User login
A federal court has struck down a Trump administration rule that would have allowed clinicians to refuse to provide medical care to patients for religious or moral reasons.
In a Nov. 6 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated President Trump’s rule in its entirety, concluding that the rule had no justification and that its provisions were arbitrary and capricious. In his 147-page opinion, District Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote that the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services did not have the authority to enact such an expansive rule and that the measure conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act, among other laws.
“Had the court found only narrow parts of the rule infirm, a remedy tailoring the vacatur to only the problematic provision might well have been viable,” Judge Engelmayer wrote. “The [Administrative Procedure Act] violations that the court has found, however, are numerous, fundamental, and far reaching ... In these circumstances, a decision to leave standing isolated shards of the rule that have not been found specifically infirm would ignore the big picture: that the rulemaking exercise here was sufficiently shot through with glaring legal defects as to not justify a search for survivors [and] leaving stray nonsubstantive provisions intact would not serve a useful purpose.”
At press time, the Trump administration had not indicated whether they plan to file an appeal.
Clare Coleman, president & CEO for the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, a plaintiff in the case, said the organization was heartened by the ruling and that the judge’s decision protects health care for millions of Americans.
“The court safeguarded the public’s health by striking down the Trump administration’s health care refusal rule,” Ms. Coleman said in a statement. “This unlawful rule is an outright attack on the health and wellness of millions of people across the country, and the court heard clear and compelling arguments about the harm communities face when our health care system is distorted to the point in which a patient’s health care needs are not paramount.”
The conscience rule, finalized in May 2019 by HHS, would have allowed clinicians to refuse care to patients if they deemed that care was in conflict with their religious or moral beliefs. The provisions principally – although not exclusively – addressed objections to abortion, sterilization, and assisted suicide, as well as counseling and referrals associated with these services.
According to HHS, the final rule fulfills President Trump’s promise to promote and protect rights of conscience and religious liberty. “This rule ensures that health care 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,” Roger Severino, director of the Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement. “Protecting conscience and religious freedom not only fosters greater diversity in health care, it’s the law.”
The judge’s order invalidating the rule consolidated three legal challenges against HHS over the rule. Plaintiffs included more than 15 states, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, among others. The plaintiffs argued that the rule, scheduled to take effect on Nov. 22, would have threatened the ability of clinicians to provide essential, potentially life-saving medical care and would have exacerbated health disparities.
Stephanie Taub, senior counsel at the First Liberty Institute, an organization that represents religious freedom cases, said the court’s decision leaves health care professionals across America vulnerable to being forced “to perform, facilitate, or refer for procedures that violate their conscience.”
“The Trump administration’s HHS protections would ensure that health care professionals are free to work consistent with their religious beliefs while providing the best care to their patients,” Ms. Taub said in a statement.
The court’s decision comes less than a week after another district judge temporarily blocked an order by President Trump that would make having health insurance, or the ability to pay for medical care, a requirement for immigrants seeking U.S. visas. In that case, the judge said there are serious questions about whether President Trump’s immigration rule was arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The order is on hold while the case continues through the courts.
A federal court has struck down a Trump administration rule that would have allowed clinicians to refuse to provide medical care to patients for religious or moral reasons.
In a Nov. 6 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated President Trump’s rule in its entirety, concluding that the rule had no justification and that its provisions were arbitrary and capricious. In his 147-page opinion, District Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote that the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services did not have the authority to enact such an expansive rule and that the measure conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act, among other laws.
“Had the court found only narrow parts of the rule infirm, a remedy tailoring the vacatur to only the problematic provision might well have been viable,” Judge Engelmayer wrote. “The [Administrative Procedure Act] violations that the court has found, however, are numerous, fundamental, and far reaching ... In these circumstances, a decision to leave standing isolated shards of the rule that have not been found specifically infirm would ignore the big picture: that the rulemaking exercise here was sufficiently shot through with glaring legal defects as to not justify a search for survivors [and] leaving stray nonsubstantive provisions intact would not serve a useful purpose.”
At press time, the Trump administration had not indicated whether they plan to file an appeal.
Clare Coleman, president & CEO for the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, a plaintiff in the case, said the organization was heartened by the ruling and that the judge’s decision protects health care for millions of Americans.
“The court safeguarded the public’s health by striking down the Trump administration’s health care refusal rule,” Ms. Coleman said in a statement. “This unlawful rule is an outright attack on the health and wellness of millions of people across the country, and the court heard clear and compelling arguments about the harm communities face when our health care system is distorted to the point in which a patient’s health care needs are not paramount.”
