Summary

On January 15, 2009, Connecticut and two state officials; and Illinois, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Oregon, by and through their attorneys general; brought a lawsuit in Connecticut federal court against the United States, the Department of Health & Human Services, and the Secretary of HHS, Michael O. Leavitt, to invalidate a federal regulation that protects the conscience rights of medical professionals.

Two related cases were also brought on the same day, the first by the National Family and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) and Fair Haven Community Health Clinic, a Connecticut-based health clinic; and the second by Planned Parenthood and its Connecticut chapter.  On January 16, 2009, Planned Parenthood and NFPRHA both moved to consolidate their cases with this case, and their motions we subsequently granted. New York state also moved to intervene as a plaintiff and its motion was granted.

The challenged regulation was enacted by the Department of Health and Human Services to protect doctors and other medical professionals from being discriminated against by their employers for refusing to provide abortions; or to refer for, assist in, or train for, abortions.  It implements the conscience protections of three underlying statutes, the Church Amendment, the Public Health Services Act, and the Weldon Amendment, by requiring certain HHS grantees to provide written certification that they adhere to these laws.  The regulation also designates responsibility to the Office of Civil Rights to investigate complaints of discrimination against medical professionals for exercising their consciences.  The regulation went into effect on January 20, 2009. In March, HHS, under the leadership of the new presidential administration, proposed rescinding the regulation.

The Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund swiftly moved to intervene on January 22, 2009 to defend this regulation from attack, representing a group of professional medical associations including the Catholic Medical Association, the Christian Medical Association, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists.  For years, all three organizations have advocated for healthcare conscience protections, including the regulation under attack, on behalf of their members and others.

This first group of proposed intervenor medical associations is represented by M. Casey Mattox and Isaac Fong of the Center for Law & Religious Freedom; Steven H. Aden and Matthew S. Bowman of the Alliance Defense Fund; and Andrew S. Knott of the law firm of Knott & Knott.

On February 2, 2009, a second group of proposed intervenors including Concerned Women for America (CWA), Christian Pharmacists, Fellowship International (CPFI), Heartbeat International, Care Net, and New Jersey Physician’s Resource Council moved to intervene as defendants.

This second group of proposed intervenors is represented by Samuel B. Casey of Advocates International, Howard M. Wood, III of Phelon, FitzGerald & Wood, and M. Casey Mattox of the Center for Law & Religious Freedom (of counsel).

On February 10, 2009, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) moved to intervene as defendant.

AAPS is represented by Justin F. Fappiano of J. Fappiano Law Office, Lawrence J. Joseph, and Andrew L. Schlafly, General Counsel of AAPS.

Background

During the comment period for this regulation, the Center submitted comments on behalf of the Christian Legal Society and the Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants urging HHS to finalize the rule that is under attack.

Additionally the Center also represented Christian Medical and AAPLOG as defendant-intervenors in two lawsuits challenging the Weldon Amendment, which is one of the underlying statutes implemented by this regulation, and successfully defended the law from attack.  California ex. rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 436, 445 (9th Cir. 2006); Nat’l Family Planning & Reproductive Health Ass’n v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 826, 827 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Litigation Documents

Connecticut v. United States

Connecticut. et. al. Complaint – January 15, 2009

Catholic Medical Association, Christian Medical Association, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists’ Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene as Defendant – January 22, 2009

Catholic Medical Association, Christian Medical Association, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists’ Proposed Answers to Complaint – January 22, 2009

NFPRHA v. Leavitt (consolidated with Connecticut v. United States)

NFPRHA Complaint – January 15, 2009

Catholic Medical Association, Christian Medical Association, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists’ Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene as Defendant – January 22, 2009

Catholic Medical Association, Christian Medical Association, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists’ Proposed Answers to Complaint – January 22, 2009

Planned Parenthood v. Leavitt (consolidated with Connecticut v. United States)

Planned Parenthood’s Complaint – January 15, 2009

Catholic Medical Association, Christian Medical Association, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists’ Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene as Defendant – January 22, 2009

Catholic Medical Association, Christian Medical Association, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists’ Proposed Answers to Complaint – January 22, 2009

Press Releases

No choice: Doctors forced to perform abortions or else? – January 22, 2009