A new national religion?

Excerpted from "The Shifting Definition of Religious Freedom," Breakpoint commentary by Eric Metaxas, April 13, 2015 - Just this month, we watched a family-owned pizzeria close its doors after its owners received hate mail and death threats from around the country. Their offense? Giving the wrong answer to a question about whether they'd cater a gay wedding.

But gay columnist Frank Bruni recently took it to the next level in the New York Times, writing that it's time Christians get with the program and “take homosexuality off the sin list.” The lived experience of same-sex couples ought to trump what he calls the “scattered passages of ancient texts” condemning his lifestyle. Wow.

As for freedom of religion, Bruni suggests a new definition: “freeing ... religious people from prejudices that they ... can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

Writing at National Review, Yuval Levin says what we're witnessing isn't so much the suppression of free exercise of religion as it is the establishment of a new national religion; the religion of secular liberalism. And dissenters must be forced to worship at its altar and affirm its creed of anything-goes sexuality.

Given the likely outcome of this summer's Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage, Rod Dreher asks what will it be like to be a Christian in our brave, new society—and what will become of orthodox Christianity now that the price of professing it could be our credibility and livelihoods.

Friends, the fight for religious liberty is far from over. And as John Stonestreet and I have been saying again and again, it’s time for the Church to wake up, to pray, and to publicly defend our religious rights and our brothers and sisters under assault for their beliefs.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody, MEd: “Beyond the significant public policy battle over what marriage means, social issues agitators both inside and outside the church are advancing arguments that try to pry Christians off of our moral foundation, the Scriptures. New York Times commentator Frank Bruni suggests that ‘the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.’ Clearly Bruni has little understanding or respect for the divine inspiration, authority, unity, integrity and timelessness of the Scriptures that many of us trust with our lives both here and for eternity.

“Even some within the church are making similar arguments. These arguments seem to boil down to the notions that Bible writers injected personal bias and that science had not yet enlightened the early church. Therefore, Scriptures prohibiting and condemning homosexual behavior (and by extension, it would seem, Scriptures prohibiting any sex outside of marriage) can be thrown out like potshards from an ignorant, ancient culture.

“The trouble is that in the pursuit of social activism, these views undermine Scripture in order to reinterpret Scripture, leaving no real Scriptures at all. For if Bible writers did not actually write God-breathed words but instead injected their own personal bias, why would we elevate the Bible over, say, the Aeneid, or the works of Shakespeare, or the New York Times?

“If today's claims of science trump millennia of biblical truths, why would anyone persist in believing in the miracles described in the Bible or in anything supernatural at all? Following this train of thought, Jesus' virgin birth, healings, miracles, resurrection and promised return become a bunch of bunk to be debunked by science and social activists. Jesus Himself becomes suspect, since He unwaveringly treated Scripture as divinely inspired and authoritative. (What can we expect from an unschooled Galilean?)

“Rejecting this Bible-devaluing approach is not to say that nothing in the Bible is culturally based, but that we must discern between superficial cultural symbols and deep and consistent moral teaching in the Bible. Contrary to the assertions of those who would remake in their own image the Bible's teachings on sexuality, the evidence from Genesis through Revelation is far too compelling, deep and consistent that God clearly designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman in a lifelong relationship uniquely geared to raising children.”

Action

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has introduced legislation that would shrink religious freedom and marginalize faith-based organizations simply because they view boys as boys and girls as girls based on biology. By inserting "gender" issues into federal program requirements and by leaving the definition of gender open to liberal interpretation, while also leaving out any exemptions for those who view gender biologically and according to faith tenets, this legislation holds the potential to unfairly discriminate against and exclude faith-based organizations from funding. Click here to learn more and to send your senators an editable pre-written message to oppose S 262.

Resources
CMDA’s Same-Sex "Marriage" Public Policy Statement
CMDA’s Marriage Public Policy Statement
CMDA’s group letter supporting Marriage and Religious Freedom Act

DC tramples religious freedom in healthcare

Excerpted from "Sen. Ted Cruz seeks to upend D.C. laws on contraception coverage, gay rights," Washington Post, March 18, 2015 - Last month, more than a dozen prominent conservative groups and Catholic institutions asked Capitol Hill leaders to overturn the two D.C. laws, calling them “unprecedented assaults upon our organizations.” The laws would restrict the ability of private groups to discriminate based on religious beliefs.

One, the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, would prevent employers from taking action against workers based on their decision to use birth control or seek an abortion. The other, the Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014, repeals a longstanding, congressionally imposed measure exempting religiously affiliated educational institutions from the city’s gay nondiscrimination law.

As is the case for all D.C. laws, the two are now under a mandatory 30-day review period before Congress. Without congressional action, they could take effect as early as next month. That happened last month with the city’s marijuana-legalization law, when, despite threats from House Republicans, no lawmaker introduced a measure to stop it. Some Republicans feared a vote on marijuana legalization could expose a rift between conservative and libertarian wings of the party.

Freshman Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who co-introduced the measures [disapproval resolutions of Congress to overturn the DC laws], issued a statement Wednesday saying “what the D.C. Council has done is a major threat to the fundamental right to religious freedom for D.C. residents and organizations, and a brazen display of intolerance.” As evidence that Congress would be within its rights to disapprove the D.C. measures, Lankford pointed to a Supreme Court decision last year that family-owned businesses do not have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act if doing so conflicts with owners’ religious beliefs.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “The Washington Post suggests that these recently enacted DC ‘laws would restrict the ability of private groups to discriminate based on religious beliefs.’ In fact, the laws target and discriminate against religious groups by dictating that they must hire individuals who directly contradict the groups' tenets, standards and mission.

“That's a flagrant violation of First Amendment freedoms, as upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in the Hosanna Tabor case and by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“What the ironically entitled Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014 actually does is repeal a measure that for decades had advanced tolerance by ensuring that the DC Human Rights Act could not be used to coerce religiously affiliated schools into violating convictions of conscience.

“The DC Council apparently has decided, however, that there is not enough room in the District for religious dissenters who question the Council's edicts on sexual morality. Their discriminatory laws inject unconstitutional governmental coercion that subverts the democratic process of free speech and debate that historically has shaped American public opinion and values.

“Intolerance does not advance tolerance.”

Resources
www.Freedom2Care.org - CMA's one-stop-shop for news, analysis and resources on freedom of faith, conscience and speech.

Action

Protect conscience freedom in healthcare - HR 940, which would preserve patient choice and protect pro-life professionals from discrimination for moral and ethical views.

Protect freedom of faith and conscience related to abortion - S 50. No health professionals should be forced to choose between their careers and following the principles of ethical medicine.

Hippocratic physicians face "medical martyrdom"

Excerpted from The Coming of Medical Martyrdom, commentary by Wesley J. Smith, First Things, February 20, 2015 - Despite abortion’s ubiquitous legality and the accelerating push to normalize assisted suicide, space remains for dissenting doctors to practice their art in the traditional Hippocratic manner.

But that space is diminishing. Today, “patient rights” are paramount; the competent customer is always right and, hence, held to be entitled to virtually any legal procedure from “service providers” for which payment can be made—be it abortion, assisted suicide or, someday perhaps, embryonic stem cell therapies and products made from cloned and aborted human fetuses.

