On Wednesday, Judge Engelmayer of the District Court for the Southern District of New York
voided the Trump administration’s “conscience rule.” Planned to be implemented
this month, the rule built on existing civil rights protections for religious health care
workers by merging 25 separate laws into a single framework, and it would have
permitted medical providers to deny care if it conflicted with their religious or moral beliefs.
Under the rule, the government could withhold or even terminate funding if recipients
compelled their employees to perform such tasks despite objections—a provision that
Engelmayer concluded to be “impermissibly coercive.” To justify the rule, administration
officials claimed that the number of conscience complaints from health care workers
had skyrocketed, but Engelmayer argued that the officials mischaracterized many of
these complaints. In his written opinion, he states that the Department of Health and
Human Services does not even have the authority to impose much of the rule. Opponents
of the rule lauded Engelmayer for voiding a policy that they believe permits legal
discrimination, whereas supporters express disappointment in his decision, claiming
that it harms medical professionals by denying them religious liberty. It remains unclear
whether the Trump administration will appeal the ruling.
voided the Trump administration’s “conscience rule.” Planned to be implemented
this month, the rule built on existing civil rights protections for religious health care
workers by merging 25 separate laws into a single framework, and it would have
permitted medical providers to deny care if it conflicted with their religious or moral beliefs.
Under the rule, the government could withhold or even terminate funding if recipients
compelled their employees to perform such tasks despite objections—a provision that
Engelmayer concluded to be “impermissibly coercive.” To justify the rule, administration
officials claimed that the number of conscience complaints from health care workers
had skyrocketed, but Engelmayer argued that the officials mischaracterized many of
these complaints. In his written opinion, he states that the Department of Health and
Human Services does not even have the authority to impose much of the rule. Opponents
of the rule lauded Engelmayer for voiding a policy that they believe permits legal
discrimination, whereas supporters express disappointment in his decision, claiming
that it harms medical professionals by denying them religious liberty. It remains unclear
whether the Trump administration will appeal the ruling.
- How does New York v. H.H.S. illustrate the conflict between civil liberties and civil rights?
- How does the federal judge’s decision in New York v. H.H.S. compare to recent decisions the Supreme Court has made in similar cases? Does the judge’s decision overturn or uphold precedent? Perhaps consider the Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
- Do you think the “conscience rule” is unconstitutional? Why or why not? Perhaps consider the decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
3. The conscience rule could be considered unconstitutional as religious beliefs and freedom of expression are ingrained in our constitution; however, the application and the denial of medical care because of religious beliefs is unconstitutional because right to privacy laws and the rulings previously seen in the Supreme Court relating to abortion as in Casey v Planned Parenthood
ReplyDelete3. The Conscious rule should be considered constitutional as someone's belief to oppose performing an abortion may be related to their religious beliefs, and freedom of religion is protected by the first amendment. Also, it is an essential civil liberty to be able to refuse something you do not wish to do, and the government forcing doctors to perform a procedure violates their civil liberty.
ReplyDeleteNew York v H.H.S shows the conflict between civil liberties and civil rights through the fact that on one hand, the government is trying to protect a group and their freedoms. They have the ability to refuse care if they would like because they feel uncomfortable doing something that goes against their religious viewpoints. This would also be protected under the free exercise clause, but at the same time, the other side of the argument protects the liberties of a minority, women who want to get abortions. This side of the argument is trying to protect this group from government restrictions that may harm their rights and freedoms and therefore, they are trying to reverse the "conscious rule" that the Trump Administration wants to implement.
ReplyDelete1. Civil liberties are protections against the government whereas civil rights are protections of groups by the government. New York v. H.H.S. illustrates the conflict between civil liberties and civil rights since it raises the question of whether the protection of medical providers' religious beliefs about abortion (civil liberties) should supersede women's right to an abortion (civil rights). Medical providers' religious believes about abortion are protected by the Free Exercise Clause, which protects people's freedom of religion. On the other hand, women's right to access an abortion is protected by the 9th Amendment, which protects people's right to privacy.
ReplyDelete#3 The conscience rule walks a thin line between the interest of our government in adhering to the free exercise clause, as well as the equal protection clause. However, I believe that in the case of healthcare providers, the civil rights of these groups being denied access to birth control or abortions should prevail. Given that contraceptives play a fundamental, and therefore unavoidable role in modern medicine, an individual that objects to these practices should consider a different career path. In my opinion, being a healthcare provider who objects to abortions is analogous to being a vegan who decided to work in a meat-processing facility. In other words, my view is that the conscience rule should deemed unconstitutional since the degree to which voiding this rule infringes upon the civil liberties of religious groups is minimal. While every individual has the right to maintain their own morals and ethics, this does not warrant them being able to forego the responsibilities required by the profession they chose, especially in situations where the civil liberties of others will be compromised.
ReplyDelete3. The conscious rule is unconstitutional because the law seemingly supports religion despite the first amendment establishment clause. While it could be argued that the free exercise clause should allow healthcare providers to refuse to treat a person based on their religions views, ultimately it is the providers' choice to enter the healthcare profession and they should fully understand and accept the procedures they are expected to do. Choosing to pursue healthcare as a career is a choice, while needing treatment from a healthcare provider usually is not.
ReplyDeleteThe conscious rule is considered to be unconstitutional because it defies the precedent established through many previous cases and also violates the First Amendment. It is not fair to treat someone better or worse based on someones views on religion.
ReplyDelete