This past year,
Baltimore’s spending board voted to cover a Christian pregnancy center’s legal
fees when a federal court ruled that a city law violated the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment. The Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy
Concerns sued the city of Baltimore nearly a decade ago when a law was passed
in 2009 requiring pregnancy clinics to disclose if they will not provide
abortions. This law was intended to protect women from deceptive advertising.
The Center for Pregnancy Concerns argued that this law violated their freedom
of speech, and the federal appeals court ruled in favor of the pregnancy center
in January of 2018.
This case
resurfaced in June 2018 when the Supreme Court did not enforce a California
State law (Reproductive FACT Act) requiring faith-based crisis pregnancy
centers to make patients aware of state-offered subsidized medical care, which
includes abortions. Centers were also required to disclose whether or not they
had a medical professional on staff. This law was passed in California three
years prior due to the state’s concern for “deceptive advertising and [using]
counseling practices to confuse or intimidate women.”
Over two-hundred
of these faith-based pregnancy centers exist in the state of California.
Originally, the 9th Circuit Court and a federal judge refused to
suspend the disclosure law, but this decision was overruled and reversed by the
Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy believes these faith-based institutions were
“targeted because of their beliefs.” Justice Breyer disagreed; he stated that
if medical professionals are required by law to tell women seeking abortions
about adoption services, then these pregnancy centers should be forced to make
patients aware that they may be eligible for funding if they choose to pursue
an abortion. Lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom in Arizona appealed to the
Supreme Court as well, stating that the disclosure law violated Free Speech and
Free Exercise.
In a 5-4 vote,
the Supreme Court ultimately decided that “the disclosure act likely amounts to
compelled speech that violates the 1st Amendment”. In this case,
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Exercise are entangled. Staff working in these
faith-based pregnancy centers are not making patients aware of government
funding because it is against what the institution represents.
I am conflicted
with this case: Women seeking professional medical advice need to be presented
with their options.
A medical
professional making them aware of their options is not coercing women into
having abortions. I agree that patients need to be aware of their options, and
that there is a difference between a medical professional disclosing a
patient’s options to them, and forcing a medical professional to endorse a
belief that does not align with their religion. It is true that women entering
these clinics seeking guidance know that they are entering a faith-based
environment and could instead go to a secular clinic. If a staff member is
asked about abortion eligibility, it is their responsibility to make the
patient aware of aid they may be eligible for. However, it would be
unconstitutional to ask that staff member to speak on the subject any further.
The following question
must be asked: Does silence (of a staff member at one of these clinics
regarding abortion) in this particular instance promote religion? I argue that
it neither advances nor inhibits religion. This case particularly reminds me of
Engel v. Vitale in which the NY State
Board of Regents endorsed the Regents Prayer in schools; children could be
exempt from saying the prayer, although a formal process was required. The case
in question is similar to Engel v. Vitale
in that both are concerned with Free Speech as well as Free Exercise.
However, the cases differ drastically; it is ultimately a healthcare provider’s
duty to provide information to their patients, even if they are not considered
“medical care professionals”. If inquired about, it should be mandatory that
they divulge a course of options, without being forced to expound upon the
process of acquiring the services. In this way, the statute would not be
favoring religion, nonreligion, or irreligion.
1 comment:
Personally, I think that all health clinics should be required to inform patients of the services provided, regardless of whether the clinics or patients are religious. I think that informed consent and presentation of options is an essential part of all medical decisions, whether they are reproductive or other. In terms of the question posed in the post: "Does silence (of a staff member at one of these clinics regarding abortion) in this particular instance promote religion"? I agree with Carolyn, it neither advances or inhibits religion. However, I would argue that if a staff member at one of these clinics remains silent when asked questions regarding abortion or other reproductive services, then that wouldn't necessarily promote or inhibit religion, but it would be irresponsible and could threaten the health of the patient. I think that if faith-based healthcare providers are uncomfortable providing information regarding abortion and/or other reproductive services, they should refer the patient to a different clinic so they can get the information they want/need.
Post a Comment