The Division comes as a win for many conservatives, Asma Uddin, founder of AltMuslimah.com, states, “It’s about implementing the religious liberties that are already there,” she said. “It’s significant in contrast to the years of litigations.” Particularly, the division will sanction many health care professionals currently fighting the issue of freedom of conscience and religion, including Sara Hellwege, a nurse-midwife who was denied a job at a health center as per her refusal to prescribe prescription contraception. Her denial was on basis that the practice operated along a state program that relied on prescription of contraceptive for family planning. Hellwege then sued, stating that her right to Freedom of exercise was violated, as she was discriminated against during the application process due to her beliefs. This case, alongside the new division of the HHS proposes the valid question of, how does the civil magistrate constitutionally draw the line between the obligation of a citizen’s morality and their secular obligations as a health care professional? More impeding, is it an infringement on freedom to exercise religion for a health care center to deny applicants based on their inability to preform medical procedures that aren’t consistent with their own religious beliefs?I do believe that Hellweges application denial was unconstitutional. The Church Act of 1973 protects an individual’s freedom of Religion and Conscience, the act allows medical professionals to object a procedure on grounds that it violates their religious beliefs, “[entities can not] discriminate in the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel,…because he refused to perform or assist in the performance of such a procedure or abortion on the grounds that his performance or assistance…would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral convictions respecting sterilization procedures or abortions.” Furthermore, this point is driven if you apply the infamous court decision of Roe V. Wade which states, “Neither physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required to perform any act
Although, to see the broader scope of the Trump Administration’s newest provision to the HHS, I think it is within basis to bring up what implications the department may now have on the decisions of Freedom of Religion and Conscience cases. The department could very well cause people to cite their right to not treat many patients, based on controversial issues other than actual medical procedures, possibly such as sexual orientation and gender, and the slippery slope argument is invoked. In addition, the department could very well allow people of the Country to constantly invoke their right to not offer their medical services to people who go against their religious beliefs. The Department of Freedom and Conscience provides justification for medical professionals to discriminate based on the argument of Freedom of Religion and Conscience. As said by Larry T. Decker, executive director of Secular Coalition, “This move by the Trump administration does not protect conscience but instead weaponizes it, turning religious belief into yet another barrier…The right to conscience does not include the right to impose your conscience on others”.
3 comments:
I agree that this new division of the HHS could lead to a slippery slope of discrimination. I actually think that in the case of Sara Hellwege, there were grounds for her to not be hired by the health center. If they are looking for an employee who will able to do the job as described, which may include prescribing contraceptives for various reasons, then it is justifiable they would not hire someone who is unable to fulfill that duty. They didn't refuse to hire her because of her religious beliefs, but due to the fact she would not perform the job being advertised, which is a legitimate reason for refusing someone employment. I think more cases like this will continue to pop up due to the implementation of this division, even when there may not be a concrete basis for a violation of the first amendment. I think the argument you bring up at the end of your post is a valid one, as it will be very easy for people to refuse services due to prejudices and discriminations and be allowed to cite it as a religious reason protected by the Constitution.
Due to a vast majority of humans being self-interested, promoting their religious values, deeming them to be the "correct" ones; I can see the issues that can arise from the HHS division. Since this is a part of the health sector, it is a delicate issue, doctors and nurses may have alternative motives to not do a certain procedure, then be able to justify it, in the courtroom as a religious belief. There have been a couple of cases of doctors falsely diagnosing patients with cancer to make more money; I know these cases are rare and involve monetary gain, but it shows how individuals can be self-interested and can also promote religious beliefs over the safety of a patient. Also, I do not think Sara Hellwege has a valid case, they were not discriminating her, they were simply looking for a nurse that could fill the role they were looking for and I am sure there were many other qualified individuals, that were willing to do what the health center asked, in accordance with state laws.
I find this case quite interesting for several reasons. While I am glad to see Trump actually doing something in the White House, I'm not entirely sure the implications the new HHS division may present. Whereas I agree in the exercise and conciseness of religion, I do feel as though this will lead to a slippery slope. Specifically, as was seen with Ms. Hellwege, prescription contraception, as well as other forms of birth control, have sparked heated debates and arguments on the basis of religious beliefs. However, using religion reasons as your basis for these arguments, rather than professional or medical ones, will only exacerbate the tension. Though I do recognize the attempt at a new division, I'm not entirely sure how successful it will be. In fact, I believe the HHS division will lead to all the more discrimination and contention, rather than solve it.
Post a Comment