Federal Judge Ends Moral and Religious Exemptions to Abortion For Healthcare Providers

Advertisement

Thanks to a federal judge’s ruling, Christians and other pro-life individuals in the healthcare industry are now slaves to a medical industry that no longer seems to care about its mandate to “first, do no harm.” 

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York struck down a Trump administration rule that allowed countless doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers to honor their consciences and refuse to take the lives of an unborn child or  participate in “gender reassignment” procedures as well as other medical procedures they may object to morally.

After hordes of pro-abortion advocates and organizations sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Engelmayer ruled that the “conscience rule” was too coercive as it enabled HHS to withhold billions in federal funding from health care providers who did not comply. 

“This decision leaves health care professionals across America vulnerable to being forced to perform, facilitate or refer for procedures that violate their conscience,” said Stephanie Taub, senior counsel for the First Liberty Institute, according to NBC News. “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.”

Naturally, opponents of the rule praised the open show of totalitarianism and applauded Judge Engelmayer’s stripping away of clinicians’ rights in favor of “inclusivity.”

“Today’s decision is an important victory against the Trump administration’s cruel and unlawful attempts to roll back critical patient protections,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney with the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the plaintiffs against HHS. “Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, but religious beliefs do not include a license to discriminate, to deny essential care, or to cause harm to others.”

Can we please get some consistency, here? Is abortion no different than having a mole removed, as some pro-aborts say, or is it “essential care”? And why is no one pointing out the irony of discriminating against pro-life clinicians? In our society, anyway, everyone is entitled to believe murdering children is okay (although it is most certainly not okay regardless of what anyone believes) but those beliefs do not include a license to force others to participate in the act!

“The refusal of care rule was an unlawful attempt to allow health care providers to openly discriminate and refuse to provide necessary health care to patients based on providers’ ‘religious beliefs or moral objections,’” chimed in New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the lawsuit for the states. “We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to protect access to health care and protect the rights of all individuals.”

The doublespeak is too painful. They will protect the rights of “all individuals,” except those pesky doctors who refuse to kill children…or the individuals in the womb who are given no choice whether they live or die. 

If you appreciate the work we are doing to fight the leftist assault on our values, please consider a small donation to help us continue. Thank you so much!

Sponsor