Suit Challenges HIPPA Rules Barring Reporting of Out-of-State Abortions

As previously reported, in April of this year the Department of Health and Human Services issued new privacy rules under HIPPA designed to protect women (and those who assist them) who travel out of state for an abortion that is not legal in their state of residence. Yesterday, suit was filed in a Texas federal district court challenging the rules.  The complaint (full text) in Purl v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ND TX, filed 10/21/2024), alleges that the new privacy rules cover not only abortion, but also hormone and drug interventions for gender dysphoria and surgical procedures on an individual's reproductive system. The complaint alleges in part:

5. ... [T]he 2024 Rule purports to limit the circumstances when a HIPAA-covered entity can share information with government agencies, such as state child-welfare agencies and law enforcement agencies, both state and federal.  

6. HIPAA-covered entities that share information in contravention of HHS’s regulations incur criminal liability. 

7. Yet the HIPAA statute explicitly preserves government authority to investigate and to require disclosures concerning abuse. 

8. The 2024 Rule lacks statutory authority and is arbitrary and capricious. As such, the Court should vacate and set aside the Rule and preliminarily and permanently enjoin its enforcement....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Kentucky Governor Issues Executive Order Limiting Conversion Therapy for Minors

 After attempts to get the Kentucky state legislature to ban conversion therapy for minors failed, on Wednesday Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear issued Executive Order 2024-632 (full text) which uses executive powers available to him to limit the practice. The Executive Order provides in part:

The Cabinet for Health and Family Services shall take all actions necessary to prohibit the direct or indirect use of state and federal funds for the practice of conversion therapy on minors, referring a minor for conversion therapy, or extending health benefits coverage for conversion therapy with a minor....

Any state agency that discovers or receives a report that a provider certified or licensed to practice in Kentucky engages in conversion therapy efforts with a person under 18 years of age or performs counseling on conversion therapy as part of his training for any profession licensed under a professional certification or licensing board within the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall report that provider to the appropriate professional certification or licensing board within the Commonwealth for potential disciplinary action....

The Governor's office issued a press release announcing the signing of the Executive Order. AP reports on the Executive Order. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Buffer Zone Ordinance Violates Free Speech Rights of Protesters Because of Inadvertent Breadth of Ban

In Sisters for Life, Inc. v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, (WD KY, Sept. 13, 2024), anti-abortion sidewalk counselors challenged a city ordinance that created a ten-foot buffer zone from the street to the door of health care clinics.  Only clinic personnel, patients and those accompanying them, law enforcement and persons walking through to a different destination could enter the buffer zone. The ordinance was passed because of problems at one particular abortion clinic. The court found that the Ordinance would have been permissible if limited to clinics with problems but violated free speech rights because it applies to all healthcare facilities. The court said in part:

At the time of the ordinance’s passage, the city had established healthcare access problems at only one facility—EMW—and principally on Saturday mornings.... It is clear from the record that the Council intended for the ordinance to create buffer zones only at facilities which were having access or safety issues and chose to request a buffer zone, like abortion clinics, battered women’s shelters, and emergency rooms.... This is what the legislators expected in drafting and passing the ordinance.... And how EMW understood the ordinance to work....  And how LMPD enforced its terms.... 

... Metro Council gave careful consideration to each alternative and endeavored to choose the least burdensome option.  But for its inadvertent application to facilities with no established access issues, it is difficult to imagine how the ordinance could be more closely tailored to the city’s interest in preserving safe access to healthcare facilities. Regardless, the Court is bound by the Sixth Circuit’s holding: “The [Supreme] Court’s conclusion in McCullen applies here.  This buffer zone is not narrowly tailored.”...

The court also concluded that the ordinance did not violate plaintiffs' free exercise rights or the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the ordinance is neutral and generally applicable. 

Illinois Governor Signs 3 Bills Protecting Abortion Rights

On Aug. 7, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed HB4867 (full text) which amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to make discrimination on the basis of reproductive health decisions, including decisions relating to termination of a pregnancy, unlawful discrimination. He also signed HB 5239 (full text) that prohibits the state from assisting out-of-state officials or individuals who are seeking to impose civil or criminal liability on a person or entity for reproductive health care activity that was lawful in Illinois. And he signed HB 581 (full text) which requires hospital emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment including abortion when "abortion is necessary to resolve the patient's injury or acute medical condition that is liable to cause death or severe injury or serious illness." Lawndale News reports on the governor's action.

