From the Center for Reproductive Rights:
11.19.2019 Today, a California federal judge became the
third judge in the U.S. to strike down the Trump Administration’s Denial
of Care rule in its entirety. U.S. District Judge William Alsup also
upheld the third party standing of reproductive rights physicians to
bring cases on behalf of their patients and applied that doctrine to
cover physicians bringing claims on behalf of LGBTQ patients, explaining
that the rights of physicians and plaintiffs in these contexts are
closely intertwined.
The vacated rule would empower an immensely
broad array of healthcare workers, including receptionists and ambulance
drivers, to turn away and refuse to serve patients based on moral or
religious grounds. Patients seeking services like contraception,
abortion, or gender affirming care would be most impacted by the rule.
The lawsuit was filed by the County of Santa Clara, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Lambda Legal, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Mayer Brown LLP.
In his ruling, Judge Alsup wrote:
“The New Rule sets forth new
definitions of statutory terms that conflict with the statutes
themselves—expansive definitions that would upset the balance drawn by
Congress between protecting conscientious objectors versus facilitating
the uninterrupted provision of health care to Americans.”
“Under the rule, a clerk scheduling
surgeries for an operating room could refuse to reserve slots for
abortions and sterilizations. So could an employee who merely sterilizes
and places surgical instruments or ensures that the supply cabinets in
the operating room are fully stocked in preparation for an abortion. For
the reasons already stated, the Church Amendment was never intended to
apply to those who have no role in the actual performance of the
abortion or sterilization. Neither those who schedule abortions nor
those who prepare an operating room assist in the performance of such a
procedure under the Church Amendment.”
“Doctors and their patients have a
confidential relationship, especially when it comes to asserting rights
related to invasive procedures and treatments. Furthermore, most of the
medical procedures at issue here such as abortions, gender-affirming
surgery, and HIV treatments cannot be safely secured without the aid of a
physician. The rights of the individual physician plaintiffs and their
patients here are thus closely intertwined.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this
order holds the rule is “not in accordance with law,” by reason of
conflict with the underlying statutes and is in conflict with the
balance struck by Congress in harmonizing protection of conscience
objections vis-a-vis the uninterrupted flow of health care to Americans.
When a rule is so saturated with error, as here, there is no point in
trying to sever the problematic provisions. The whole rule must go.”
Earlier this month, federal judges in New
York and Washington also vacated the entire rule in separate cases.
Dozens of states, municipalities, providers, and advocacy groups have
challenged the rule through various lawsuits around the country. The
lawsuits emphasize that this confusing policy would incentivize health
care providers to eliminate reproductive healthcare and LGBTQ care
altogether, leaving millions across the country without access to
critical health care, including in regions that might otherwise
prioritize maintaining access to this essential care. The Rule is
especially dangerous because it has no emergency exception.
“We are grateful the Court recognized the
unchecked discrimination against women and LGBTQ patients that could
occur under this rule, even in medical emergencies,” said Genevieve Scott, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights.
“Discrimination in any context is egregious, but allowing someone’s
religious or moral views to effectively veto a patient’s medical choice
could have deadly consequences. It is out of line with any reasonable
understanding of law or medical ethics that a receptionist, who is not
directly involved in providing medical care, could turn away patients,
or that an EMT could refuse to transport a patient with a
life-threatening ectopic pregnancy.”
The Denial of Care Rule was issued in May by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and it applies to
virtually every kind of healthcare provider. Health care facilities
risk losing all federal funding if they do not grant employees carte
blanche to deny information and services. Because the Rule is
infeasible to implement, if allowed to go into effect, it would coerce
many health care facilities to eliminate reproductive healthcare and
LGBTQ healthcare, leaving millions across the United States without
access to critical healthcare.
Plaintiffs in the case include the County of
Santa Clara, which runs an extensive health and hospital system that
serves as a safety-net provider for the county’s 1.9 million residents;
the health providers Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Community Center in
Allentown, Pa., Center on Halsted in Chicago, Hartford GYN in
Connecticut, Los Angeles LGBT Center, Mazzoni Center in Philadelphia,
Trust Women Seattle and Whitman-Walker Health in Washington, D.C.; the
associations AGLP, GLMA and Medical Students for Choice; and five
doctors.
###
