JOINT RESOLUTION CALLING COERCIVE HHS MANDATE & AFFIRMING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FOR RESCISSION OF THE. Model Legislation & Policy Guide

Similar documents
PRO-LIFE STATE RESOLUTION

MISSOURI PREAMBLE : A FRAMEWORK FOR DEFINING

DEFUNDING THE ABORTION INDUSTRY AND ADVANCING WOMEN S HEALTH ACT

Right to Use Contraception Does Not Mandate that Others Pay for or Facilitate Access to It

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

June 19, Submitted Electronically

October 8, Comments on Proposed Rules on Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act

IN THE UNITED STA I ES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:12-cv Doc #1 Filed 10/08/12 Page 1 of 31 Page ID#1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION

COMPLAINT. Comes now Plaintiff Belmont Abbey College, by and through its attorneys, and states as

Case 3:12-cv MJR-PMF Document 2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LEGAL MEMORANDUM. mandate should prevail, vindicating. this nation s cherished right to freedom of conscience.

Case 1:13-cv RCL Document 1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 09/04/13 Page 1 of 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 2:12-cv DDN Doc. #: 52 Filed: 06/14/13 Page: 1 of 28 PageID #: 549

PARENTAL NOTIFICATION OF ABORTION ACT. Model Legislation & Policy Guide For the 2013 Legislative Year

Case 4:12-cv Y Document 99 Filed 12/31/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 2155

Case 5:13-cv ODS Document 1 Filed 10/08/13 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiffs,

Case 2:13-cv AJS Document 1 Filed 10/08/13 Page 1 of 60

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:13-cv CG-C Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 1 of 49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME v. SEBELIUS

F.iV D 2G 2 21 AM 8: 55. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary. ofthe United States Department of. Health and Human Services,

THE DEFUNDING THE ABORTION INDUSTRY AND ADVANCING WOMEN S HEALTH ACT OF 2012

Case: 4:12-cv CEJ Doc. #: 19 Filed: 06/11/12 Page: 1 of 14 PageID #: 129

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 1 of 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PARENTAL CONSENT FOR ABORTION ACT

2:13-cv VAR-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/13 Pg 1 of 39 Pg ID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Case 1:13-cv RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION

Ethics and Politics. What should ethicists worry about in 2017? The Affordable Care Act

Case 1:13-cv AJS Document 1 Filed 10/08/13 Page 1 of 59

RECOMMENDED CITATION: Pew Research Center, March 2014, Health Care Law s Contraception Mandate Reaches the Supreme Court

Case 1:13-cv RLW Document 1 Filed 09/03/13 Page 1 of 40

The History and Effect of Abortion Conscience Clause Laws Summary Conscience clause laws allow medical providers to refuse to provide services to whic

November 24, 2017 [VIA ]

Catholic Voters and Religious Exemption Policies

Legislative Bill Tracking List 2018

On August 21, 2008, Secretary of Health and Human

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Health Care Law s Contraception Mandate Reaches the Supreme Court

December 16, Bill Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014

Nonprofit Organizations, For-profit Corporations, and the HHS Mandate: Why the Mandate Does Not Satisfy RFRA's Requirements

Money, Sex, and Religion The Supreme Court s ACA Sequel

CHAPTER IX: Population Policies

Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe & McNally, LLP July 15, Original Content

June 19, To Whom it May Concern:

Testimony of. Rev. Barry W. Lynn. Submitted to

Health Policy Briefing

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL JUSTICE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

A New Assault on Conscience

Church Litigation Update Conference Forum

Legislating Morality Progressively - The Contraceptive Coverage Mandate, Religious Freedom, and Public Health Policy and Ethics

Health Reform Law - Advisory Panels, Boards, Commissions, & Stakeholder Involvement

7501 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 700W Bethesda, MD Phone: Fax:

Kristy Wiese Lobbyist Capitol Advocacy LLC

Reconciling Equal Protection and Religious Liberty

Case 5:12-cv MSG Document 48 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 33 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Dianne Post 12 September Hobby Lobby: It s not just about contraception.

Office of the General Counsel

Guidance for the public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff: The Open Public Hearing at FDA Advisory Committee Meetings

Political Polling in Colorado: Wave 2 Research undertaken for Reuters

Don't Believe the Hype: The Real Effect of Hobby Lobby on Employers & Employees

Case 1:12-cv HSO-RHW Document 62 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 15

PENNSYLVANIA LOBBYING DISCLOSURE

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:1

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

American Nephrology Nurses Association. Weekly Capitol Hill Update Tuesday, December 15, Congressional Schedule

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA BAR ASSOCIATION WOMEN IN THE PROFESSION COMMISSION AMENDED RECOMMENDATION AND REPORT. Recommendation

Impact of the Election on the ACA

Health Care Reform: The Sequel

Case 2:13-cv JES-UAM Document 1 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 50 PageID 1

Case 1:13-cv EGS Document 32 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS OF COMPELLED PROFESSIONAL SPEECH IN STUART v. CAMNITZ. Erin K.

