purports to interpret and provide for the implementation of more than 30 statutory provisions that recognize the right of an individual or entity to abstain from participation in medical procedures, programs, services, or research activities on account of a religious or moral objection. [See prior posting].The court summarized the conclusions it reached in its 147-page opinion:
With respect to the Church, Coats-Snowe, and Weldon Amendments, HHS was never delegated and did not have substantive rule-making authority.....
With respect to all Conscience Provisions, HSS was never delegated and did not have authority to promulgate a Rule authorizing, as a penalty available to the agency for a recipient’s non-compliance, the termination of all of the recipient’s HHS funds....
With respect to all Conscience Provisions, the Rule is contrary to law... insofar as (1) in its application to the employment context, it conflicts with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... to prescribe a framework governing the circumstances under which an employer must accommodate an employee’s religion-based objections; and (2) in its application to emergencies, it conflicts with the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act....
With respect to all Conscience Provisions, HHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating the Rule,... because (1) HHS’s stated reasons for undertaking rulemaking are not substantiated by the record before the agency, (2) HHS did not adequately explain its change in policy, and (3) HHS failed to consider important aspects of the problem before it.
With respect to all Conscience Provisions, HHS did not observe proper rulemaking procedure in promulgating the Rule... insofar as portions of the Rule that define “discriminate or discrimination” were not a “logical outgrowth” of HHS’s notice of proposed rulemaking....
With respect to all Conscience Provisions, the Rule’s authorization ... as a penalty ... in the event of a recipient’s non-compliance of the termination of all of the recipient’s HHS funds, violated the Separation of Powers and the Spending Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1.Reuters reports on the decision.
UPDATE: A press release from the Washington state Attorney General's office reports that on Nov. 7 a federal district court in Washington also found the new conscience rules invalid.
