Medical team preparing equipment for surgery in operation room. Via Shutterstock / null
Denver, Colo., Jun 21, 2023 / 15:45 pm (CNA).
Catholic organizations and medical professionals won’t be forced to perform gender-transition surgeries or provide insurance coverage for them after the Biden administration declined to defend the challenged “transgender mandate” federal rules with an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Becket, a religious-liberty-focused legal group, served as legal counsel for a coalition of Catholic organizations that represented hospitals, doctors, and clinics in the case known as Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra.
In January 2021, a federal district court ruled that the intrusion on the Catholic plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion was sufficient to show “irreparable harm.” A three-judge panel of the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in a Dec. 9, 2022, decision sided with the lower court’s ruling. The Biden administration had appealed the lower court’s ruling but did not ask the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the appellate ruling by the June 20 deadline.
“After multiple defeats in court, the federal government has thrown in the towel on its controversial, medically unsupported transgender mandate,” Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket legal group, said June 21. “Doctors take a solemn oath to ‘do no harm,’ and they can’t keep that oath if the federal government is forcing them to perform harmful, irreversible procedures against their conscience and medical expertise.”
The ruling ends a long legal battle related to a similar rule issued under the Obama administration in 2016.
The Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services issued the contested rule in January 2021. It revised Section 1557 health care rules under the 2010 Affordable Care Act to add “sexual orientation and gender identity” and “reproductive health care services” including “pregnancy termination” to existing “protections against discrimination on the basis of sex.” The rule also reversed Trump-era conscience protections that sought to allow medical professionals to opt out of performing procedures against their beliefs.
The rule changes meant that Catholic doctors would be forced to perform purported sex change operations and that Catholic organizations would be forced to cover the procedures in their health insurance plans.
The Catholic plaintiffs filed the legal challenge to the Biden administration’s mandate. The Catholic groups argued the mandate violated their religious freedom and their conscientious objections protected by federal law.
Plaintiffs included the Religious Sisters of Mercy and their health system and hospitals joined by the Catholic Benefits Association, the Catholic Medical Association, the University of Mary, the Diocese of Fargo, and Catholic Charities of North Dakota. They were also joined by the state of North Dakota.
Goodrich said the Catholic doctors and hospitals provide “vital care to patients in need, including millions of dollars in free and low-cost care to the elderly, poor, and underserved.”
“This is a win for patients, conscience, and common sense,” he said in a statement.
The United States Catholic Conference of Bishops condemned the federal rule in a July 2022 statement. The bishops objected to requiring health care workers “to perform life-altering surgeries to remove perfectly healthy body parts.”
The bishops characterized the rule as “a violation of religious freedom and bad medicine.”
The mandate was challenged in another federal lawsuit, Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra, which resulted in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the mandate in an August 2022 decision. The deadline to appeal that decision passed last November. In that case, religious medical groups including Franciscan Alliance, Christian Medical and Dental Society, and Specialty Physicians of Illinois had challenged the mandate.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Archbishop Zbigņevs Stankevičs of Riga, Latvia (left), speaking during a Catholic conference in Warsaw in May 2022 on the natural law legacy of John Paul II (right.) / Photos by Lisa Johnston and L’Osservatore Romano
Warsaw, Poland, Jun 9, 2022 / 09:17 am (CNA).
Constant cooperation and dialogue among Catholic, Lutherans, Orthodox, and other Christian denominations have been crucial to protect life and family in the Baltic nation of Latvia, Archbishop Zbigņevs Stankevičs of Riga, Latvia, said during a recent Catholic conference in Warsaw.
In his speech, Stankevičs shared his personal ecumenical experience in Latvia as an example of how the concept of natural law proposed by St. John Paul II can serve as the basis for ecumenical cooperation in defending human values.
The metropolitan archbishop, based in Latvia’s capital, is no stranger to ecumenical work and thought. In 2001, he became the first bishop consecrated in a Lutheran church since the split from Protestantism in the 1500s. The unusual move, which occurred in the church of Evangelical Lutheran Cathedral in Riga, formerly the Catholic Cathedral of St. Mary, signaled the beginning of Stankevičs’ cooperation with the Lutheran church in Latvia, a cooperation that would ultimately become a partnership in the cause of life and the family. Since 2012, the archbishop has served on the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
“I would like to present this ecumenical cooperation in three experiences in my country: the abortion debate, the civil unions discussion, and the so-called Istanbul convention,” Stankevičs began.