June 19, Submitted Electronically

ADVISORY Health Care SUPREME COURT RULES ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. June 29, 2012

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Legislative Report 2008 General Assembly Session

PARENTAL CONSENT FOR ABORTION ACT

President Trump Signs Executive Order Instructing Agencies to Minimize Burdens of the ACA

TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION

FDA REFORM LEGISLATION Its Effect on Animal Drugs TABLE OF CONTENTS

Promoting Merit in Merit Selection. A Best Practices Guide to Commission-Based Judicial Selection. Second Edition

Case 2:12-cv SLB Document 29-1 Filed 05/04/12 Page 1 of 34

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:58

Upcoming Rules Pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Spring 2013 Unified Agenda

Political Parties in the United States (HAA)

Case 2:12-cv JFC Document 74 Filed 03/06/13 Page 1 of 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Potential Effects of 2016 Elections on Medical Device Industry

FILED. Case 2: 12-cv SLB Document 1 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 28. the Labor,

Dear Members of the Judiciary Committee:

Case 4:17-cv HSG Document 87 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 19

WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE COUNSEL NEEDS TO KNOW

Transcription:

JOINT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR RESCISSION OF THE COERCIVE HHS MANDATE & AFFIRMING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE Model Legislation & Policy Guide For the 2013 Legislative Year 1

INTRODUCTION The Affordable Care Act (ACA), the federal healthcare law enacted in March 2010, presents an unprecedented threat to the conscience rights of health insurers and purchasers of healthcare insurance. Though the ACA makes a limited exception for certain religious groups who object to participating in government health programs generally, the law does not allow insurance purchasers, plan sponsors, and others with conscientious objections to decline providing or obtaining coverage for specific items or services. Instead, the ACA marks the first time that the federal government has sought to impose specific coverage or care requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of healthcare insurers and purchasers of health insurance. In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), adopted an ideologically-driven recommendation from an Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel, with several connections to abortion-advocacy groups, to interpret the preventive services for women provision of the ACA to require nearly all private health insurance plans to provide full coverage for certain abortion-inducing drugs and devices. The guidelines issued by the Health Resource Service Administration (HRSA), a sub-agency of the HHS, mandate that insurance plans cover, without a co-pay, all FDA-approved contraceptives. These guidelines explicitly include sterilization and so-called emergency contraception such as the abortion-inducing drug Ulipristal Acetate (ella), which can kill a human embryo even after implantation. Mandated coverage for ella opens the door to off-label, intended-abortion usage of the drug being funded by all health insurance plans The limited conscience protection approved by HHS for what it has defined as religious employers is exceedingly narrow and leaves vulnerable many insurers and purchasers of insurance who object to such funding. Most religiously-affiliated schools, hospitals, and charitable organizations would not be included in the exceptions protection. Moreover, nonreligiously affiliated institutions, employers, and individuals whose pro-life consciences are nonetheless violated by the mandate are unquestionably left unprotected by the limited conscience protection. The so-called safe harbor for certain religiously affiliated non-profits is likewise insufficient. As proposed, it merely provides a one-year extension on the expiration date for the conscience rights of those it purports to protect. Suggestions by HHS of a future accommodation also fail to adequately protect conscience. Rather, HHS made clear in its March 2012 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that it will force those with religious, moral, or ethical objections to comply with the mandate by facilitating insurance plans with the objectionable coverage. 2

The damage done by the mandate will be hard to counteract once the insurance market stops respecting the freedom of conscience. The mandate began affecting plans in August 2012, and many pro-life Americans are already forced to pay for insurance coverage of life-ending drugs and devices despite their conscientious objection. By design, the mandate has a rolling start, and each month more plans will be forced to align with the HHS agenda. Polls consistently show that more Americans oppose the mandate than support it and that the majority approve of conscience exemptions. This belief that freedom of conscience is of paramount importance has been at the heart of the American experience since our nation s founding. Thomas Jefferson wrote, No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority. In response and to assist legislators and others wishing to voice opposition to the mandate, AUL has developed a Joint Resolution Calling for the Rescission of the Coercive HHS Mandate & Affirming Freedom of Conscience. For more information or assistance, please contact AUL s Legislative Coordinator at (202) 741-4907 or Legislation@AUL.org. AUL legal and policy experts are available for advice and to assist with drafting a state-specific version of this resolution. DENISE M. BURKE, ESQ. Vice President of Legal Affairs Americans United for Life 3