The conscience rule, finalized in May 2019 by HHS, would have allowed clinicians to refuse care to patients if they deemed that care was in conflict with their religious or moral beliefs. The provisions principally – although not exclusively – addressed objections to abortion, sterilization, and assisted suicide, as well as counseling and referrals associated with these services.
According to HHS, the final rule fulfills President Trump’s promise to promote and protect rights of conscience and religious liberty. “This rule ensures that health care 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,” Roger Severino, director of the Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement. “Protecting conscience and religious freedom not only fosters greater diversity in health care, it’s the law.”
The judge’s order invalidating the rule consolidated three legal challenges against HHS over the rule. Plaintiffs included more than 15 states, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, among others. The plaintiffs argued that the rule, scheduled to take effect on Nov. 22, would have threatened the ability of clinicians to provide essential, potentially life-saving medical care and would have exacerbated health disparities.
Stephanie Taub, senior counsel at the First Liberty Institute, an organization that represents religious freedom cases, said the court’s decision leaves health care professionals across America vulnerable to being forced “to perform, facilitate, or refer for procedures that violate their conscience.”
“The Trump administration’s HHS protections would ensure that health care professionals are free to work consistent with their religious beliefs while providing the best care to their patients,” Ms. Taub said in a statement.
The court’s decision comes less than a week after another district judge temporarily blocked an order by President Trump that would make having health insurance, or the ability to pay for medical care, a requirement for immigrants seeking U.S. visas. In that case, the judge said there are serious questions about whether President Trump’s immigration rule was arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The order is on hold while the case continues through the courts.
A federal court has struck down a Trump administration rule that would have allowed clinicians to refuse to provide medical care to patients for religious or moral reasons.
In a Nov. 6 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated President Trump’s rule in its entirety, concluding that the rule had no justification and that its provisions were arbitrary and capricious. In his 147-page opinion, District Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote that the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services did not have the authority to enact such an expansive rule and that the measure conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act, among other laws.
“Had the court found only narrow parts of the rule infirm, a remedy tailoring the vacatur to only the problematic provision might well have been viable,” Judge Engelmayer wrote. “The [Administrative Procedure Act] violations that the court has found, however, are numerous, fundamental, and far reaching ... In these circumstances, a decision to leave standing isolated shards of the rule that have not been found specifically infirm would ignore the big picture: that the rulemaking exercise here was sufficiently shot through with glaring legal defects as to not justify a search for survivors [and] leaving stray nonsubstantive provisions intact would not serve a useful purpose.”
At press time, the Trump administration had not indicated whether they plan to file an appeal.
Clare Coleman, president & CEO for the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, a plaintiff in the case, said the organization was heartened by the ruling and that the judge’s decision protects health care for millions of Americans.
“The court safeguarded the public’s health by striking down the Trump administration’s health care refusal rule,” Ms. Coleman said in a statement. “This unlawful rule is an outright attack on the health and wellness of millions of people across the country, and the court heard clear and compelling arguments about the harm communities face when our health care system is distorted to the point in which a patient’s health care needs are not paramount.”
The conscience rule, finalized in May 2019 by HHS, would have allowed clinicians to refuse care to patients if they deemed that care was in conflict with their religious or moral beliefs. The provisions principally – although not exclusively – addressed objections to abortion, sterilization, and assisted suicide, as well as counseling and referrals associated with these services.
According to HHS, the final rule fulfills President Trump’s promise to promote and protect rights of conscience and religious liberty. “This rule ensures that health care 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,” Roger Severino, director of the Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement. “Protecting conscience and religious freedom not only fosters greater diversity in health care, it’s the law.”
The judge’s order invalidating the rule consolidated three legal challenges against HHS over the rule. Plaintiffs included more than 15 states, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, among others. The plaintiffs argued that the rule, scheduled to take effect on Nov. 22, would have threatened the ability of clinicians to provide essential, potentially life-saving medical care and would have exacerbated health disparities.
Stephanie Taub, senior counsel at the First Liberty Institute, an organization that represents religious freedom cases, said the court’s decision leaves health care professionals across America vulnerable to being forced “to perform, facilitate, or refer for procedures that violate their conscience.”
“The Trump administration’s HHS protections would ensure that health care professionals are free to work consistent with their religious beliefs while providing the best care to their patients,” Ms. Taub said in a statement.
The court’s decision comes less than a week after another district judge temporarily blocked an order by President Trump that would make having health insurance, or the ability to pay for medical care, a requirement for immigrants seeking U.S. visas. In that case, the judge said there are serious questions about whether President Trump’s immigration rule was arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The order is on hold while the case continues through the courts.