Hippocratic-believing professionals ... are increasingly being pressured to practice medicine without regard to their personal faith or conscience beliefs. This moral intolerance is slowly being imbedded into law. Such laws are a prescription for medical martyrdom, by which I mean doctors being forced to choose between adhering to their faith or moral code and remaining in their profession.

Canada is heading in [this] direction regarding euthanasia. Quebec legalized doctor-administered death last year and allows no conscience exemptions along the lines of Victoria’s abortion law. Meanwhile, the Canadian Supreme Court just made access to euthanasia a Charter right for those with a diagnosable medical condition that causes “irremediable suffering,” including “psychological” pain.

Recognizing that some doctors will have moral qualms about “terminating life,” the Court gave Parliament twelve months to pass enabling legislation, stating that “the rights of patients and physicians will need to be reconciled” by law or left “in the hands of physicians’ colleges.” That doesn’t bode well for medical conscience rights.

If these trends continue, twenty years from now, those who feel called to a career in health care will face an agonizing dilemma: either participate in acts of killing or stay out of medicine. Those who stay true to their consciences will be forced into the painful sacrifice of embracing martyrdom for their faith.

Commentary

Executive Director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada Larry Worthen, MA (Th.), LLB: “Comments by Wesley Smith regarding conscience rights for healthcare professionals in Canada should sound an alarm for our friends in the United States about the dangers of complacency. Advocates for a rationalistic and exclusively secular approach to healthcare are gaining ground and are shamelessly flexing their muscles behind the scenes with the provincial colleges that regulate the practice of healthcare in Canada.

“Buoyed by a recent unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which struck down sections of the Criminal Code dealing with assisted suicide and euthanasia, they are setting about the work of forcing physicians to refer for, and in some cases provide, procedures that go against the conscience of the physician. This has already resulted in physicians questioning whether they should move from their jurisdiction or dramatically alter their practice.

“However, all is not lost. In the recent case, the Supreme Court cited a previous decision that acknowledged that a physician could not be forced to participate in a procedure that went against the physician's conscience. CMDS Canada is currently using this argument in lobbying efforts with the two provincial colleges that have proposed policies that encroach on the freedom of conscience.

“If those lobbying efforts fail, then we will be forced to commence legal action to vindicate our rights to freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We ask our friends in the United States for your prayer support in this challenging time.”

Action

Use our easy, pre-written forms at our Freedom2Care legislative action website to contact your senators and protect freedom of faith and conscience in healthcare - S 50.

Resources
Freedom2Care - Visit CMDA's one-stop source for news, commentary and resources on freedom of faith, conscience and speech.
View Canada CMDS's video interviews with doctors on this issue (navigate to right-hand column on home page).

Data links religious freedom to peace and stability

Excerpted from "If Policy Makers Cared about Data, They’d Care about Freedom of Religion or Belief," the Weekly Number blog, September 15, 2014 - The past decade has seen the largest social science effort to collect and analyze data on international religious demography. This body of research points to one thing – religion is growing and will continue to grow globally, with about 9-in-10 people projected to be affiliated with religion in 2030 compared with 8-in-10 in 1970. This growth is projected to occur despite trends toward disaffiliation in the global north, where population growth is stagnating.

Studies show that there has been a dramatic rise in the level of religious restrictions and hostilities. The data point to a global religious freedom crisis that will become even more acute as the world becomes more religious and as global mobility mixes people and their beliefs at an unprecedented rate.

The data on religious freedom provide more than just information – they provide knowledge. Specifically, analysis of the data reveal two very important empirical relationships:

• The combined effects of government and social restrictions on religious freedom lead to violent religious persecution and conflict.
• The respect of freedom of religion or belief leads to peace and prosperity.

As the world navigates away from years of poor economic performance, freedom of religion or belief may be an unrecognized asset to economic recovery and growth, according to this new study.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “Our Judeo-Christian heritage has provided for religious freedom, since we know that God has bestowed on all people freedom of choice and that true belief cannot be coerced. The rise of radical Muslim terrorist groups such as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as ISIS) shows what happens in the absence of those fundamental understandings. A prayer request I recently received illustrates the tragedies that ensue:

A friend just got a text message from her brother asking her to shower him and his parish in prayer. He is part of a mission and ISIS has taken over the town they are in today. He said ISIS is systematically going house to house to all the Christians and asking the children to denounce Jesus. He said so far not one child has. And so far all have consequently been killed. But not the parents.

The UN has withdrawn and the missionaries are on their own. They are determined to stick it out for the sake of the families - even if it means their own deaths. He is very afraid, has no idea how to even begin ministering to these families who have seen their children martyred.

Yet he says he knows God has called him for some reason to be his voice and hands at this place at this time. Even so, he is begging prayers for his courage to live out his vocation in such dire circumstances. And like the children, accept martyrdom if he is called to do so.

She asked me to ask everyone we know to please pray for them. These brave parents instilled such a fervent faith in their children that they chose martyrdom. Please surround them in their loss with your prayers for hope and perseverance.”

Resources
Freedom2Care - CMDA's religious freedom headquarters

Action
Pray for our brethren—and especially the children—under siege by the terrorists, that they may both remain faithful to Christ and also escape their persecutors. Pray for the political and military defeat of the persecutors and for religious freedom in these countries. Pray against the spiritual forces of darkness and the propaganda that is winning converts to the cause of terror and for the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Use our easy, pre-written forms at our Freedom2Care legislative action website to contact your legislators on any of the following domestic religious freedom bills:

1. Protect conscience freedom in healthcare: HR 940
   Preserve patient choice and protect pro-life professionals from discrimination for moral and ethical views.
2. Uphold religious freedom, 1st Amendment - S.1808
   Marriage and Religious Freedom Act - S.1808 - prohibits discrimination because of moral beliefs regarding marriage and sex.
3. Protect faith-based adoption agencies from discrimination - S 2706
   Keep states from cutting off faith-based adoption agencies that assist couples with adoptions according to faith standards.

Christian campus groups face persecution

Excerpted from “The Wrong Kind of Christian,” Christianity Today. August 27, 2014 — Two years ago, the student organization I worked for at Vanderbilt University got kicked off campus for being the wrong kind of Christians. In May 2011, Vanderbilt's director of religious life told me that the group I'd helped lead for two years, Graduate Christian Fellowship—a chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship—was on probation. We had to drop the requirement that student leaders affirm our doctrinal and purpose statement, or we would lose our status as a registered student organization.

In writing, the new policy refers only to constitutionally protected classes (race, religion, sexual identity, and so on), but Vanderbilt publicly adopted an "all comers policy," which meant that no student could be excluded from a leadership post on ideological grounds.

Like most campus groups, InterVarsity welcomes anyone as a member. But it asks key student leaders—the executive council and small group leaders—to affirm its doctrinal statement, which outlines broad Christian orthodoxy and does not mention sexual conduct specifically. But the university saw belief statements themselves as suspect. It didn't matter to them if we were politically or racially diverse, if we cared about the environment or built Habitat homes. It didn't matter if our students were top in their fields and some of the kindest, most thoughtful, most compassionate leaders on campus. There was a line in the sand, and we fell on the wrong side of it.

