Complaint Filed Against Catholic Hospitals Over Refusal To Perform Sterilizations

The ACLU announced yesterday that it has filed an Administrative Complaint (full text) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights against Ascension Health challenging its reliance on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. Specifically the complaint contends that the refusal by a Michigan hospital to perform sterilization (tubal ligation) during childbirth amounts to pregnancy-related discrimination. The Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any health care program or activity receiving federal funds. An ACLU press release announced the filing of the complaint.

6th Circuit Dismisses Suit Over Catholic Bishops' Health Care Directives

In Means v. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, (6th Cir., Sept. 8, 2016), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Michigan federal district court's dismissal of a suit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and against three individuals who served as chairs of the Catholic Health Ministries-- the sponsor of a health care system that includes the Catholic hospital at which plaintiff Tamesha Means claims she was inadequately treated.  Means visited the hospital when she prematurely went into labor at 18 weeks into her pregnancy.  The hospital, complying with the USCCB's  Catholic health care directives, did not give Means the option of terminating her pregnancy, even though her physician suspected she had a serious bacterial infection that can cause infertility and even death.  After the statute of limitations on medical malpractice had run, Means sued the entities responsible for promulgating and adopting the Catholic health care directives, charging them with negligence.

The 6th Circuit dismissed the USCCB from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.  As to the other defendants, the court said in part:

Means asks us to recognize a duty under Michigan law on the part of a religious organization to a specific patient to adopt ethical directives that do not contradict the medical standard of care. Whether such a duty exists is far from certain, especially if the standard of care violates the organization’s religious beliefs. Nevertheless, even if the CHM defendants had such a duty, Means’s factual allegations do not create the plausible inference that any breach of that duty proximately caused any injury to Means within the strictures of Michigan negligence law.... 

Means alleges—and we do not doubt—that she suffered physical and mental pain, emotional injuries, a riskier delivery, shock and emotional trauma from making funeral arrangements for her dead child, and other “discomforts and pain.” But these allegations are not sufficient to state an injury under Michigan negligence law. In Michigan, “present physical injury” is necessary to state a claim for negligence.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.] 

2016 Republican Platform on Individual Conscience in Healthcare

Yesterday the Republican Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the sixth in a series of posts that focus on Platform provisions dealing with moral values and religious liberty. Here is the Platform section titled Protecting Individual Conscience in Healthcare:

America’s healthcare professionals should not be forced to choose between following their faith and practicing their profession. We respect the rights of conscience of healthcare professionals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and organizations, especially the faith-based groups which provide a major portion of care for the nation and the needy. We support the ability of all organizations to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage consistent with their religious, moral, or ethical convictions without discrimination or penalty. We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children. We support the right of parents to consent to medical treatment for their minor children and urge enactment of legislation that would require parental consent for their daughter to be transported across state lines for abortion. Providers should not be permitted to unilaterally withhold services because a patient’s life is deemed not worth living. American taxpayers should not be forced to fund abortion. As Democrats abandon this four decade-old bipartisan consensus, we call for codification of the Hyde Amendment and its application across the government, including Obamacare. We call for a permanent ban on federal funding and subsidies for abortion and healthcare plans that include abortion coverage. 

Challenge To Catholic Hospitals' Ethical Directives Dismissed On Standing and Ripeness Grounds

A Michigan federal district court has dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds a challenge to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services followed by Catholic hospitals.  In ACLU v. Trinity Health Corp., (ED MI, April 11, 2016), the ACLU sued claiming that provisions in the Directives that prevent terminating a pregnancy to stabilize a woman's condition when emergency complications occur violate the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and the Rehabilitation Act.  The court held that allegations of past injury because of the hospital's compliance with the Directives does not give standing for future-looking declaratory and injunctive relief, and allegations regarding one woman who is currently pregnant do not show a substantial risk of pregnancy complications or likelihood of future treatment at defendant's hospitals.  A report from Michigan Radio has reactions of the parties to the decision.

Church's State Court Suit Challenges California Mandate For Health Insurance Abortion Coverage

A La Mesa, California church last week filed suit in state court against the California Department of Managed Health Care challenging a state requirement that all health insurance policies sold in California cover elective abortions, without exceptions.  The complaint (full text) in Skyline Wesleyan Church v. California Department of Managed Health Care, (Super. Ct., filed 2/4/2016), alleging violations of several state and federal constitutional provisions, contends:

the Mandate has created an inconsistent and untenable situation where Skyline Church and other religious employers do not have to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives and infertility treatments but must pay for voluntary and elective abortions....

Defendants substantially burden Skyline Church's religious exercise when they force Skyline Church to choose between following its religious beliefs and suffering debilitating penalties under federal law or violating its conscience in order to avoid those penalties.

A similar challenge was filed in federal court by three other  churches last October. (See prior posting.)  ADF issued a press release announcing last week's state court lawsuit.

Court Refuses To Require Catholic Hospital To Perform Tubal Ligation

In Chamorro v. Dignity Health, (CA Super., Jan. 14, 2016), a California trial court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to require a Catholic hospital to perform a tubal ligation for contraceptive purposes.  The hospital refuses to perform the procedure pursuant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.  Plaintiff had contended that this violates California's prohibition on gender discrimination, but the court concluded that the hospital's policy bars direct sterilization of men as well as of women. AP reports on the decision.

Cert. Denied In Challenge To ACA Religious Conscience Exemption

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Cutler v. Department of Health and Human Services, (Docket No. 15-632, cert. denied 1/11/2016) (Order List).  In the case, the D.C. Circuit rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the religious conscience exemption in the Affordable Care Act which exempts from the individual mandate members of certain traditional religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites. (See prior posting.)

Suit, Claiming Free Exercise Right, Seeks Voiding of Death Certificate

Late last month, a suit was filed in a California federal district court seeking to require the state of California to invalidate a death certificate issued two years ago when 13-year old Jahi McMath was declared brain dead.  However before the child's ventilator was removed, her mother transferred her to a facility in New Jersey, a state which has a religious exemption in its law to the brain-death standard.  Jahi's mother claims that Jahi now shows brain function.  The complaint (full text) in McMath v. State of California, (ND CA, filed 12/23/2015) seeks an injunction requiring California to restore all rights (including health care benefits) to Jahi, and requiring it to expunge records of the death certificate. Among the grounds for relief asserted by plaintiffs are the Free Exercise clause and RLUIPA. The complaint alleges in part:

Plaintiffs' sincerely held religious beliefs require that they provide ongoing medical care for any person who is alive, including JAHI McMath.... The issuance of a facially invalid (and now substantively inaccurate) death certificate ... created a situation in which Plaintiffs were unable to exercise their religion....

The McMath lawyers issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit, and NJ.com reports on the suit.