Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Mirror of Justice
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Religion & Law
: Mirror of JusticeResponse to Rob Vischer re conscience protection
Just a quick response to Rob's point that institutional autonomy argues against federal conscience protection for health care providers
(1) The reguation in question is not attempting to make new law, but only to better enforce existing law.
(2) I agree that institutional autonomy should be weighed in the balance. But in this case I think it outweighed by the following three considerations:
(a) We do not at present have a set of autonomous communities that have made delibrative judgements, but rather a set of legal and quasi legal vectors that are disrupting that autonomy. Unless i'm mistaken, there are legally-empowered acrediting agencies insisting on the quashing of conscience; at least in New York City there is a law requiring all medical students to be trained in abortion. So the reg is a counter vector.
(b) To my knowledge, no institutions would be forced by these regs to act in violation their collective consciences. Indeed, federal law protects and secures institutional as well as individual conscience. It is true that some institutions may thus find it more difficult to do what their consciences permit (or occasionally perhaps require), but this does not wound their consciences as does forcing someone or some institution actively to facilitate evil. Note that the institutions are not required to follow the moral policies of the conscientious objectors. They can spend a little more time and money and work around them. So it's not as though the federal government were dictating what hospitals etc. may or may not provide or do.
(c) The swelling ground-level doctrine that the reg would combat is truly and deeply dangerous. It's not just that people's consciences are being overridden in extremis, like forcing a blood transfusion on an otherwise dying child over the parents' objection. Rather the argument is being commonly made that a health care provider must always facilitate what s/he considers evil without any showing at all of a pressing need on the part of the client or the institution. This turns human beings into mindless cogs in a machine.
Full post as published by Mirror of Justice on September 26, 2008 (boomark / email).
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
Truth In Lending Act
Consumer Loans and Consumer Credit Protection Act
imbee Data Collection
Industrious Kid, Inc. pays $130,000 civil penalty for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
Germantown Primary Care Associates, P.C.
Unlawfully collected fees refunded in Consumer Protection Act violation suit.
ValueClick
allegedly violated consumer protection laws by promising ‘free’ goods that where not actually free.
Hutchinson Oil
Over $75,000 settlement reached in consumer protection lawsuit.
Indianapolis
alleging the city's police are overly aggressive against the homeless in violation of the protection of free speech and unreasonable searches guaranteed in the US Constitution.
School Misrepresentation
Lehigh Valley College agrees to pay $200,000 settlement for violating consumer protection laws.

Another Warm Welcome -- Professor Robert Vischer
Rob Vischer on Moral Engagement Without the "Moral Law"
HHS Sec. to Oby/Gyn Board: Protect Conscience
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Law of the Land
Mike Leavitt: Physician Conscience