Those of us opposed to the new policy met with everyone we could to plead our case and seek compromise. But as spring semester ended, 14 campus religious communities—comprising about 1,400 Catholic, evangelical, and Mormon students—lost their organizational status. After we lost our registered status, our organization was excluded from new student activity fairs. So our student leaders decided to make T-shirts to let others know about our group. Because we were no longer allowed to use Vanderbilt's name, we struggled to convey that we were a community of Vanderbilt students who met near campus. So the students decided to write a simple phrase on the shirts: WE ARE HERE.

And they are. They're still there in labs and classrooms, researching languages and robotics, reflecting God's creativity through the arts and seeking cures for cancer. They are still loving their neighbors, praying, struggling, and rejoicing. You can find them proclaiming the gospel in word and deed, in daily ordinariness. And though it is more difficult than it was a few years ago, ministry continues on campus, often on the margins and just outside the gates. God is still beautifully at work. And his mercy is relentless.

Commentary

CMDA’s National Director of Campus & Community Ministries J. Scott Ries, MD: “It is a remarkable story, but unfortunately not an isolated one. Just this week, InterVarsity announced that it has been booted off of all California State University campuses for the same reason, because they insist on a rational basis of faith as criteria for holding a leadership position.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg. In the last 18 months, two CMDA chapters have also been de-recognized for, yes, the exact same reason. At the University of Illinois, Chicago, we were told that because we require our student leaders to agree with CMDA’s statement of belief, we therefore violate their anti-discrimination policies. At the Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine, our CMDA group was denied official recognition “because of the emphasis on God and especially because of the Bible sessions.”

"Thankfully, in both cases the Lord gave us favor after I sent a letter with assistance from Kim Colby, Sr. Legal Counsel for Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom to the respective deans, explaining that this misapplication of their policy actually was, in fact, discrimination at its core. Both universities promptly reversed their positions, and CMDA is thriving on both campuses. But it will get worse. Our 280 campus chapters will be a lightning rod as this storm builds.

“So why is official recognition important after all? Why not just exist under the radar, meet off campus and avoid the toil, expense and pain of fighting what has become a cultural landslide smothering both orthodox beliefs and religious pluralism? Because lack of recognition impedes ministry and increases the cost of doing ministry. Greg Jao, attorney and National Field Staff Director for InterVarsity, explains it well.

“When one group loses religious freedoms, we all lose religious freedoms. Historically, what starts at the university campus trickles into all of society. That remains true, but what has changed is the rapidity with which it now happens. It seems as though someone has poured accelerant onto the fire of intolerance that is consuming those who share the very faith that brought tolerance to this world.”

Resources

Standing Against Persecution: My Journey to Start a CMDA Campus Chapter
The Erosion of Tolerance by John Patrick, MD

Administration again tweaks Obamacare contraception mandate

Excerpted from "Administration offers new tweak to birth control rule," Washington Post, August 22, 2014 - The Obama administration, still facing legal challenges to its requirement that employer health plans provide no-cost birth control to female employees, outlined a new policy Friday to ensure that female workers at religiously-affiliated nonprofits can still receive contraception, even if their employers object. The administration also intends to offer a similar work-around to for-profit businesses after the Supreme Court's bitterly debated 5-4 decision in June that owners of closely held firms could refuse contraception coverage if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The new federal guidelines address a set of ongoing legal challenges to the contraceptive requirement raised by dozens of religious nonprofit groups, such as hospitals and charities, that could again put the contraception mandate before the Supreme Court. The religious nonprofits are challenging the administration's already existing opt-out, in which the groups can ask a third party to provide the contraception coverage to their employees. However, the nonprofits say that filling out the form notifying the third party violates their religious beliefs.

The nonprofits can now directly inform the Department of Health and Human Services of their religious objections. HHS and the Labor Department will then coordinate contraception coverage with insurers and third party administrators. The nonprofits still have the option to notify a third party directly.

The Becket Fund, a law firm that represents 126 nonprofit plaintiffs ranging from evangelical Wheaton College to Catholic University of Notre Dame, said Friday afternoon it hadn’t yet seen the full text of the rule and thus couldn’t comment on its specifics. Several of the country’s biggest faith groups on Friday said the revised rule was still problematic because it didn’t fully exempt organizations – for-profit or non-profit – with religious objections.

"Here we go again,” said Russell Moore, president of the policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest U.S. Protestant denomination. “What we see here is another revised attempt to settle issues of religious conscience with accounting maneuvers. This new policy doesn't get at the primary problem.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it's worried that the administration's proposal could limit which for-profit businesses can receive a religious exemption.

"By proposing to extend the 'accommodation' to the closely held for-profit employers that were wholly exempted by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hobby Lobby, the proposed regulations would effectively reduce, rather than expand, the scope of religious freedom,” the group's statement read.

Commentary

Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Lori Windham’s Statement: "This is latest step in the administration’s long retreat on the HHS Mandate. It is the eighth time in three years the government has retreated from its original, hardline stance that only 'houses of worship' that hire and serve fellow believers deserve religious freedom.

"The new rule holds implications for the 102 cases, including religious charities like Little Sisters of the Poor (see video), Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network (see video) and religious colleges like Colorado Christian University. Ninety percent of religious ministries challenging the mandate have received relief from the courts, and we are hopeful the administration’s new rule will reflect the robust protections that have always been given to religious individuals in this country.

"Religious ministries in these cases serve tens of thousands of Americans, helping the poor and homeless and healing the sick. The Little Sisters of the Poor alone serve more than ten thousand of the elderly poor. These charities want to continue following their faith. They want to focus on ministry—such as sharing their faith and serving the poor—without worrying about the threat of massive IRS penalties."

Action

1. Urge your U.S. senators to support (or thank your senator for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - S. 1204 , to protect religious liberty and preserve patient access by providing conscience protections for healthcare professionals. (Note: You will be provided with editable text based on your senator's sponsorship or non-sponsorship of this bill.)
2. Urge your U.S. Representative to support (or thank your Rep. for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - H.R. 940.

Resources
Read new HHS rule

CMDA's Freedom2Care website: Freedom of faith, conscience and speech
CMDA's Freedom2Care commentaries in national newspapers
CMDA Freedom of Faith and Conscience resources

CMDA member challenges discrimination with conscience lawsuit

Editor's note: The following story features CMDA member Sara Hellwege, a key leader in CMDA's Atlanta ministry. Please pray for and stand with Sara as she courageously fights for protections that will benefit you and other life-affirming, conscientious healthcare professionals.

Excerpted from "A War on Women’s Health," commentary by Ian Tuttle, National Review, July 24, 2014 - Because it’s usually hidden beneath excuses, justifications, and pretexts, employer discrimination can be difficult to uncover. Not for Sara Hellwege [Hell-VAY-guh]. The aspiring nurse-midwife’s potential employer, a federally funded health center in Tampa, Fla., made its reason for not hiring her unmistakably clear: "Due to the fact ... you are a member of [a pro-life Ob-Gyn group], we would be unable to move forward in the interviewing process."

