Religious conscience won another victory in Federal Court last Friday. Following a Fifth Circuit Court ruling in August, the Eight Circuit has declared that Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act could not force religious doctors or hospitals that receive federal funding to perform gender transitions.
The courts permanently blocked enforcement of the Team Biden interpretation.
Catholic nuns, clinics, a university, and hospitals were among the plaintiffs in the case, represented by the Becket Fund. The plaintiffs all provide medical care for transgender patients but refuse to provide gender-transition surgeries because they believe them to be harmful. Their grant of permanent injunctive relief from the lower court was preserved Friday.
The case is “The Religious Sisters of Mercy; Sacred Heart Mercy Health Care Center, (Alma, MI); SMP Health System; University of Mary; Catholic Benefits Association; Diocese of Fargo; Catholic Charities of North Dakota; Catholic Medical Association vs. Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the United States Department of Human Services (etc.).
The question relates to enrolled anti-discrimination protections provided in Title IX into an interpretation of rule 1557 from the Affordable Care Act (prohibiting discrimination in health care), balanced against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Long story short, this debate has been ongoing for six years, but the Biden Admin’s interpretation led to the most recent ruling. They wanted to control federal funding for Medicaid/Medicare-type coverage based on whether facilities were willing to perform gender transitions. If the answer was no transitions, the Feds might or could deny any federal money or coverage for treatments at the facility and follow with litigation.
HHS determined that just about everyone in the medical community was bound by Rule 1557, filtered through Title IX and Title VII, and could decide if violations on a case-by-case basis. Given the government’s hostility to religious conscience (with the exclusion of Muslims), Catholic Medical Centers could see the crosshairs. They would find themselves forever wrapped up in litigation if a case were ever brought, and we know they would.
Ask Christian Bakers, Photographers, Wedding Planners, Artists, or even Dating services. The Gaystapo repeatedly targets these in search of a favorable ruling, and if the legal process ruined the business owner, it was a victory for the militant Left.
From the decision, “HHS … would evaluate “individualized and fact specific” RFRA claims “on a case-by-case basis.” Id. “To obtain an exception, in other words, a provider objecting on religious grounds needed to convince HHS that the regulation circumstantially violated the RFRA.”
In other words, yeah, we know there are religious exemptions, but we’ll decide if they apply. I think we understand what that means. Do the surgeries, or we yank all your Federal money, including Medicaid or Medicare coverage. Assuming the legal fees don’t wipe you out.
The Religious Sisters of Mercy, Sacred Heart Mercy Health Care Center was right to preempt that course by challenging the new interpretation of 1557.
Without getting into the weeds, and there are weeds (other cases and ruling – read the decision for details), the government lost in part on the merits of its dismissal claim.
As the Fifth Circuit explained, the government’s assertion that “it ‘has not to date evaluated’ whether it will enforce Section 1557 against [the plaintiffs]” is actually a “conce[ssion] that it may” do so. Just as in Franciscan Alliance where the HHS “repeatedly refused to disavow enforcement against Franciscan Alliance,” id., so, too, has it refused in the present case. In fact, HHS has promised (1) “robust enforcement of Section 1557” in the 2016 Rule, and (2) to “vigorously enforce [Section 1557’s] prohibitions on discrimination based on . . . sex” in the 2020 Rule (citations removed).
Claiming “it might not” infers that it might, giving the Sisters standing and ultimately a decision in their favor.
The permanent injunction against the rule is affirmed. At least until some other judges who work for the same government decide differently – which is itself the real problem and unresolved.
We’ll take the points but with an understanding that under our current system of government, victory is fleeting at best.
And my apologies if the title seems click-baitish. Disections of court rulings – even short attempts – are not sexy. I wanted a funny lead because I found the case compelling.
HT | NR
