Pro-Life Doctors Engage in Abortion Battle to Protect Right to Refuse
The groups battling for the right to refuse to perform abortions against their conscience received additional help on Tuesday when their attorneys filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of their effort.
After being denied by a lower court, three pro-life medical groups are in the process of asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to let them take part in a case which could have major implications for health care workers who are conscientious objectors to abortion.
The groups battling for the right to refuse to perform abortions against their conscience received additional help on Tuesday when their attorneys filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of their effort to be included as defendants in State of California v. United States.
The three non-profit groups are trying to intervene to protect an amendment to a federal “conscience” law that President George W. Bush signed last year and that is being challenged by the State of California. One of their reasons for taking part, they say, is that the government may have a broader interest in the case and may not argue their objections with their own religious, ethical and medical perspective.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
The case pits the authority of the federal government with that of California. The state’s attorney general, Bill Lockyer, argues that the federal government is overstepping its bounds by giving people the option to avoid performing abortions. He says California should be able to determine for itself how to enforce its own laws. He also alleges that the federal law is a “backdoor” entrance to overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states.
"The government shouldn't force pro-life medical professionals to participate in abortions against their conscience. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the state of California wants to do by pursuing this lawsuit," said Casey Mattox, an attorney with the Christian Legal Society Center for Law & Religious Freedom. He is one of several lawyers representing the three medical groups
The appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco is being made because a lower district court refused to allow the pro-life groups to enter as defendants in the suit. The organizations, which represent thousands of medical professionals, are the Christian Medical Association (CMA), the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physicians Assistants in California (FCPAC).
The CMA, which claims over 16,000 Christian physicians, opposes abortion based on Scripture and traditional Judeo-Christian medical ethics. According to the brief filed with the court on Tuesday, the group worked specifically to help pass the Weldon amendment, the provision to a conscience law at the center of the court battle.
The provision, which supporters say adds strength to a conscience law, states that government agencies cannot discriminate against health care providers who refuse to offer services related to abortion.
Hospitals, medical centers and health insurance providers are protected under the Weldon Amendment. There have previously been some states and local governments that have denied mergers to hospitals because of their refusal to provide abortions, according Knight-Ridder news.
The CMA, AAPLOG, and FCPA are fighting to keep the protection their members enjoy under the Weldon Amendment, the brief states.
An additional reason for including them in the lawsuit, their attorneys argue, is that their interests “may not be adequately represented” by the parties currently in the case.
They say the action being taken by the State of California affects them directly. In addition they say that letting in parties with a practical interest in the outcome of the case, like their own, can simplify future litigation that may result. Not only did they advocate for getting the Weldon Amendment passed, but they also have an interest in protecting it because they benefit from it, they say.
The lower district court disagreed because it said that “the Medical Groups do not object to providing medically necessary abortions.”
The medical groups, however, say the lower court misconstrued their statements.
They say they oppose abortion but “do not object to providing emergency services and care in circumstances involving cases of emergency medical situations” where the life of the mother is at risk.
While the groups’ members “may assist in providing abortion-related services in a hypothetical true medical emergency, i.e. where the mother’s life is seriously threatened, their members would certainly object to providing, assisting in, or referring for abortions in a large number of cases that California law would deem ‘medically necessary,’” stated the medical groups’ attorneys in the brief.
The recently argued Supreme Court case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New Hampshire on Nov. 30 also touched upon the issue of medical emergencies and how they should be handled by the law. Abortion provider Planned Parenthood objected to a parental notification law for teens in the Ayotte case because the law did not contain a clause that would allow doctors to perform abortions in cases of medical emergencies.
California’s district attorney was also cited in the brief expressing a similar concern about medical emergencies.
“The Weldon Amendment contains no express exception for situations where the life or health of the woman is at risk,” Lockyer wrote. Without it, the D.A. argued, the state of California cannot enforce disciplinary action against those who do not protect the life or health of the woman or girl.
For the pro-life medical groups seeking to intervene in the case, the definition of “health” is too general, finding many cases under the current definition to be objectionable.
If the California Attorney General prevails, the medical groups would be subject to criminal action against them and would be giving up their lawful, constitutional and ethical rights to refuse to participate in abortions that go against their conscience, say lawyers in the brief.
The brief also states that medical groups cannot say they would object to “every theoretical case” but they would object to many cases considered “emergencies” under current California law.
The attorneys for the groups also argue that since “major issues in this case are still to be determined” their decision to intervene in the case is still timely and a good reason why they should be allowed to become defendants in the case.