South Carolina Legislature Passes Bill Barring Gender Transition Care for Minors and Mandating Schools Notifying Parents

The South Carolina legislature this week gave final passage to H4624 (full text) which prohibits health care professionals from providing puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones or gender reassignment surgery to individuals under 18 years of age. It also bars use of public funds for gender transition procedures and provides:

(A) A nurse, counselor, teacher, principal, or other official or staff at a public school shall not knowingly: (1) encourage or coerce a minor to withhold from the minor's parent or legal guardian the fact that the minor's perception of his or her gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310; or (2) withhold from a minor's parent or legal guardian information related to the minor's perception that his or her gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310.

(B) The principal, vice principal, or counselor at a public school shall immediately notify in writing a minor's parent or legal guardian if the minor: (1) asserts to any school employee that the minor's gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310; or (2) requests a school employee to address a minor using a pronoun or title that does not align with the minor's sex.

The bill now goes to Governor Henry McMaster for his signature. The Hill reports on the passage of the bill.

Tennessee Legislature Passes Healthcare Sharing Ministries Exemption

Yesterday the Tennessee legislature took the final procedural steps needed to send HB 1163, Healthcare Sharing Ministries Freedom to Share Act (full text) to the Governor for his signature. It exempts from state insurance regulation tax-exempt plans under which members who share a common religious or ethical belief provide for the medical or financial needs of other members through their financial contributions.

Court Decides 7 Cases of Health Care Employees' Refusal to Receive Covid Vaccine

 A Delaware federal district court judge yesterday handed down opinions in seven lawsuits against the same medical center that terminated employees who requests for religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate were denied. In 5 of the cases, the court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' Title VII failure to accommodate claims because plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a sincere religious belief and that their objections to the Covid vaccine were related to that belief. Aiken v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024); Hernandez v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024); Massotti v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024); Proud v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024); White v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024). In 2 cases, the court concluded that plaintiffs' objections to the vaccine were not plausibly connected to a sincerely held religious belief. McDowell v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024); Osborne v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan.25, 2024). Each opinion details the religious claim asserted by plaintiff.

Ohio Legislature Overrides Governor's Veto of Bill on Transgender Health Care and Sports Participation

The Ohio Senate yesterday voted 24-8 to override Governor Mike DeWine's veto of HB 68, the Saving Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act. The Ohio House of Representatives two weeks ago voted 65-28 to override. The bill, which will now become law, bars physicians from performing gender reassignment surgery or prescribing cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers to minors. It also prohibits transgender women from participating on women's athletic teams in schools that participate in interscholastic athletics and in public and private colleges. (See prior posting.) WCMH News reports on the Senate's vote and says that a court challenge to the legislation is expected.

6th Circuit Hears Arguments on Standing to Challenge Gender Identity Ban in Health Care

On Wednesday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of appeals heard oral arguments in American College of Pediatricians v. Becerra. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Tennessee federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services that barred discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the furnishing of health care. The court also concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge an HHS rule requiring grant recipients to recognize same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) 

Colorado Ban on Medication Abortion Reversal Violates Clinic's Free Exercise Rights

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, (D CO, Oct. 21, 2023), a Colorado federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from taking enforcement action under a law enacted earlier this year against an anti-abortion pregnancy center for offering and advertising its medication abortion reversal services. The court said in part:

Bella Health considers it a religious obligation to provide treatment for pregnant mothers and to protect unborn life if the mother seeks to stop or reverse an abortion.... The State Defendants have not contested that SB 23-190 burdens Bella Health’s religious practice. Indeed, it is not up to the State or the Court to second-guess the sincerity of Bella Health’s religious motivations or to suggest alternative means of satisfying Plaintiffs’ religious calling. 

The more difficult question is whether Section Three’s prohibition on abortion pill reversal is neutral and generally applicable. It is not for three reasons. First, the law treats comparable secular activity more favorably than Bella Health’s religious activity.... Second, the law contains mechanisms for exemptions that undercut the State’s expressed interests.... Third, the law’s object and effect is to burden religious conduct in a way that is not neutral.

Colorado Politics reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

EEOC Sues Over Refusal of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate For Remote-Working Emloyee

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the healthcare provider United Healthcare Services for refusing to grant a religious exemption from the company's Covid vaccine mandate to an employee whose duties were performed entirely remotely. The EEOC said in part:

“Neither healthcare providers nor COVID-19 vaccination requirements are excepted from Title VII’s protections against religious discrimination.”