Hellwege, with the aid of Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal organization that focuses on religious-freedom violations, has filed suit against the Tampa Family Health Centers, Inc. (TFHC), for violating both federal and state law. Hellwege and Matt Bowman, senior legal counsel with ADF and one of Hellwege’s attorneys, contend that TFHC violated 42 U.S. Code § 300a–7d, which states:

No individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.

By all indications, Hellwege’s legal case is about as straightforward as they come. But the legal issues are irrelevant in the feminist blogosphere, where Hellwege has been savagely attacked.

But there is no conspiracy here — the law, at both federal and state levels, is clear, which perhaps explains its curious absence from the discussion at Salon and Wonkette — nor is there an effort to "refuse to provide women’s health care." Hellwege studied a field of care — midwifery — that is strictly for women, and she voluntarily sought out a position where she could serve poor women who often receive subpar care.

"The Left’s mantra of access is hollow," says Bowman, "because they want to deprive women of access to good, qualified nurses — like Sara." Bowman hopes that TFHC will admit wrongdoing and give Hellwege the chance to interview. If not, she and ADF are prepared to pursue their case using all available legal means.

"Many women want a pro-life midwife or nurse or doctor," he adds. "If the federal government can discriminate, women will have no options. There needs to be diversity among health providers, including religious and moral diversity that allows patients to have access to professionals who share their values."

Commentary

CMDA CEO David Stevens, MD, MA (Ethics): “The focus of this lawsuit is not defending a particular position on hormonal contraceptives, but rather defending a healthcare professional’s right to make conscientious decisions, even if that view is a minority position. Religious freedom does not mean simply protecting our own particular views on moral matters but protecting the right of each individual to make moral decisions based on conscience and ethical standards. Thus, we must defend a Muslim woman’s right to wear the hijab and the Jewish man’s right to wear the yarmulke as vigorously as we defend our own right to not be involved in abortions or other objectionable practices in healthcare.

“The position Sara applied for was to provide ‘all outpatient primary care’ so it went far beyond just providing contraception. Disqualifying Sara based on just this one aspect of her job is just like disqualifying an OB/Gyn candidate for declining to do abortions.

“Pray for Sara. She has been under vicious attacks in publications like Jezebel, Slate, Wonkette, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Styleite, Opposing Views and The Raw Story. She is standing up with the aid of the Alliance Defending Freedom to defend both your conscience freedoms and my conscience freedoms. I applaud her courage. The outcome of her case involving enforcing the Church Amendment could affect us all.”

Action

1. Urge your U.S. senators to support (or thank your senator for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - S. 1204 , to protect religious liberty and preserve patient access by providing conscience protections for health care professionals. (Note: You will be provided with editable text based on your senator's sponsorship or non-sponsorship of this bill.)
2. Urge your U.S. Representative to support (or thank your Rep. for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - H.R. 940.
   
3. Send a message to Sara

Resources
CMDA's Freedom2Care website: Freedom of faith, conscience and speech
CMDA's Freedom2Care commentaries in national newspapers
CMDA Freedom of Faith and Conscience resources
Fla. health center denies nursing job to pro-life woman - Alliance Defending Freedom

Will doctors be forced to kill?

Excerpted from "Will doctors be forced to kill?" commentary by Wesley J. Smith, First Things, July 25, 2014 - The wailing and gnashing of teeth in some quarters over the modest Hobby Lobby decision has me worried. Apparently, many on the political port side of the country believe that once a favored public policy has been enacted, it immediately becomes a "right" that can never be altered or denied. More, once such a "right" is established for the individual, others should have the duty to ensure access—even at the cost of violating their own religious consciences.

If such thinking prevails, medical professionals could be forced to participate in the taking of human life, for example in abortion, assisted suicide, and (given the research trends in regenerative medicine) providing treatments derived from the intentional destruction of human embryos or fetuses.

That certainly seems to be the direction in which the ACLU wishes to take the country. Recently, the ACLU of Washington State began trolling for potential clients to sue medical professionals or facilities that refused to participate in certain legal procedures or transactions based on religious objection:

"Have you or members of your family been denied reproductive health care or end-of-life services by a religiously based medical facility? The ACLU believes that everyone in Washington has the right to receive health care that is not restricted by the religious beliefs of others."

The solicitation listed specific procedures—some of which involve the taking of human life—that presumably a patient should have a right to receive. They include:

• Abortion
• Information about Washington’s Death with Dignity Act [the law permitting doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill];
• Referral to support organizations or cooperating providers to assist a patient in using Washington’s Death with Dignity Act;
• Medical providers permitted to participate in Washington’s Death with Dignity Act;
• Palliative care/nursing support for patients who choose to stop eating and drinking to allow natural death (e.g., participation in suicide by starvation, not a natural death)
• Pharmacy dispensary (e.g., forced dispensing of drugs used in assisted suicide, RU 486 abortions, etc.)

Moreover, the American medical establishment already opposes conscience exemptions for abortion and the dispensing of contraception. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) published an ethics-committee opinion denying its members the right of conscience against abortion.

Such denial of medical conscience is not yet embedded in American law. But if the anti-religious liberties lobby gets its way, it will be. Indeed, in coming years, medical professionals who believe in the Hippocratic Oath’s prohibition against killing could well be driven out of medicine.

Commentary

Jonathan Imbody, CMA VP for Govt. Relations: – The US Senate recently highlighted this battle over conscience and autonomy by voting on a bill (the Women’s Health Protection Act, S. 1696) that would, in the words of the National Right to Life Committee, "invalidate nearly all existing state limitations on abortion ... [including] laws allowing medical professionals to opt out of providing abortions, laws limiting the performance of abortions to licensed physicians, bans on elective abortion after 20 weeks, meaningful limits on abortion after viability, and bans on the use of abortion as a method of sex selection." Thankfully, the Senate bill failed, on a largely party-line cloture vote.

The bill reflects the escalating conflict between two camps in American society that hold irreconcilable worldviews: those who follow objective moral and ethical standards outside themselves (such as the Bible and the Hippocratic oath) and those whose only ethic is autonomy, which boils down to "whatever I want." The scary part is that many authorities in the medical community, which used to lead the way in promoting and following objective ethical standards, have all but abandoned the Hippocratic oath and increasingly promote autonomy as the ethic that trumps all else.

As appealing as autonomy may sound and even though it has its place in some cases, it is not the kind of standard that protects others well at all, like the Bible and the Hippocratic oath do. That's because one person's autonomy in one direction inevitably runs smack into another person's autonomy headed in the opposite direction. What happens then? Whoever is strongest wins.

If a patient gains the power in the name of autonomy to demand and receive whatever he or she wants, the healthcare professional becomes a mere "provider" and loses the essence of professionalism--professing to follow an objective standard. Similarly, if a mother insists on fulfilling her autonomy through an abortion, the baby loses her life.

Autonomy brooks no competition. So autonomy is less a reliable ethic and more a prescription for conflict, an enemy of tolerance and diversity.

In the First Amendment's establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), America's founders carefully balanced conscience freedoms with community interests, minority rights with majority rule, individual liberty with governmental function. We must shore up that understanding of freedom every chance we get--in the culture, in Congress and in the courts--or we will lose the ability to live out our faith in our professions and in the public square.