Entering the abortion debate
Ordained as a priest in 1996, Stankevičs struggled to find proper consultation for Catholic couples on natural family planning. It was then that he decided to create a small center that provided natural family planning under the motto “let us protect the miracle [of fertility].”
This involvement in the world of natural family planning would lead him into the heart of the abortion debate in Latvian society, and, ultimately, to the conclusion that moral discussions in the public square benefit from a basis in natural law, something emphasized in the teachings of John Paul II.
“I knew that theological arguments would not work for a secular audience, so I wanted to show that Catholic arguments are not opposed to legal, scientific, and universal arguments, but rather are in harmony with them,” Stankevičs said.
“[A] few years later our parliament introduced the discussion to legalize abortion. No one was doing anything so I decided to do something. I consulted some experts and presented a proposal that was published in the most important secular newspaper in Latvia,” the archbishop said.
Stankevičs’ article, “Why I was Lucky,” used both biological and theological arguments to defend human life. He noted that his own mother, when pregnant with him, was under pressure to get an abortion; “but she was a believer, a Catholic, so she refused the pressure.”
After the Latvian parliament legalized abortion in 2002, the different Christian confessions decided to start working together to protect the right to life and the family.
In Latvia, Catholics comprise 25% of the population, Lutherans 34.2%, and Russian Orthodox 17%, with other smaller, mostly Christian denominations making up the remainder.
“We started to work together by the initiative of a businessman in Riga, a non-believer who wanted to promote awareness about the humanity of the unborn,” the archbishop recalled.
“Bringing all Christians together in a truly ecumenical effort ended up bearing good fruits because we worked together in promoting a culture of life: From more than 7,000 abortions per year in 2002, we were able to bring it down to 2,000 by 2020,” he said.
Map of Riga, the capital of Latvia. Shutterstock
Ecumenical defense of marriage, family
Regarding the legislation on civil unions, another area where Stankevičs has rallied ecumenical groups around natural law defense of marriage, the archbishop said that he has seen the tension surrounding LGBT issues mount in Latvian society as increased pressure is brought to bear to legalize same-sex unions.
Invited to a debate on a popular Latvian television show called “One vs. One” after Pope Francis’ remark “who am I to judge?” was widely interpreted in Latvian society as approving homosexual unions, Stankevičs “had the opportunity to explain the teachings of the Catholic Church and what was the real meaning of the Holy Father’s words.”
After that episode, in dialogue with other Christian leaders, Stankevičs proposed a law aimed at reducing political tensions in the country without jeopardizing the traditional concept of the family.
The legislation proposed by the ecumenical group of Christians would have created binding regulations aimed at protecting any kind of common household; “for example, two old persons living together to help one another, or one old and one young person who decide to live together.”
“The law would benefit any household, including homosexual couples, but would not affect the concept of [the] natural family,” Stankevičs explained. “Unfortunately the media manipulated my proposal, and the Agency France Presse presented me internationally as if I was in favor of gay marriage.”
In 2020, the Constitutional Court in Latvia decided a case in favor of legalizing homosexual couples and ordered the parliament to pass legislation according to this decision.
In response, the Latvian Men’s Association started a campaign to introduce an amendment to the Latvian constitution, to clarify the concept of family. The Latvian constitution in 2005 proclaimed that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but left a legal void regarding the definition of family, which the court wanted to interpret to include homosexual unions.
The Latvian bishops’ conference supported the amendment presented by the Men’s Association, “but most importantly,” Stankevičs explained, “we put together an ecumenical statement signed by the leaders of 10 different Christian denominations supporting the idea that the family should be based on the marriage between a man and a woman. The president of the Latvian Jewish community, a good friend, also joined the statement.”
The Freedom Monument in Riga, Latvia, honors soldiers who died during the Latvian War of Independence (1918-1920). Shutterstock
According to Stankevičs, something strange happened next. “The Minister of Justice created a committee to discuss the demand of the constitutional court, and it included several Christian representatives, including three from the Catholic Church, which worked for a year.” But ignoring all the discussions and proposals, the Minister of Justice ended up sending a proposal to parliament that was a full recognition of homosexual couples as marriage.