Some Claimed Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate Were Not Religious In Nature

In Ellison v. Inova Health Care Services, three hospital employees sued because their claims for religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate were rejected.  They asserted that their employer violated Title VII by failing to accommodate their religious beliefs. The court found that only the aborted fetal cell objections of one defendant were adequately linked in the pleadings to plaintiff's religious beliefs.  Other objections to the vaccine were not religious in nature.  The court said in part: 

In Ellison’s request for exception, he claims that, as a Christian, he has a right to refuse the vaccine. Specifically, he claims that the Bible requires Christians to treat their bodies as “temple[s] of the Holy Spirit,” meaning that he is “compel[led]” to care for his mind and body.... And because, in his view, taking the COVID-19 vaccine would “introduce to [his] body a medication that could induce harm,” he claims that complying with the hospital’s policy would be “antithetical to [his] desire to honor God.”...

... [T]he Court finds that, though couched in religious terms, Ellison refused the vaccines based on concerns of vaccine safety.

Two of the plaintiffs claimed that they pray over their health care decisions and follow God's answers.  The court rejected this, calling it an unverifiable claim of a blanket privilege that undermines our system of ordered liberty.

Vermont Pregnancy Counseling Centers Sue Over New Restrictions

Suit was filed yesterday in a Vermont federal district court attacking Vermont's recently-enacted SB 37 which, among other things, imposes new regulation on anti-abortion pregnancy counseling centers. The law prohibits advertising of services that is "untrue or clearly designed to mislead the public about the nature of the services provided." It also provides that licensed health care professionals who provide services at such centers are responsible for ensuring that services, information and counseling at the center complies with these requirements. The complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark, (D VT, filed 7/25/2023) contends that these provisions are unconstitutionally vague and also violate the free speech rights of clinics, alleging in part:

111. The Advertising Prohibition provides no guidance as to how it should be applied to advertisements including medical information on which there is no medical consensus.

112. The Advertising Prohibition is also unclear as to whether it requires a disclosure in all advertisements that the pregnancy center does not provide abortions or "emergency contraception."

113. Requiring such a disclosure would compel the centers' speech.

114. The Advertising Prohibition has chilled Plaintiffs' speech.

115. For example, Aspire's medical director created a video about abortion pill reversal that Aspire would like to post on its website....

168. Because Plaintiffs do not charge for their services, the Provider Restriction, 9 V.S.A. § 2493(b), regulates Plaintiffs' non-commercial speech.

169. The Provider Restriction is a viewpoint- and content-based regulation of pure speech because it directly regulates speech about health-care-related" information" and "counseling" by "limited-services pregnancy centers," even when no medical treatment or procedure is involved. 9 V.S.A. § 2493(b).

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Says Dobbs Decision Does Not Undercut Freedom of Access To Clinic Entrances Act

In United States v. Gallagher, (MD TN, July 3, 2023), a Tennessee federal district court became the first court to rule on whether the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision affects the constitutionality of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances ("FACE") Act.  In the case, eleven co-defendants sought dismissal of their indictments for violating FACE. They first argued that since Dobbs held abortion is not entitled to heightened protection under the 14th Amendment, Congress' reliance in enacting the law on its 14th Amendment Section 5 enforcement powers is undercut. The court responded in part:

While the question of how section 5 applies to the FACE Act may be of some abstract or academic interest, however, it is of limited practical importance, given that section 5 is only one of two powers on which Congress relied in enacting the FACE Act, the other of which—the power to regulate interstate commerce—was not at issue in Dobbs.

Later in its opinion, the court rejected defendants' argument that Dobbs effectively created a carveout of abortion services from commerce clause coverage. It also rejected defendants' argument that they could not be prosecuted under 18 USC §241 for conspiring to prevent the exercise of a federal right. The court said "§ 241 does not require that the right in question be constitutional, only that it be federal. FACE is, of course, a federal statute...."

The court also rejected defendants' argument that the government is engaged in impermissible selective enforcement because it has not brought enough prosecutions under the FACE Act against individuals who have interfered in the operation of anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers.”

It went on to reject defendants' free speech arguments, saying in part:

Nor is the FACE Act being applied in an unconstitutional manner to these particular defendants based on their viewpoints or participation in First Amendment-protected activities, as would be required for a so-called “vindictive prosecution” defense. “...

Because there is no actual evidence of any such improper motive, the defendants engage in a sleight of hand, whereby they have treated any statement by the Department of Justice indicating a desire to safeguard access to abortion as evidence of a desire to punish these defendants for Dobbs. The defendants, though, are not the center of the moral or political universe. A desire to safeguard access to abortion is a desire to safeguard access to abortion—not an affront directed at them. More importantly, safeguarding access to abortion is, particularly under Dobbs, an entirely appropriate thing for legislatures and executives to do, if that is the course they choose. Indeed, it is harder to imagine a more fulsome endorsement of the elected branches’ power to set abortion policy than Dobbs...