JOINT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR RESCISSION OF THE COERCIVE HHS MANDATE & AFFIRMING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE JOINT RESOLUTION No. BY REPRESENTATIVES/SENATORS WHEREAS, contrary to the stated intent of the Affordable Care Act s preventive services provision to prevent diseases, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate includes drugs and devices with known life-ending mechanisms of action, including the abortion-inducing drug ella; WHEREAS, mandated coverage for ella opens the door to off-label, intended-abortion usage of the drug being funded by all health insurance plans; [WHEREAS, the established policy of [Insert name of State] provides [Insert appropriate description of and reference(s) to any state policies against public funding for abortion and/or abortion-inducing drugs]]; WHEREAS, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which advised HHS on what should be included in the preventive services mandate, had an abortion-advocacy bias in its panel membership, as well as its invited presenters; WHEREAS, several members of the IOM panel have direct ties to Planned Parenthood as well as other openly pro-abortion organizations. In addition, at the IOM s first meeting, groups invited to speak on women s issues included Planned Parenthood, the nation s largest abortion provider, which as a distributor of contraceptives, stands to gain tremendously if health insurance plans are required to cover contraceptives without co-pay. Planned Parenthood s financial stake was never disclosed as a conflict of interest; WHEREAS, dissenting from the IOM recommendation, committee member Dr. Anthony Lo Sasso criticized the committee s lack of transparency and creation of an advocacy-based recommendation, The committee process for evaluation of the evidence lacked transparency and was largely subject to the preferences of the committee s composition. Troublingly, the process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy. ; 4

WHEREAS, the Founders of the United States believed protecting the freedom of conscience was of utmost importance. Thomas Jefferson wrote, No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority. ; WHEREAS, the Affordable Care Act, states explicitly that Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding (i) conscience protection ; WHEREAS, in contrast to the principles of long-standing federal laws which recognize a right not to be coerced into participating in abortion, sterilization, and other services contrary to his [or her] religious or moral convictions, the HHS mandate leaves most Americans no option but to purchase and maintain insurance plans that cover the abortion-inducing drug ella, sterilization, and other contraceptive items, devices, and services to which they may have a sincerely held ethical, moral, or religious objection; WHEREAS, the HHS mandate disrupts the conscience protections provided for in the laws of several states, supplanting the reasoned judgment of the states with an ideologically-driven, coercive measure; [WHEREAS, the constitution of [Insert name of State] provides [Insert appropriate description of and reference(s) to provisions protecting freedom of conscience/freedom of religion or religious expression]]; [WHEREAS, the law of [Insert name of State] provides [Insert appropriate description of and reference(s) to statute(s) and other law(s) protecting freedom of conscience/freedom of religion or religious expression]]; and [WHEREAS, the established policy of [Insert name of State] provides [Insert appropriate description of and reference(s) to any state policies protecting the freedom of conscience/freedom of religion or religious expression]]. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF [INSERT NAME OF STATE]: Section 1. That the [Legislature] calls on Congress to enact legislation ensuring that no provision of the Affordable Care Act may be used to mandate coverage for drugs, devices, procedures, or services with life-ending mechanisms of action. 5

Section 2. That the [Legislature] calls on the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to rescind its mandated coverage for all FDA approved contraceptives and sterilization. Section 3. That the [Legislature] strongly supports the federal Respect for Rights of Conscience Act [and/or other similar and already introduced federal legislation protecting the freedom of conscience] to ensure consistency with longstanding federal law and policy [and the laws and policies of this State] protecting the freedom of conscience. Section 4. That the Secretary of State of [Insert name of State] transmit a copy of this resolution to the Governor; to the President of the United States; to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; and to each individual member of [Insert name of State] s Congressional delegation. 6

More detailed information about abortion-inducing drugs and the need to protection the freedom of conscience can be found in AUL s annual publication Defending Life 2012: Building a Culture of Life, Deconstructing the Abortion Industry and on our website: www.aul.org. Defending Life 2012 is available online at AUL.org or for purchase at Amazon.com. For further information regarding this or other AUL policy guides, please contact: AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE 655 15th Street NW, Suite 410 Washington DC 20005 202.289.1478 Fax 202.289.1473 Legislation@AUL.org www.aul.org 2012 Americans United for Life This policy guide may be copied and distributed freely as long as the content remains unchanged and Americans United for Life is referenced as the creator and owner of this content. 7