Action

1. Urge your U.S. senators to support (or thank your senator for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - S. 1204 , to protect religious liberty and preserve patient access by providing conscience protections for health care professionals. (Note: You will be provided with editable text based on your senator's sponsorship or non-sponsorship of this bill.)
2. Urge your U.S. Representative to support (or thank your Rep. for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - H.R. 940.

Resources
CMDA's Freedom2Care website: Freedom of faith, conscience and speech
CMDA's Freedom2Care commentaries in national newspapers
CMDA Freedom of Faith and Conscience resources
"U.S. Senate Democrats launch push for “the most radical pro-abortion bill ever" - National Right to Life

Religious freedom law is essential

Excerpted from "A Perpetual Haven: Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Matters," commentary by Kim Colby, Public Discourse, June 30th, 2014 - Religious liberty is America’s most distinctive contribution to humankind. The genius of American religious liberty is that we protect every American’s religious beliefs and practices, no matter how unpopular or unfashionable they may be. By protecting all religious beliefs and practices regardless of their popularity or political power, religious liberty makes it possible for citizens who hold very different worldviews to live peaceably together. Robust religious liberty avoids a political community riven along religious lines.

But religious liberty is fragile, too easily taken for granted, and too often neglected. A leading religious liberty scholar, Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia, recently warned: "For the first time in nearly 300 years, important forces in American society are questioning the free exercise of religion in principle—suggesting that free exercise of religion may be a bad idea, or at least, a right to be minimized."

Congress’s passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) was a singular achievement. For two decades, RFRA has stood as the preeminent federal protection of all Americans’ religious liberty. RFRA ensures a level playing field for Americans of all faiths. It puts "minority" faiths on an equal footing with any "majority" faith.

Yet RFRA has recently become a prime target for those who would deny robust protection to religious liberty. Congress may soon come under pressure to amend RFRA and diminish its protection, if the Supreme Court upholds RFRA’s protection of Americans whose religious consciences will not allow them to comply with the HHS mandate. Congress must withstand such pressure in order to protect religious liberty in America.

RFRA creates a level playing field for Americans of all faiths, putting "minority" faiths on an equal footing with "majority" faiths. Essentially, RFRA makes religious liberty the default position in any conflict between religious conscience and federal regulation.

The oft-heard argument that America must limit religious freedom because it has become more religiously diverse has it precisely backwards. Robust religious liberty is the reason for America’s dramatic diversity and remains essential to maintaining that diversity. RFRA ensures religious diversity by protecting all religions, including the hundreds of numerically disadvantaged faiths, by increasing the likelihood that those faiths will obtain sensible exemptions from well-intentioned laws that unknowingly restrict their religious practices.

In the long term, RFRA maximizes social stability in a religiously diverse society and minimizes the likelihood of political divisions along religious lines. The reason is simple. As Laycock puts it, "religious liberty reduces social conflict; there is much less reason to fight about religion if everyone is guaranteed the right to practice his religion." In other words, RFRA implements the Golden Rule in the context of religious liberty: in protecting others’ religious liberty, we protect our own religious liberty.

Commentary

The author of this piece, colleague Kim Colby of the Christian Legal Society, is one of a cadre of smart and savvy attorneys forming a bulwark of religious freedom through landmark litigation. CMDA has participated with Christian Legal Society, Alliance Defending Freedom, Americans United for Life and others in over 40 court cases. We meet regularly in Washington, DC to discuss legal strategy, messaging and culture-changing strategies to preserve the religious freedoms ensconced in the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Protection Act and three federal laws protecting conscience in healthcare.

Such freedoms are never free, and we remember that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." So I hope you will take a moment now to use the quick and easy form at our Freedom2Care legislative action website to tell your legislators to protect your conscience freedoms:

Protect conscience rights - HR.940
End discrimination in health care - S.1204

Action

1. Urge your U.S. senators to support (or thank your senator for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - S. 1204 , to protect religious liberty and preserve patient access by providing conscience protections for health care professionals. (Note: You will be provided with editable text based on your senator's sponsorship or non-sponsorship of this bill.)
2. Urge your U.S. Representative to support (or thank your Rep. for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - H.R. 940.

Resources
CMDA's Freedom2Care website: Freedom of faith, conscience and speech
CMDA's Freedom2Care commentaries in national newspapers
CMDA Freedom of Faith and Conscience resources

Response to the Hobby Lobby ruling

Excerpted from “CMA doctors hail Supreme Court mandate ruling, decry ongoing targeting of faith community,” CMDA News Release. June 30, 2014 — The 15,000-member Christian Medical Association, the nation's largest and oldest faith-based doctors' organization, today praised the Supreme Court's ruling in two Health and Human Services (HHS) Obamacare mandate cases but noted "increasing attempts by the government to coerce the faith community." CMA had outlined the medical aspects underlying religious objections to the HHS Obamacare mandate in its friend of the court brief in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Burwell.

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens said in a statement, "We are very thankful that the Supreme Court acted to protect family businesses from government coercion and fines for simply honoring the tenets of their faith.

"This is a much-needed victory for faith freedoms, because this administration continues its assault on the values of the faith community. We are witnessing increasing attempts by the government to coerce the faith community to adopt the government's viewpoint in matters of conscience," noted Stevens.

CMA also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in another Supreme Court case this term, McCullen v. Coakley, to defend First Amendment free speech and assembly rights of pro-life advocates against a Massachusetts law that prohibited many citizens from entering a public street or sidewalk within 35 feet of an abortion facility.

"There seems to be growing intolerance of the faith community by some government officials who appear to want to extinguish the First Amendment freedoms that allow for a diversity of values," Stevens observed, "We are seeing this antagonism expressed in coercive government mandates enforced with harsh penalties and discriminatory practices that threaten to eliminate the faith community from the public square."

Commentary

CMDA CEO David Stevens, MD, MA (Ethics): “I’m appalled that the ruling was five to four. One vote and we would have lost religious freedom, perhaps forever, in this country. It would have impacted us as healthcare professionals most of all, as Judge Alito noted in his majority opinion. He wrote, ‘Under HHS’s view, RFRA (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question—for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide.’

“We are already seeing the co-opting of the unwilling as a result of court rulings in the same-sex marriage issue. The courts are requiring participation by family-owned businesses in wedding ceremonies, despite their religious objections. The government is also forcing recognition of same-sex marriages as a condition for federal grants in this country and abroad.

“CMDA’s amicus brief, representing you, affected the decision. It scientifically established the potentially deadly effect of two ‘morning after pills’ and two types of IUDs on nascent life before implantation. That fact was accepted in the majority opinion.

“We won the battle, but the war is not over. We must continue to fight relentlessly locally and nationally to protect healthcare right of conscience. The stakes are just too great to do otherwise.”

Resources

Learn more about CMDA’s efforts to protect the right of conscience
CMDA’s amicus curiae brief

Christian physician in Egypt faces death for her faith

Excerpted from “Only a court can release Sudanese Christian woman on death row,” CNN. May 31, 2014 — Mariam Yahya Ibrahim was condemned to die by hanging after she declined to profess she is a Muslim, the religion of her father. Sharia law considers her a Muslim and does not recognize her marriage to a Christian. She is unlikely to change her mind despite giving birth in prison, says her husband Daniel Wani, who also is a Christian. Some Western media outlets have reported that Ibrahim would be released in a few days, but her husband said that only the appeals court could free his wife.