Moving to defendants' Free Exercise/ RFRA claims, the court said in part:

The boundaries of the Free Exercise Clause are a topic of much disagreement.... The defendants’ argument, however, goes to something much more fundamental. Although the defendants go to great lengths to make this issue more complicated than it is, they ultimately ask a straightforward question: Does the Free Exercise Clause grant individuals who are acting out of religious motivations freedom to commit actions that otherwise would be crimes against the person or property of others through physical invasion, intimidation, or threat? The answer is similarly straightforward: No, it does not....

The defendants argued that RFRA requires that the state have a compelling interest to substantially burden religious exercise, and that after Dobbs there cannot be a compelling interest in protecting access to abortion. The court responded in part:

... [T]he Supreme Court has never held that a “compelling interest” depends upon something being considered a fundamental right. They are different constitutional concepts, performing different jurisprudential functions.

Preliminary Injunction Issued Against Tennessee's Ban on Gender-Affirming Treatment for Minors

In L.W. v. Skrmetti,(MD TN, June 28, 2023), a Tennessee federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of SB1 insofar as it bans health care personnel from providing or offering minors puberty blockers or hormone treatments for gender dysphoria. (Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the law's ban on gender-affirming surgery.) The court concluded that plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their due process claim, saying in part:

The Court ... agrees with Plaintiffs that under binding Sixth Circuit precedent, parents have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children, which naturally includes the right of parents to request certain medical treatments on behalf of their children....

It similarly found that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim, saying in part:

Defendants’ argument that SB1 does not discriminate based on transgender status is unpersuasive....

The Court is satisfied that current precedent supports the finding that transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause....

[T]he Court finds that SB1 discriminates on the basis of sex, which in turn provides an alternative basis for the application of intermediate scrutiny.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. [Posting updated to clarify scope of holding.]

Florida's Ban On Medicaid Payments For Puberty Blockers and Cross-Sex Hormones Is Invalid

In Dekker v. Weida, (ND FL, June 31, 2023), a Florida federal district court held that Florida Statutes §286.31(2) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-1.050(7) which bar the expenditure of state funds, including Medicaid funds, for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Affordable Care Act's ban on sex discrimination, as well as provisions of the Medicaid Act. The statute and rule also ban Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery, but none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge these provisions. The court said in part:

The record establishes that for some minors, including Susan Doe and K.F., a treatment regimen of mental-health therapy followed by GnRH agonists and eventually by cross-sex hormones is the best available treatment. They and their parents, in consultation with their doctors and multidisciplinary teams, have rationally chosen this treatment. The State of Florida’s decision to ban payment for GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones for transgender individuals is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. 

Dissuading a person from conforming to the person’s gender identity rather than to the person’s natal sex is not a legitimate state interest. The defendants apparently acknowledge this. But the State’s disapproval of transgender status—of a person’s gender identity when it does not match the person’s natal sex—was a substantial motivating factor in enactment of the challenged rule and statute....

The rule and statute at issue were motivated in substantial part by the plainly illegitimate purposes of disapproving transgender status and discouraging individuals from pursuing their honest gender identities. This was purposeful discrimination against transgenders....

Florida Politics reports on the decision.

Court Enjoins Arkansas Ban on Gender-Affirming Medical Care

In Brandt v. Rutledge, (ED AR, June 20, 2023), an Arkansas federal district court in an 80-page opinion permanently enjoined the state from enforcing Act 626, the state's ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors.  The court, finding that the Act violates the14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses, as well as the 1st Amendment's free speech protections, said in part:

Act 626 prohibits a physician or other healthcare professional from providing “gender transition procedures” to any individual under eighteen years of age and from referring any individual under eighteen years of age to any healthcare professional for “gender transition procedures.”...

The State claims that by banning gender-affirming care the Act advances the State’s important governmental interest of protecting children from experimental medical treatment and safeguarding medical ethics. Throughout this litigation, the State has attempted to meet their heavy burden by offering the following assertions in support of banning gender-affirming medical care for adolescents: (i) that there is a lack of evidence of efficacy of the banned care; (ii) that the banned treatment has risks and side effects; (iii) that many patients will desist in their gender incongruence; (iv) that some patients will later come to regret having received irreversible treatments; and (v) that treatment is being provided without appropriate evaluation and informed consent. The evidence presented at trial does not support these assertions....

Even if the Court found that Act 626 passed constitutional muster under the Equal Protection Clause, it fails under due process analysis.... 

