A judge in Texas has struck down an Obama-era federal regulation that would have required healthcare providers and insurers to perform gender-transition procedures and abortions even if they go against their medical judgment or violate religious convictions.
U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, vacated a 2016 Obamacare mandate that critics feared could have forced faith-based doctors out of work if they refused to perform gender-transition procedures or abortions on patients referred to them.
This was the second time that O’Connor ruled against the regulation, with the first coming in January 2017 when he issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act on the basis that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
The Obama-era rule incorporated a broadened interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law that bars discrimination in healthcare on the basis of “gender identity and termination of pregnancy.”
Because the Trump administration proposed a new rule this year with a more narrow interpretation of anti-discrimination law to supplant the Obama-era regulation, the American Civil Liberties Union and River City Gender Alliance are acting as putative intervenors in the case.
The intervenors reject the Trump administration’s proposed rule and argue that the government has a compelling interest to ensure that individuals have “nondiscriminatory access to health care and health coverage.”
On Tuesday, O’Connor maintained his opinion that the rule violates the APA but also ruled that the regulation violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“Accordingly, the Court holds that the Rule, which expressly prohibits religious exemptions, substantially burdens Private Plaintiffs’ religious exercise in violation of RFRA,” O’Connor’s opinion reads.
The plaintiffs in the case —Christian healthcare providers in five states that are members of the Franciscan Alliance, Christian Medical & Dental Associations and Specialty Physicians of Illinois — are represented by the religious freedom nonprofit legal group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
“Once again, Defendants have failed to address Private Plaintiffs’ RFRA claim,” O’Connor wrote.
“However, RFRA’s text and this Court’s binding precedent make clear that Putative Intervenors cannot carry Defendants’ burden; the ‘[g]overnment may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person’ satisfies strict scrutiny.”
Rather than issuing a permanent injunction, O’Connor remanded the regulation “for further consideration” as the current administration has already proposed an alternate rule and regularly vows to protect the religious freedom rights of its social conservative Christian base.
Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, praised O’Connor’s decision.
Click here to read more.
SOURCE: Christian Post, Samuel Smith