Technically, the president of Sudan cannot pardon her, so the judiciary might be the only way out for the government, which is coming under increased international pressure to release Ibrahim. The court convicted her of apostasy and adultery two weeks ago. At the time, she was eight months pregnant. She gave birth to a baby girl this week at a Khartoum prison, where she’s detained with Martin, her 20-month-old son.

Despite languishing in prison with two infants, she’s holding firm to her beliefs, according to her husband. “There is pressure on her from Muslim religious leaders that she should return to the faith,” Wani told CNN. “She said, ‘How can I return when I never was a Muslim?’”

Wani said his wife is a practicing Christian, more so than him. “I know my wife. She’s committed.” His wife, he said, was raised a Christian by her mother, an Ethiopian Orthodox, after her Muslim father deserted the family when Ibrahim was 6.

Commentary

Family Physician and Women in Medicine and Dentistry (WIMD) Chair Amy Givler, MD: “Forced faith is an oxymoron – if faith does not come from inner conviction, then it is not faith at all.

“Meriam Yahya Ibrahim, a fellow physician, has shown tremendous courage in not denying her Christian faith. This week, the Sudanese appeals court could rule on her case. Over the weekend, a Sudanese official stated she would be freed within days, but this was denied by the spokesman for the Sudanese foreign ministry. Growing international pressure is calling for Sudan to dismiss the case and free Dr. Ibrahim from prison, along with her newborn daughter and 21-month-old son.

“If not freed, Dr. Ibrahim faces 100 lashes within a few weeks (for the adultery charge) and death by hanging (for the apostasy charge). Ideally, as Islamic law allows, she would have two years to care for her infant before her death, but I am concerned whether, in prison, she will receive the nourishment needed to continue to breastfeed her daughter.

“Of course, being freed from prison doesn’t guarantee Meriam’s safety in a country where many Muslims, including family members, would feel justified in killing a woman whom they perceive as apostate. Refugee status in the U.S. could be authorized by President Obama, or her visa application (filed years ago after she married her U.S. citizen husband) could be expedited by Secretary of State Kerry.

“If there is the political will to do so, tremendous pressure from the U.S. could be placed on the Sudanese government, which receives around one-fourth of its budget from foreign aid. The U.S. gives the largest share of this, mostly through the U.N. ($216 million) for humanitarian aid, as well as $11 million in direct aid to Sudan’s government.”

Action
Urge Your member of Congress to support resolution calling for release of imprisoned Sudanese Christian Meriam Ibrahim
Urge Secretary of State Kerry to work to bring Meriam Ibrahim to the U.S.

Resources
Press release from Senator Roy Blunt

Christians no longer comfortable in culture

Excerpted from "The days of acceptable Christianity are over," World Magazine, May 13, 2014 - Robert P. George, chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, on Tuesday delivered a somber message to Christians: “The days of acceptable Christianity are over.”

George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, made the remarks at the 10th annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. George said society calls Christian beliefs bigoted and hateful, and “they despise us if we refuse to call good evil and evil good.” He argued that American Christians no longer have the option to avoid the culture wars, saying “a price must be paid” for holding to traditional church teachings on life, marriage, and sexual ethics.

Former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich and axed reality show hosts David and Jason Benham are some of the latest to pay that price for their belief in traditional marriage. George said what American Christians are facing is the 21st century version of the question, “Am I ashamed of the gospel?”

“Marriage is inseparable from the gospel,” he said. “These teachings are not the whole gospel, but they are integral to the gospel. They are not optional truths.”

George said even if the current cultural trend is unstoppable, Christians should not stop teaching what the Bible says about human sexuality. “If we deny these truths, we really are like Peter [saying] ‘I do not know the man,’” he said. “If we keep silent, we are like the other disciples, who ran.”

George noted how societal pressures have helped unite Catholics and evangelicals, who he called “our brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Commentary

CMDA Executive Vice President Gene Rudd, MD – “I write this while still jet-lagged from a trip to an East Asian country where persecution of Christians is well known. I return with a heightened appreciation of the struggles facing believers who live under the real threat of reprisal for their faith. With signs and symptoms now manifest here, it is easy to agree with Professor George in predicting that our culture is destined to the same fate.

Growing up, I never imagined overt persecution against Christians in the United States. But our faith is now the one that the “tolerant ones” refuse to tolerate. Is it because of our message, or because of hypocrisy and lack of grace? Likely both. The first we must not abandon; for the second we must seek forgiveness.

On a recent flight, I read Nik Ripken’s (pseudonym), The Insanity of God, his personal research of the persecuted church in many cultures. My seatmate must have thought I was daffy. At one moment I would be laughing and in the next, crying. In one of the book’s poignant conclusions, Ripken reminds us that God uses persecution to grow the Body of Christ. We should not disdain persecution. Rather than pray to be delivered from persecution, we must simply pray that we be found faithful.

“Jesus said, ‘Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets’” (Luke 6:22-23, NIV 1984).

Resources
Full Remarks – Robert P. George at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast
http://www.freedom2care.org/

Supreme Court ruling defends religious freedom

Excerpted from "Thin skins and legislative prayer,"Washington Post commentary by George F. Will, May 7, 2014 — After the marshal on Monday spoke the traditional “God save the United States and this honorable court,” the Supreme Court ruled that the Upstate New York town of Greece does not violate the First Amendment’s prohibition of “establishment of religion” by opening its board of supervisors’ meetings with a prayer. This ruling would not have scandalized James Madison and other members of the First Congress, which drafted and sent to the states for ratification the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Congress did this after hiring a chaplain.

Three decades have passed since the court last ruled on the matter of prayers during government meetings. In 1983, the court held:

“From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.” Since then, however, many Americans have become more irritable and litigious and less neighborly. Also, there are many more nonbelievers.

The majority held that ceremonial prayer — an encouragement to gravity and sobriety — is not harmful to the plaintiffs, who felt somehow coerced when present at public prayers, and who said such prayers are necessarily divisive. The court should have told them: If you feel coerced, you are flimsy people, and it is a choice — an unattractive one — to feel divided from your neighbors by their affection for brief and mild occasional expressions of religiosity.

Taking offense has become America’s national pastime; being theatrically offended supposedly signifies the exquisitely refined moral delicacy of people who feel entitled to pass through life without encountering ideas or practices that annoy them. As the number of nonbelievers grows — about 20 percent of Americans are religiously unaffiliated, as are one-third of adults under the age of 30 — so does the itch to litigate believers into submission to secular sensibilities.

The United States would be a more congenial place if it had more amiable atheists who say, as one such did, that “it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Some will say Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not an atheist.

Still, Jefferson made statesmanlike accommodations of the public’s strong preference for religious observances. As president, he attended Christian services conducted in the House of Representatives. They also were conducted in the Supreme Court chamber and the Treasury building. Jefferson attended a service in the House two days after praising (in an 1802 letter) “a wall of separation between church and state.”

