Young, Lankford Push to Safeguard Conscience Rights of Health Care Workers
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Todd Young (R-Ind.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) introduced the Conscience Protection Act to protect health care providers and insurance plans from government discrimination if they decline to participate in abortions. The bill also provides enforcement for existing conscience laws by providing a private right of action for victims of conscience discrimination.
“Health care professionals who believe in the sanctity of life should not be forced to choose between losing their jobs and performing an abortion. Our bill will protect the rights of health care workers and ensure they are not discriminated against for choosing life,” said Senator Young.
“When conscience protections aren’t enforced, health care workers are forced to decide if they should lose their job or violate their beliefs by performing an abortion. Many health care professionals went into their careers to protect life, not take life. Doctors and nurses should never have to make the choice between their career and their conscience. The Conscience Protection Act defends health care workers and empowers them to stand by convictions as they care for their community,” said Senator Lankford.
In addition to Young and Lankford, U.S. Senators Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) also joined the bill.
This legislation is supported by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists Action, Alliance Defending Freedom, Eagle Forum, National Right to Life Committee, First Liberty Institute, CatholicVote, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, and March for Life.
Full text of the legislation can be found here.
Background:
Congress has enacted more than 25 laws to protect conscience rights for individuals who have a religious or moral objection to performing certain medical procedures, including abortion. Yet, courts have consistently declined to find that these laws provide a “private right of action” for an individual to commence litigation to defend their right of conscience—thereby leaving victims of conscience discrimination unable to defend their rights in court. Currently, if a health care worker refuses to provide abortions, the only recourse available is to file a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
In 2014, California required that health plans must cover abortions, which forced religious employers to offer plans that violate their religious beliefs. In December 2014, under the Obama Administration, HHS opened an investigation. Despite the then-current laws protecting conscience rights, in June 2016, HHS declared that California could force all its health plans to cover elective abortions, which President Biden’s nominee for HHS Secretary advocated for and enforced as Attorney General of California.
During the first Trump Administration, the President and his Cabinet took several landmark actions to enforce current law and protect conscience: (1) creation of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division at HHS, (2) partnership with the Department of Justice to notice and enforce conscience violations in Vermont and California, resulting in the disallowance of $200 million per quarter from the state due to former Attorney General Becerra’s refusal to comply with the law, and (3) issuance of the “Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights In Health Care” Final Rule to enforce existing statutory protections. Unfortunately, a federal court vacated the conscience rule in November 2019.
Earlier this month, President Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it is initiating a compliance review under the Church Amendments, which is central to the legislation. This key development pairs with the Conscience Protection Act and underscores the need for further action to protect conscience rights.