Virginia and Two Dozen States/Municipalities Suing to Block Trump Licence to Discriminate

Trump and Pence with Christofascist leaders.

As often noted in this blog, evangelical Christians have remained Donald Trump's strongest base of support notwithstanding the fact that Trump is the antithesis to what ought to be Christian behavior and morals.  One way that Trump has retained the loyalty of evangelicals has been through (i) his racist agenda - many evangelical organizations such as The Family Foundation here in Virginia and denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention trace their roots to white supremacy efforts - and (ii) his efforts to exempt them from the restriction  of non-discrimination laws most recently embodied in his regime's "conscience rule" allowing health care providers to use real or feigned religious belief to refuse to treat or care for those their dislike.  Now, Virginia and two dozen states and municipalities have sued to block this insidious and dangerous move to please hate motivated evangelicals and "professional Christians" such as Jerry Falwell, Jr., and James Dobson.  Here are highlights from a piece in the Washington Post:

A group of mostly Democratic states filed lawsuits against the Trump administration on Tuesday, challenging a new federal rule that gives health-care providers, insurers and employers greater latitude to refuse to provide or pay for medical services that they say violate their religious or moral beliefs.

A lawsuit by a coalition of nearly two dozen states and cities, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleges that the rule illegally favors the personal views of health-care workers over the needs of patients — “at a dangerous price” of hobbling the ability of state-run health-care facilities to provide effective care.

A separate suit, brought by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, alleges that the rule “impedes access to basic care” and “encourages discrimination against vulnerable patients,” including women and LGBTQ individuals.

The suits, . . .  seek to block the rule, announced by President Trump early this month and published Tuesday in the Federal Register. It allows individuals and entities to refrain from delivering or paying for services such as abortion, sterilization or assisted suicide if they have a religious or moral objection to them. The 440-page rule also grants parents rights to refuse several specific types of care for their children.

The lawsuits are part of a spate of federal litigation challenging various ways the Trump administration has been rewriting health-care policies.

The “conscience protections,” as their advocates call them, are among actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services that appeal to Christian conservatives, a constituency that is part of Trump’s political base. The rule is due to take effect in late July.

The multistate lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that the rule puts at risk billions of dollars in federal funds if the states participating in the case do not comply.

The 80-page complaint says the rule also will harm teaching hospitals and other health-care facilities run by some of the states and cities, undermining their effectiveness and forcing them to hire extra staff in case some workers refuse care that patients need. The rule also risks “undermining longstanding efforts by those institutions to build trust with the patient communities they serve,” the suit says.

The suit further alleges that the rule violates several federal laws, including those governing Medicare and Medicaid, civil rights statutes, and a statute requiring hospitals to provide emergency care.

In addition to New York, the plaintiffs are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin, plus the cities of Chicago and New York; Cook County, Ill.; and the District.

Trump and evangelicals are a clear and present evil that threaten the rule of law and constitutional government. 

San Francisco Sues to Block Trump/Pence Health Care 'Conscience Rule'

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera with Deputy City Attorney Sara Eisenberg.

As noted many times on this blog, Donald Trump's - a/k/a Der Trumpenführer - most loyal supporters are evangelical Christians.  Why?  Because he has promised to support their desire to harm and discriminate against those who do not subscribe to their Bronze Age beliefs and general hatred of others who are different from themselves. Among those they hate the most are gays, although the list of targeted individuals includes racial minorities, non-Christians, women seeking to control their own bodies, and anyone who challenges the Christofascists' perceived right to be above the law when it comes to non-discrimination laws.  Freedom of religion which the Founding Fathers viewed as (i) freedom to worship as one chose, and (ii) freedom from having to pay taxes to support an official state church has now become a smoke screen for hate and bigotry as long as one bases their cruelty on "sincerely held religious belief."  The Trump/Pence regime's "conscience rule" announced this week would put right wing Christians completely above the law while endangering the health and lives of other citizens.  Thankfully, the city of San Francisco has sued to block this vile license to discriminate and hopefully other cities and states will join in opposing this dangerous special right for Christian extremists (Mark Herring, are you paying attention?).  The Advocate looks at why San Francisco has taken action.  Here are highlights:

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration’s new “conscience rule” that allows health care providers to opt out of procedures to which they have religious or moral objections.

The final version of the rule, announced by the administration Thursday, stands to jeopardize care for LGBTQ people, women seeking reproductive health care, and many others, according to Herrera and others who oppose it.

“At its core, this rule is about denying people medical care,” Herrera said in a press release. “This administration is willing to sacrifice patients’ health and lives — particularly those of women, members of the LGBTQ community, and low-income families — to score right-wing political points. It’s reprehensible." "People’s health should not be a political football," he continued.  

Herrera filed the suit Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, within hours of the final rule’s release. It appears to be the first lawsuit challenging the measure.

The Department of Health and Human Services says the rule simply assures the implementation of existing conscience protections for health care workers. But the San Francisco suit contends it goes much farther.

“The rule is so broad it applies not just to doctors and nurses, but anyone even tangentially related to health care, like receptionists,” Herrera’s press release notes. “Schedulers, for example, could refuse to schedule appointments for LGBTQ patients or a woman seeking information about an abortion, with potentially devastating impacts on the patients’ health or lives."

Herrera notes that this new regulation could potentially have employers facing a discrimination lawsuit if they do not agree with a health care worker's beliefs. 

"If San Francisco sought to address the situation by transferring the staff person to another assignment so their professional role did not conflict with their personal beliefs, that could be considered ‘discrimination’ against the staffer under the new federal rule," he adds.  

Noncompliance with the rule will result in loss of federal funding. San Francisco, for instance, risks losing nearly $1 billion a year in funding from Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs, according to the city attorney.

Herrera’s lawsuit seeks to not only have the rule declared unconstitutional but also seeks a court order preventing the new rule from taking effect, which is set to happen within 60 days.