Jefferson was no slouch when it came to asserting rights. But Greece’s prickly plaintiffs, having taken their town to court, might now ponder his example of relaxed, friendly respect for practices cherished by others and harmless to him.

Commentary

CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody: “I hesitate to add to the eloquent and insightful commentary by George Will, other than to suggest that Christian healthcare professionals as well as town councils should cheer this decision. Healthcare professionals are not exempt from the rising tide of litigation by people disaffected by faith, whether their complaint focuses on homosexual issues, abortion ‘rights’ or any other of a host of issues that conflict with your conscience and the tenets of your Christian faith.
“Every case the Supreme Court decides in favor of religious freedom builds a bulwark of precedents and highlights what the First Amendment clearly guarantees::

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“Since the framers of the Constitution never separated conscience and religion, this first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights means that you as a Christian healthcare professional or student have a right to decline or participate in practices and prescriptions according to the dictates of your conscience and moral standards, free from government coercion. The rub, of course, comes when discrimination comes not from the government but from your healthcare specialty college, or the admissions committees of the schools you're trying to get into, or the ethics committee at the hospital where you practice (see reporting discrimination, below).
We need to strengthen and expand conscience protections in law while simultaneously convincing colleagues and countrymen of the benefits to all that come from respecting conscience and religious freedoms: promoting tolerance, diversity and non-discrimination.

Action

1. Use our easy pre-written customizable message to support H.R. 940 - Healthcare Conscience Rights Act (House bill) and S. 1204 - Health Care Conscience Rights Act (Senate bill)
2. If you have experienced discrimination, visit our Freedom2Care website for reporting options.

Resources
CMA SCOTUS brief in Hobby Lobby religious freedom case
CMA’s Freedom2Care website on freedom of faith, conscience and speech
CMA commentaries

SCOTUS hears case on free speech re: abortion in Obamacare

Excerpted from "Campaign speech case is regulatory overkill," commentary by George F. Will, Washington Post, April 18, 2014 - Former U.S. representative Steve Driehaus, a Cincinnati Democrat who considers himself antiabortion, says he lost his 2010 reelection bid because the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List violated Ohio’s law with ads saying that when he voted for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he voted for taxpayer funding of abortion. When he learned that the SBA List planned to erect billboards proclaiming “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion,” he filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission, the truth arbiter and speech regulator. So the billboard company refused the SBA List’s business.

Driehaus says the ACA does not specifically appropriate money for abortions. The SBA List counters that the ACA can subsidize abortion-inclusive insurance coverage.

Driehaus says insurance companies must collect a “separate payment” from enrollees and segregate this money from federal funds. The SBA List says money is fungible, so this accounting sleight of hand changes nothing.

Driehaus says an executive order issued after passage of the ACA, which was promised to get him and a few other pro-life Democrats to vote for the act, prohibits ACA funds from being used for abortions. The SBA List says the executive order proved that the ACA itself allowed taxpayer-funded abortions.

Ohio’s law, which obviously is designed to encourage self-censorship, certainly chilled the SBA List’s political speech. The SBA List’s brief to the Supreme Court notes that “a law requiring citizens to pay $1 before they could publicly comment on electoral issues or candidates for office would be immediately justiciable (and promptly invalidated).” Yet Ohio’s law makes it easy for literally millions of Ohioans to subject participants in the political process to much more expensive costs — not to mention the threat of incarceration.

This case, which comes from Cincinnati, where the regional IRS office was especially active in suppressing the political speech of conservative groups, involves the intersection of two ominous developments. One is the inevitable, and inevitably abrasive, government intrusions into sensitive moral issues that come with government’s comprehensive and minute regulation of health care with taxes, mandates and other coercions. The Supreme Court will soon rule on one such controversy, the ACA requirement that employer-provided health-care plans must cover the cost of abortifacients. The other development is government’s growing attempts to regulate political speech, as illustrated by the Obama administration’s unapologetic politicization of the IRS to target conservative groups.

These developments are not coincidental. Government’s increasing reach and pretensions necessarily become increasingly indiscriminate.

Commentary

CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody: – “Government actions hostile to religious freedom have triggered a raft of cases that now are reaching the Supreme Court. They're worth tracking because (a) they involve our faith-based and pro-life colleagues and (b) the principles impact virtually every believer, and especially those who own or work for businesses--including medical and dental practices. These cases include, but are not limited to:

1. the recently heard religious freedom cases of faith-motivated for-profit employers forced to violate their conscience convictions by participating in providing HHS-mandated contraceptives that the FDA notes can end the life of a human embryo;
2. the free speech case analyzed above, of a pro-life organization censored for political speech that sought to educate voters on abortion-related provisions in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare);
3. the upcoming religious freedom cases (of a total of nearly 100 cases in all) of non-profit organizations also opposed to participating in the HHS contraceptives mandate.

“With the number of Americans who hold no religious affiliation increasing (read my analysis of that trend here), the faith community is losing natural supporters of religious freedom. That means we have to step up our efforts to protect ourselves in law and also to educate our countrymen.


“Some basic points to emphasize about religious freedom:

1. Faith-based groups help the poor and needy. (Polling shows that even the non-religious still appreciate the charitable services of the faith community.)
2. Religious liberty protects against discrimination and promotes tolerance and diversity. (Why should religious views be censored in the public arena? Religious tolerance is a hallmark of our democratic republic designed to aid the coexistence of disparate groups and viewpoints.)
3. A threat to one group’s First Amendment freedoms is a threat to all. As Protestant Pastor Martin Niemoller lamented after serving in a concentration camp during the Nazi holocaust, ‘First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me.’”

Resources

CMA SCOTUS brief in Hobby Lobby religious freedom case

CMA’s Freedom2Care website on freedom of faith, conscience and speech

CMA commentaries

Action

Use our easy pre-written customizable message to support H.R. 940 - Healthcare Conscience Rights Act (House bill) and S. 1204 - Health Care Conscience Rights Act (Senate bill)

CMA religious freedom commentary on Fox News

(Excerpted from "Families fighting Obamacare's assertion of 'pill-level power,'" published by Fox News, March 25, 2014)

By Jonathan Imbody, CMA VP for Govt. Relations

The mandate under Obamacare that prescribes the provision of 20 specific contraceptives exposes the audacity of pill-level government decision-making. While many Americans, including those with religious convictions, approve of and use certain contraceptives, the government-mandated, no-exceptions list includes four especially controversial items (Plan B, ella and two intrauterine devices--IUDs) that the FDA notes can end the life of a developing human being.

Why would the government intervene to force the provision of free contraceptives for every woman from the Hamptons to Beverly Hills? Everyone who has easily bought and used contraceptives at the neighborhood drug store can readily see that the administration has no compelling interest to do so beyond raw politics and ideology.

President Obama unwittingly confirmed the lack of a compelling need for government intervention when he asserted in a White House address, "Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives--99 percent." Why would the federal government intervene to mandate the provision of what even the President admits is a ubiquitous product? The existing ready access to contraceptives, combined with literally millions of exemptions handed out by the administration to virtually everyone but religious objectors, effectively rules out any government claim to a compelling reason for the mandate.

