Protecting Women's Choice From The Trumpists

Trump doesn't give a whit about women's Choice one way or the other and the only thought he ever put into it before being persuaded it can be used as a potent political weapon against his enemies, was when he was relieved legal abortion could be used to get rid of fetuses in women he had knocked up. But as a political weapon... now you're talking his language! Yesterday NPR reported his regime was defeated in court over the "Conscience Rule," another bogus attempt by the far right to infringe on Choice.

In a blow to the Trump administration, a federal court in Manhattan has knocked down a rule that would make it easier for doctors and other health care workers to refuse care for religious reasons.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled Wednesday that the Department of Health and Human Services, which issued the regulation earlier this year, exceeded its authority and "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in promoting it.

The department's violations of federal law, according to the judge's opinion, were "numerous, fundamental, and far-reaching"-- and he vacated the rule entirely, just over two weeks before it was set to take effect Nov. 22.

...The rule's critics... saw it as a means of allowing health care workers to circumvent rules against discrimination. And they quickly took the Trump administration to court-- with more than two dozen states, cities and organizations such as Planned Parenthood filing lawsuits against Severino and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. Those suits were later consolidated into one case, which Engelmayer oversaw.

There's also another lawsuit against this rule, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs in that consolidated case include the state of California, Santa Clara County, and organizations such as Lambda Legal. It wasn't immediately clear what Wednesday's ruling means for the case in California.

As NPR has reported, this rule was part of a big push from the Office for Civil Rights to bolster "religious freedom" in health care. Severino, who is Catholic and formerly of the conservative Heritage Foundation, has argued that previous administrations did not fully enforce existing law that protected what supporters call health care workers' "conscience rights."

To remedy that, Severino created a Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom in January 2018, and in May of this year, his office issued this rule.

The rule was designed to bolster the rights of providers to opt-out of care, even without prior notice of their objections to their employer. It also expanded the type of workers who are able to file complaints about rights violations to include billing staff and receptionists and anyone else who in any way "assist[s] in the performance" of a procedure.

Complaints of such violations are relatively rare-- for a decade, the office would receive an average of one complaint like this each year. Severino frequently pointed to a jump in those complaints to 343 last year as proving the need for this rule. He attributed that increase to a strong message from his office that they were "open for business" when it came to issues of religious freedom.

However, that increase in the number of complaints is "demonstrably false," according to Englemayer's ruling. Nearly 80% of all the complaints given to the court were about vaccinations-- unrelated to health care workers and their religious beliefs in providing care.

The judge writes that only 21-- or 6%-- of the complaints the government provided the court are even potentially related to providers' moral or religious objections. During oral arguments, the government's attorney conceded that the real number of complaints were "in that ballpark."

"This conceded fact is fatal to HHS's stated justification for the Rule," Englemayer writes. "Even assuming that all 20 or 21 complaints implicated the Conscience Provisions, those 20 or 21 are a far cry from the 343 that the Rule declared represented a 'significant increase' in complaints."

In a statement to NPR, the government said, "HHS, together with DOJ, is reviewing the court's opinion and so will not comment on the pending litigation at this time."

Eva Putzova is running for Congress in an Arizona congressional district occupied by a conservative Blue Dog and former Republican legislator, Tom O'Halleran. He's as anti-Choice fanatic, just like his GOP colleagues. "I believe," Eva told us this morning, "in the absolute right to a safe, legal abortion. I support the court's ruling against the DHS rule allowing providers to violate reproductive rights under the guise of so-called "religious freedom." There is no "religious freedom" to deny constitutional rights to individuals or protected groups such as those seeking abortions. Too often, Democrats allow reactionary anti-choice groups to set the terms of debate when it comes to women and others seeking to control their own bodies. Each year, the Congress votes to pass the Hyde amendment which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion and way too many Democrats roll over with barely a peep of public opposition. This is personal for me. My own grandmother died from a botched abortion in 1946 leaving my 2-year old mother to grow up without her mother. When I am in Congress I will fight for full reproductive freedom and I will not stay quiet until we achieve it."

Jon Hoadley, the progressive Michigan state Rep. running for the southwestern Michigan House seat held by anti-Choice Trump enablers Fred Upton told me yesterday that "Today's court ruling is a step in the right direction to protect a woman’s right to choose. Women should be able to make their own decisions about their bodies and their family planning-- without interference from their bosses or the government."

Kathy Ellis' opponent, Jason Smith, is an anti-Choice fanatic and in their rural southeast Missouri district women's Choice is constantly under threat. "Everyone-- regardless of zip code, age, sex, or income-- should have access to basic healthcare, including abortion access." Using 'religious liberty' as an excuse for denying folks' access to healthcare is wrong and quite honestly, shameful."

Jason Butler is a progressive Wade County, North Carolina pastor vying for a House seat with anti-Choice extremist and Trump enabler George Holding. In an informal discussion, he told me that "one thing that evangelicals have been arguing for years is that they should not have to serve the public if that service violates their faith convictions. On its own, this sounds ok-- but the problem becomes that different people believe vastly different things about other people. While a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is one thing (which no one should do-- but honestly, they probably have the right to do)-- this can reach into life-threatening situations. Should an EMS deny life-saving CPR to a transgender woman if they disagree with their 'sexuality'? Should a doctor refuse to care for an undocumented minor because their faith teaches them to 'obey the law'… this is the danger of 'religious freedom.' It knows no end. We have a variety of faiths, and some pretty crazy belief systems within faiths-- anyone can get away with whatever they want to do and just call it their 'religious right.' While the constitution guarantees that we may practice our religion without persecution or interference from the state-- those protections should not be extended to the responsibilities of one's professional duties within my public job. If a part of one's job violates the principles of their faith, then they have every right to resign and find another job-- but not to refuse the service that is central to that job."

Lauren Ashcraft is a progressive congressional candidate for a New York City district occupied by garden variety Democrat and Wall Street ally Carolyn Maloney. This morning, Lauren told us that "It’s difficult to follow the logic in using 'religious liberty' to force your personal religious beliefs (or the positions you are being lobbied to have) on an entire country. I say this as a proud member of a Christian congregation in my district. I look forward to the very real possibility that the ERA will soon be ratified and everyone will be equal according to federal law, regardless of gender. I support the right to bodily autonomy and hope to get past when reproductive rights are always on the chopping block as political sport."