As the Court has previously found, the Parent Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to seek medical care for their children and, in conjunction with their adolescent child’s consent and their doctor’s recommendation, make a judgment that medical care is necessary. “[T]the Fourteenth Amendment ‘forbids the government to infringe . . . ‘fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.’”...

Act 626 is a content and viewpoint-based regulation of speech because it restricts healthcare professionals from making referrals for “gender transition procedures” only, not for other purposes. As a content and viewpoint-based regulation, it is “presumptively unconstitutional” and is subject to strict scrutiny...

 Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffen in a statement said that he plans to appeal the decision to the 8th Circuit.  The Hill reports on the court's decision.

Court Refuses to Dismiss Suit by Civil Detainee Who Was Forced to Attend a Christian Religious Service

In Erie v. Hunter, (MD LA, May 31, 2023), a Louisiana federal district court refused to dismiss an Establishment Clause suit brought by a civil detainee at mental health facility who was forced to attend a Christian religious service at the facility by a psychiatric aide who claimed that she had to accompany 25 other residents to the service and could not leave plaintiff in his room unsupervised. The court said in part:

... [T]he State reverts to its position that ... Ms. Hunter faced a binary choice: either compel Mr. Erie's attendance at the worship service, or “refuse[] to allow the 25 other patients in SFF unit 1” to attend the service, thereby violating “their own free exercise rights.”.... And because the Supreme Court has rejected “a ‘heckler's veto' which would allow religious activity to be proscribed based upon [Mr. Erie's] perception or discomfort,” it was reasonable for Ms. Hunter to choose an “incidental infringement” on Mr. Erie's rights....

... [N]o reasonable official would confuse this case with a “heckler's veto” case. Mr. Erie is not challenging ELMHS's  practice of allowing weekly worship services in the SFF recreation hall, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Erie attempted to disrupt the January 9 worship service....

Second, and in any event, Mr. Erie has raised a fact dispute even regarding Ms. Hunter's claim that her choices were limited to forcing Mr. Erie to attend church or prohibiting the remaining SFF residents from attending church. Again, ELMHS's own investigation concluded that “there was [sic] other options [Ms. Hunter] could have use [sic] to locate other staff to stay with the [residents] who do not want to go to attend the religious services,”....

[Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

New Iowa Law Addresses Sexual Materials In School Curriculum; Parental Rights

Last Friday, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed SF 496 (full text) which prohibits public schools from providing "any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation to students in kindergarten through grade six. It adds the requirement that various programs and educational materials be "age-appropriate", which is defined in the law as:

topics, messages and teaching methods suitable to particular ages or age groups of children and adolescents, based on developing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral capacity typical for the age or age group. “Age-appropriate” does not include any material with descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act....

School libraries can only contain "age-appropriate" material, except (pursuant to a pre-existing section of Iowa law (Sec. 280.6)):

religious books such as the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran shall not be excluded from any public school or institution in the state, nor shall any child be required to read such religious books contrary to the wishes of the child’s parent or guardian.

The new law amends the statutory health education requirement to eliminate the required teaching about "HPV and the availability of a vaccine to prevent HPV, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome."

The law prohibits schools from giving parents false or misleading information about a student's gender transition intent and requires school districts to inform parents of their student's request for gender-affirming care from a licensed practitioner employed by the school district.

The new law also provides:

[A] parent or guardian bears the ultimate responsibility, and has the fundamental, constitutionally protected right, to make decisions affecting the parent’s or guardian’s minor child, including decisions related to the minor child’s medical care, moral upbringing, religious upbringing, residence, education, and extracurricular activities. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

The law also requires school districts to publish policies relating to parents' requests for removal of materials from school libraries or classrooms and policies for requesting a student not be provided with certain materials.

CNN reports on the new law.

New Florida Law Protects Conscience Rights of Health Care Providers

 Yesterday Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 1580 (full text) which protects conscience rights of health care providers and insurers. The law provides in part:

It is the intent of the Legislature to provide the right of medical conscience for health care providers and payors to ensure they can care for patients in a manner consistent with their moral, ethical, and religious convictions. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that licensed health care providers and payors be free from threat of discrimination for providing conscience-based health care....

 A health care provider or health care payor has the right to opt out of participation in or payment for any health care service on the basis of a conscience-based objection....

A board ... may not take disciplinary action against a health care practitioner’s license or deny a license to an individual solely because the individual has spoken or written publicly about a health care service or public policy, including, but not limited to, speech through the use of a social media platform ... provided that the individual is not using such speech or written communication to provide medical advice or treatment to a specific patient or patients....

Pensacola News Journal reports on the new law.