The Supreme Court in a few days will examine whether the administration violated federal law that requires a "compelling" government justification for trampling Americans' conscience freedoms. The Court will hear two cases of family-owned businesses whose only crime appears to be not sharing the administration's ideology. Two families that own and operate companies--the Conestoga Wood Specialties and the Hobby Lobby--maintain a science- and faith-based objection to providing just the four of the mandated contraceptives that can end a human life.

As a result, these two family-owned businesses face government fines totaling millions of dollars as the cost of exercising what they thought were every American's unalienable First Amendment freedoms. They could also, of course, simply drop their employees' healthcare insurance altogether. But that option likewise incurs draconian Obamacare fines, and the families want to continue providing excellent health coverage to employees as they were able to before Obamacare.

These families now fight in court for the freedoms that other Americans have fought for on the battlefield.

Read rest of commentary.

Resources

CMDA Right of Conscience Resources

Action

Use our easy pre-written customizable message to support H.R. 940 - Healthcare Conscience Rights Act (House bill) and S. 1204 - Health Care Conscience Rights Act (Senate bill)

Supreme Court hears religious freedom, contraceptives cases

Excerpted from "Supreme Court divided as it hears argument on contraceptive coverage," Washington Post, March 26, 2014 - A divided Supreme Court seemed sympathetic Tuesday to the views of business owners who say their religious objections protect them from a requirement in President Obama’s Affordable Care Act that health insurance plans cover all types of contraceptives. The conservative wing of the court seemed to agree that the challengers in the two cases — closely held corporations owned by families whose religious beliefs the government does not question — could be covered by a federal law that provides great protection for the exercise of religion.

So for the contraceptive requirement to apply to the companies, the government would have to show that it has a compelling interest in enforcing the requirement, that this does not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise, and that there is no less-intrusive way to provide coverage to female workers.

Justice Anthony Kennedy may have signaled a deeper concern when he raised the worry that the government’s reasoning would mean there was little that employers could object to funding. Kennedy told Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. that under Verrilli’s view, a corporation “could be forced in principle to pay for abortions.” The court will render a decision in the cases — Hobby Lobby Stores vs. Sebelius and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius — during its current term, which ends in late June.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody – “These cases hold profound significance for our free exercise of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and as advanced in a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Christian Medical Association filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, available here.

“The cases hinge on several key principles:

• Americans do not sacrifice their First Amendment freedom to exercise religious convictions once they launch a business (including a medical or dental practice). Consider, for example, that the New York Times corporation does not lose its First Amendment free speech rights simply as a result of incorporation; nor do incorporated churches lose their free exercise rights.
• The government may only abridge the free exercise of religion when it can prove a ‘compelling interest.’ The fact that the administration has exempted millions of secular employers (though refusing to exempt many religious employers) undermines any government claim that the mandate is compelling. The lack of studies showing that pills such as ella and Plan B actually reduce unplanned pregnancies also undermines a claim of compelling interest.
• Even when the government can prove a compelling interest to transgress religious liberty, it may only do so by the ‘least restrictive’ means available The least restrictive means of providing contraceptives would be for the government to directly provide them to women who cannot afford them, as it does around the world--not to force conscientious objectors to participate in the distribution.

“Many of my attorney colleagues who attended Tuesday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court felt guardedly encouraged. I attended a briefing at the U.S. Capitol in which similar optimism was voiced, based on the justices' line of questioning.

“If we win this decision, Christians gain a measure of protection against the increasing assaults on our religious freedom. If we lose, we can expect more fines, discrimination, job losses and even jailing as a result of growing animus toward the faith community and the increasingly counter-cultural values for which we stand. Even with a court victory, we still face the huge and more important task of winning an audience with our colleagues and our culture, to present the principles and claims of the kingdom and our King.


Resources

CMDA Right of Conscience Resources

Action

Use our easy pre-written customizable message to support H.R. 940 - Healthcare Conscience Rights Act (House bill) and S. 1204 - Health Care Conscience Rights Act (Senate bill)

Forcing conscientious objectors to participate in same-sex marriages

(Excerpted from " Jim Crow laws for gays and lesbians?" column by Kirsten Powers, USA Today, Feb. 19, 2014) - What's the matter with Kansas? A bill protecting the religious freedom of businesses and individuals to refuse services to same-sex couples passed the state House of Representatives last week. It was blessedly killed in the state Senate on Tuesday.

Similar bills have cropped up in a half-dozen states in an effort to protect anti-gay religious believers against lawsuits. A florist in Washington state, a Colorado baker and a New Mexico photographer have been sued for refusing to serve gay couples getting married. They say to do so would be to "celebrate" nuptials at odds with their Christian faith.

It's probably news to most married people that their florist and caterer were celebrating their wedding union. Most people think they just hired a vendor to provide a service. It's not clear why some Christian vendors are so confused about their role here.

Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn't prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. Jesus calls his followers to be servants to all. Nor does the Bible call service to another an affirmation.

Christians backing this bill are essentially arguing for homosexual Jim Crow laws.

Some claim it's because marriage is so sacred. But double standards abound. Christian bakers don't interrogate wedding clients to make sure their behavior comports with the Bible. If they did, they'd be out of business. [Pastor Andy] Stanley said, "Jesus taught that if a person is divorced and gets remarried, it's adultery. So if (Christians) don't have a problem doing business with people getting remarried, why refuse to do business with gays and lesbians."

Maybe they should just ask themselves, "What would Jesus do?" I think he'd bake the cake.

Commentary

CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody – “The bill that Kirsten Powers' acerbic commentary rails against would simply prohibit coercing people into performing marriage ceremonies or providing adoption or business services that are ‘contrary to sincerely held religious beliefs’ ‘regarding sex or gender.’ Powers cites the Bible and several pastors to argue that Christians should love and serve everyone regardless of sexual preference, suggesting that unchristian bigots who decline to bake cakes for or take photos of same-sex weddings deserve no protection for contrary convictions.

“What Powers overlooks is that our 1st Amendment guarantees that even if your beliefs do not comport with the Bible, even if your conscience goes against the current of the culture, the government must not compel you to violate your convictions. Christians and non-Christians alike enjoy the same protection of conscience, a bedrock of our country's founding and an essential foundation for comity and tolerance today.

“Americans' historic commitment to conscience is so strong that we do not even force conscientious objectors to join the Army when the nation is at war. Nor do we force Catholic physicians to participate in the death penalty, or Jewish deli owners to serve pork barbecue, or commercial photographers who support animal rights to supply shots for fur coat ads.

“People may disagree as to whether or not a Christian is bound by biblical principles to participate in same-sex weddings. But legally speaking—and that's the focus of this fight—the government should not be determining the answer for us.

“Unfortunately, many proponents of same-sex marriage apparently do not feel it's enough to have gained the legal right to marry; now they want to compel everyone to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies. How ironic it would be to turn a wedding won through a campaign for ‘equality and freedom’ into an event of subjection and coercion.”

Resources
CMDA Right of Conscience Resources
CMDA Sexuality Resources
CMDA Marriage Related Ethical Statements

Action: Use our easy pre-written customizable message to support Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (Senate bill) - S 1808 and Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (House bill) H.R. 3133