News

County asks judge to strike down expanded religious refusal rule

State, San Francisco, medical groups also take legal action against rule set to take effect Nov. 22

Santa Clara County, San Francisco, the state of California and an array of medical groups asked a federal judge on Thursday to strike down an expanded version of a measure known as the religious refusal rule.

The rule announced by the administration of President Donald Trump in June would allow health care institutions and many types of workers to refuse services on religious grounds and would deny federal health, welfare and education funds to state and local governments that don't comply.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup will hold a hearing on the request in San Francisco on Oct. 30. He will also hear a competing motion by the U.S. Justice Department for dismissal of the state and local governments' lawsuits.

The rule was originally due to take effect on July 22, but after the lawsuits were filed, the Health and Human Services Department agreed to delay implementation until Nov. 22.

The local opponents claim the rule illegally goes far beyond conscience protections previously granted by Congress to doctors and certain other personnel and would allow "virtually anyone involved in the provision of health care to refuse to provide vital services and information to patients."

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

Front office staff and call operators would be among those who could refuse to help, with no exception for emergencies, and patients who would be harmed include women seeking contraceptive care and abortions and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, the lawsuits claim.

"Far from preventing discrimination, the rule perpetuates widespread discrimination against populations that have historically faced obstacles to obtaining care," the local governments say.

Justice Department lawyers representing the Health and Human Services Department argued in their brief last month that the rule is consistent with the protections in laws enacted by Congress.

Those laws and the new rule "simply ensure that the targeted federal funds are not used to disadvantage individuals or entities on the basis of objections to certain health care activities, some of which may be rooted in religion," the federal attorneys wrote.

Alsup is presiding over three similar lawsuits filed by the state, San Francisco and Santa Clara County together with a coalition of medical and civil rights groups. At his request, they filed a joint brief supporting their motions for summary judgment.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

The state could risk losing $77.6 billion and San Francisco and Santa Clara County each $1 billion in federal funding, according to the brief.

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

County asks judge to strike down expanded religious refusal rule

State, San Francisco, medical groups also take legal action against rule set to take effect Nov. 22

by /

Uploaded: Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 5:16 pm

Santa Clara County, San Francisco, the state of California and an array of medical groups asked a federal judge on Thursday to strike down an expanded version of a measure known as the religious refusal rule.

The rule announced by the administration of President Donald Trump in June would allow health care institutions and many types of workers to refuse services on religious grounds and would deny federal health, welfare and education funds to state and local governments that don't comply.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup will hold a hearing on the request in San Francisco on Oct. 30. He will also hear a competing motion by the U.S. Justice Department for dismissal of the state and local governments' lawsuits.

The rule was originally due to take effect on July 22, but after the lawsuits were filed, the Health and Human Services Department agreed to delay implementation until Nov. 22.

The local opponents claim the rule illegally goes far beyond conscience protections previously granted by Congress to doctors and certain other personnel and would allow "virtually anyone involved in the provision of health care to refuse to provide vital services and information to patients."

Front office staff and call operators would be among those who could refuse to help, with no exception for emergencies, and patients who would be harmed include women seeking contraceptive care and abortions and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, the lawsuits claim.

"Far from preventing discrimination, the rule perpetuates widespread discrimination against populations that have historically faced obstacles to obtaining care," the local governments say.

Justice Department lawyers representing the Health and Human Services Department argued in their brief last month that the rule is consistent with the protections in laws enacted by Congress.

Those laws and the new rule "simply ensure that the targeted federal funds are not used to disadvantage individuals or entities on the basis of objections to certain health care activities, some of which may be rooted in religion," the federal attorneys wrote.

Alsup is presiding over three similar lawsuits filed by the state, San Francisco and Santa Clara County together with a coalition of medical and civil rights groups. At his request, they filed a joint brief supporting their motions for summary judgment.

The state could risk losing $77.6 billion and San Francisco and Santa Clara County each $1 billion in federal funding, according to the brief.

Comments

MAGA
Downtown North
on Sep 13, 2019 at 5:27 pm
MAGA, Downtown North
on Sep 13, 2019 at 5:27 pm
16 people like this

Not treating an emergency room patient because you do not like their religion is evil


Simple Solution
Barron Park
on Sep 13, 2019 at 6:15 pm
Simple Solution, Barron Park
on Sep 13, 2019 at 6:15 pm
Like this comment

[Post removed.]


WWJD
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 13, 2019 at 6:18 pm
WWJD, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 13, 2019 at 6:18 pm
18 people like this

- Not treating an emergency room patient because you do not like their religion is evil

I don't have time to read this, but I'm thinking: must be some fringe religion. Any religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ would never dream of doing such evil...


Resident
Downtown North
on Sep 16, 2019 at 12:51 pm
Resident, Downtown North
on Sep 16, 2019 at 12:51 pm
8 people like this

As the parent of a trans child, I am very proud of our County and State for standing against this discriminatory ruling. It is unfathomable to me that our Justice Department is supporting it. Please, let's all stand together against any form of discrimination.


Healthcare VS Wedding Cakes
Barron Park
on Sep 16, 2019 at 1:18 pm
Healthcare VS Wedding Cakes, Barron Park
on Sep 16, 2019 at 1:18 pm
2 people like this

In terms of healthcare, there is no room for discrimination based on religious grounds.

On the other hand and in reference to that baker who refused to sell a lesbian couple a wedding cake, he shouldn't have been prosecuted for that.

Don't retail food establishments have the right to refuse service? And besides, it was just a wedding cake. No big deal.

If I was the baker with those particular sentiments, I would have baked them their cake to make money off the transaction but refused to put the little plastic lesbian couple figurines atop the cake...they could do that themselves.


Martin Niemöller
Green Acres
on Sep 16, 2019 at 2:22 pm
Martin Niemöller, Green Acres
on Sep 16, 2019 at 2:22 pm
2 people like this

First they came for the "little plastic lesbian couple figurines"...


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.