Pro-Abortion Association, California AG Plans to File Suit Against Conscience Protection Amendment
''The Federal Refusal Clause is no technical fix - it actually creates a gaping hole that provides a huge incentive to deny America's most vulnerable women access to abortion services and coverage''
A pro-abortion association, whose members include Planned Parenthood, and the Attorney General of California have both announced plans to file suit against the newly-enacted Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment, which protects pro-life health care providers from being forced to provide or participate in abortions against their conscience.
The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) filed suit on Monday in federal District Court seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the new law, which was included in a $388 spending bill passed by Congress last month and signed into law by President Bush on Dec. 8.
The suit argues that the new amendment conflicts with federal regulations for the Title X family planning program requiring all institutions receiving Title X funding to provide referrals for abortion services to women who request that information.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
"The Federal Refusal Clause is no technical fix - it actually creates a gaping hole that provides a huge incentive to deny America's most vulnerable women access to abortion services and coverage, extending even to referrals for this sometimes life-saving health care option," said Judith DeSarno of NFPRHA.
"It tramples on medical ethics and calls into question Title X regulations designed to be consistent with such principles. The new law goes far beyond 'conscience' protections in current law that have long allowed health care providers to opt for providing or referring for abortion services if they have a moral or religious objection."
While some states have laws allowing health care providers to choose their conscience, the Weldon amendment applies to all 50 states and would withhold funds in the spending bill to local or federal government agencies that “subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” The subsection of the amendment expands the term “health care entity” to include hospitals, clinics, insurers and HMOs, and eliminates the requirement that refusal be based on moral or religious grounds.
"This lawsuit is the height of hypocrisy: A 'pro-choice' group is suing so that health care providers will have no choice but to participate in abortion," said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Esq., Director of Planning and Information for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, in statement issued in response to NFPRHA’s suit.
"Over a million abortions are done every year by willing abortion providers in this country -- now the abortion lobby wants Catholic and other health care providers with moral objections to be forced into the practice of abortion."
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer will also file suit against the amendment within weeks, on grounds that it violated state sovereignty guaranteed in the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. He also called it “a back-door attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
"It is frankly not surprising that a group like NFPRHA would rush to court," Ruse added. "When abortion activists fail in the democratic arena, as they so often do, they turn to the courts to achieve their goals."