The response was also ecumenical: Christian leaders sent a letter encouraging the parliament to ignore the government’s proposal.
According to Stankevičs, the proposal has already passed one round of votes “and it is very likely that it will be approved in a second round of votes, with the support of the New Conservative party. But we Christians continue to work together.”
Preventing gender ideology
The third field of ecumenical cooperation mentioned by Stankevičs concerned the Istanbul Convention, a European treaty which the Latvian government signed but ultimately did not ratify.
The treaty was introduced as an international legal instrument that recognizes violence against women as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women.
The convention claims to cover various forms of gender-based violence against women, but Christian communities in Latvia have criticized the heavy use of gender ideology in both the framing and the language of the document.
The word “gender,” for instance, is defined as “the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men,” a definition that allows gender to be defined independent of biological sex and therefore opens the document to the question of whether it really is aimed at the protection of women.
Christian communities also question the biased nature of the committee designated to enforce the convention.
The governments of Slovakia and Bulgaria refused to ratify the convention, while Poland, Lithuania, and Croatia expressed reservations about the convention though it was ultimately ratified in those countries, a move the government of Poland is attempting to reverse.
“When we found out that the Latvian parliament was going to ratify it, I went to the parliament and presented the common Christian position,” Stankevičs explained. As a consequence of that visit, the Latvian parliament decided not to ratify the convention, Stankevičs said, crediting the appeal to the unity provided by the common Christian position argued via natural law.
“In conclusion,” the archbishop said, “I can say that in Latvia we continue to defend the true nature of life and family. But if we Catholics would act alone, we would not have the impact that we have as one Christian majority. That unity is the reason why the government takes us seriously.”
The exterior of Georgetown University’s School of Medicine in Washington, D.C. / Shutterstock
Denver, Colo., Jul 10, 2023 / 08:44 am (CNA).
The U.S. bishops have reaffirmed the importance of education access for marginalized racial groups after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action in higher education.
“Education is a gift, an opportunity, and an important aspect of our democracy that is not always within the reach of all, especially racial and ethnic groups who find themselves on the margins,” Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Perry of Chicago, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee Against Racism, said in a July 7 statement. “It is our hope that our Catholic institutions of higher learning will continue to find ways to make education possible and affordable for everyone, regardless of their background.”
Perry cited St. Katharine Drexel, a pioneer of Catholic education: “If we wish to serve God and love our neighbor as well, we must manifest our joy in the service we render to him and them. Let us open wide our hearts. It is joy which invites us. Press forward and fear nothing,” Drexel said.
The June 29 U.S. Supreme Court decision Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard concerned the affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
However, the decision will impact all universities across the country, including Catholic institutions.
In the 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the nation’s highest court effectively struck down public and private universities’ ability to include race-based affirmative action in their admissions decisions.
For decades, many universities have used affirmative action in their admissions programs to increase minority representation on their campuses. However, some have argued that affirmative action promotes the admission of certain ethnic minorities at the expense of others, often negatively impacting Asian students.
In the ruling, Roberts wrote that “Harvard’s consideration of race has led to an 11.1% decrease in the number of Asian-Americans admitted to Harvard.”
In a June 29 statement, the ACCU said the decision ignores “the more-than-apparent effects of continued racism in our society.” It objected that the decision undermines higher education’s voluntary efforts to solve the “social evil” of racism “in a society that provides too few solutions.”
The statement added that the ACCU would seek to act within the boundaries of the Supreme Court decision and continue to be guided by Catholic social teaching “to create paths by which those in society who do not have opportunity find it at our institutions.”
Georgetown University, a Jesuit school in the District of Columbia, led a coalition of Catholic universities and colleges that filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of affirmative action in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case. The brief was joined by The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and 55 other Catholic universities and colleges from across the country.
The brief argued for the “allowance of the use of race as one factor among others in college and university admissions policies.” It suggested affirmative action was part of religious freedom, saying “the free exercise of religion provides additional constitutional weight to the compelling interest in racial diversity in admissions for the Catholic institutions of higher learning.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited the brief in her dissenting opinion.
Georgetown University President John DeGioia issued a June 29 statement decrying the court’s decision. He vowed that the university would “remain committed” to “recruit, enroll, and support students from all backgrounds to ensure an enriching educational experience.”
