field.

Cixelsyd Wnosanoy
Cixelsyd Wnosanoy
4 years ago

Too many of you fail to understand the role of “tolerance” in our Constitutional scheme. The Constitution protects my right to religious practice and observance from governmental interference; but the Constitution does not allow me to discriminate against others in the public sphere simply because my religion defines those others as evil. And the Torah does not say anything contrary to this.

I am personally opposed to abortion. That said, someone show me where the Torah supports the position that a physician operating in a public hospital has any obligation or right to refuse to perform a legal abortion? Or to refuse treatment to a person who is gay?

There are fundamentalist Christians who still believe Jews killed their savior, and that Jews are an evil race condemned to perdition. Should the Constitution allow one of their physicians to refuse treatment to a Jew?

GoldnMedina
GoldnMedina
4 years ago

Another defeat for the evangelical xtians behind Disemboweled Donald. IMPEACHMENT STARTS NEXT WEEK. ENJOY!

qazxc
qazxc
4 years ago

Religion and politics are a combustible mixture.