CNA Staff, Jan 5, 2021 / 04:59 pm (CNA).- Looking ahead at 2021, abortion advocates are hoping the incoming presidential administration will bring policy changes and new personnel who are sympathetic to their goals.
“Planned Parenthood is committed to partnering with the Biden-Harris administration to ensure sexual and reproductive health doesn’t take a backseat in health policy and when making appointments,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood Action Fund, in a December 31 essay in Elle.
“On day one, we want Biden to issue an executive order that demonstrates the administration’s commitment to advancing health care access and rolling back harmful policies like the Title X gag rule, which has blocked patients from accessing care at Planned Parenthood health centers,” said Johnson.
The Title X “gag rule” is a Trump administration policy which prohibits the distribution of Title X funds to facilities which refer for abortion services or who provide abortion services.
Johnson called for the Biden-Harris administration to “make critical updates” to Title X, in order for more people to benefit from its funds. She did not elaborate in the essay as to what these “updates” would be.
“Finally, Planned Parenthood will continue to advocate for the appointment of diverse reproductive health champions to executive and judiciary vacancies,” said Johnson.
Johnson is hopeful that the Biden administration will repeal the Hyde Amendment “for good.” She called the Hyde Amendment, a 1977 law which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services, “a discriminatory policy that blocks people who get their health insurance through Medicaid or other government-funded programs from accessing coverage for safe, legal abortion.”
President-elect Biden had previously supported the Hyde Amendment and voted for it numerous times throughout his time in the Senate. Over the course of a 24-hour period in June 2019, Biden changed course, following five decades of support for the policy, and announced that he was now in favor of repealing the Hyde Amendment.
Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris took credit for Biden’s abrupt about-face on the Hyde Amendment. In 2021, said Johnson, abortion advocates “must fight for policies that ensure every single person, regardless of their income or zip code, can actually access sexual and reproductive health care.”
Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL, had similar sentiment as Johnson. Speaking on a podcast, Hogue was concerned that the makeup of the Supreme Court could result in Roe v. Wade being overturned.
“We’re certainly preparing with our partners in the movement for [the overturning of Roe],” said Hogue. She said that much of her organization’s work recently “has been about making sure that we have what we call ‘islands of access’–blue states that are codifying the right to abortion, making sure that we have like practice in place where women can go.”
Many states, including New York, have moved to codify a right to have an abortion into state law. Should the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision be overturned, it would be up for states to decide their own abortion policies.
Hogue stated that she would support the creation of a “women’s health czar” in the upcoming administration. “It would send such a clear message that the terrible era that Trump ushered in is over,” said Hogue.
Biden, a Catholic, has previously pledged to codify the right to abortion into federal law.
“Number one, we don’t know exactly what [Justice Amy Coney Barrett] will do, although the expectation is that she may very well move to overrule Roe, and what the only thing–the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation making Roe the law of the land,” said Biden in October.
I don’t totally understand the complexity here, but if the doctor, who exercises his Hippocratic oath, would advise the “patient” to see a Psychiatrist. That being said, I am still amazed that a person would voluntarily submit to major surgery only to be scorned by society.
Why shouldn’t they be scorned? What they’re doing to themselves is insane. No one is obligated to validate or affirm that decision in any way or participatein that delusion.
USCCB: “In an interview with the agency televised and published in Spanish Jan. 25, the pope had said that “being homosexual is not a crime. It is not a crime.” He defined as “unjust” laws that criminalize homosexuality or homosexual activity and urged church members, including bishops, to show “tenderness” as God does with each of his children.
A small victory, but – a victory.
Of such small victories are larger and larger victories made.
I don’t totally understand the complexity here, but if the doctor, who exercises his Hippocratic oath, would advise the “patient” to see a Psychiatrist. That being said, I am still amazed that a person would voluntarily submit to major surgery only to be scorned by society.
Why shouldn’t they be scorned? What they’re doing to themselves is insane. No one is obligated to validate or affirm that decision in any way or participatein that delusion.
I try to approach gays as Pope Francis does…
USCCB: “In an interview with the agency televised and published in Spanish Jan. 25, the pope had said that “being homosexual is not a crime. It is not a crime.” He defined as “unjust” laws that criminalize homosexuality or homosexual activity and urged church members, including bishops, to show “tenderness” as God does with each of his children.