Discrimination via Conscientious Objection

Background

Conscience clauses are legal clauses attached to laws in some parts of the United States and other countries which permit pharmacists, physicians, and/or other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience. It can also involve parents withholding consenting for particular treatments for their children.

Tactics

Presuppositional Apologetics ["Presuppositional Truths"]

...

The true aims of the University of Austin are again suggested in the accompanying article by Sohrab Ahmari, who describes the true mission of the organization. Continually citing the Roman Catholic convert John Henry Newman  [Sohrab Ahmari converted from atheism to Roman Catholicism], Ahmari argues for limits on empiricism and the scientific method, arguing that "presuppositional truths" [i.e., presuppositional apologetics] impose limits on those avenues of rational inquiry. Likewise, he cautions against unrestricted freedom of conscience [i.e., freedom of thought]. Those arguments form the basis of discrimination via conscientious objection - one of the tactics deployed by Christian social conservatives to refuse healthcare services to transgender persons, to restrict or deny access to abortion, and to refuse to provide other services (e.g. same-sex marriage and services).

...

---

• Humanities - Philosophy - Epistemology - Theories - Dogma - Apologetics
• Humanities - Philosophy - Metaphysics - Theism - Theology - Christian theology - Apologetics - Christian apologetics - Presuppositional apologetics

"Transgender Predator" Bathroom Meme

Misgendering

Included in the 2019-09-18 article Internet Accountability Project launches to take on big tech's 'bad acts' is a discussion of misgendering - a conscientious objection to an individuals right to self-determination. Conscientious objection is a common tactic among alt-right, conservative, and Christian right in support of ideological attacks on access to services, including abortion and transgender health care.

Wedge Strategy

A wedge issue is a political or social issue, often of a controversial or divisive nature, which splits apart a demographic or population group. ...

The "wedge" tactic involves an anti-LGBTQ+ attack that attempts to pit members of a group or coalition against one another; for example, in transphobic attacks that attempt to separate and vilify the "T" from the remaining groups in the "LGBTQ+" community.

• [Wikipedia] Wedge_issue: a political or social issue, often of a controversial or divisive nature, which splits apart a demographic or population group. Wedge issues can be advertised or publicly aired in an attempt to strengthen the unity of a population, with the goal of enticing polarized individuals to give support to an opponent or to withdraw their support entirely out of disillusionment. The use of wedge issues gives rise to wedge politics. Wedge issues are also known as hot button or third rail issues.

• [Wikipedia] Wedge strategy: a creationist political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the "Wedge Document." The goal of the wedge strategy is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect politically conservative fundamentalist evangelical Protestant values.

The internal NOM documents stated that NOM would seek "to drive a wedge between gays and blacks" by promoting "African American spokespeople for marriage," thus provoking same-sex marriage supporters into "denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots," and to interrupt the assimilation of Latinos into "dominant Anglo culture" by making the stance against same-sex marriage "a key badge of Latino identity." The documents also showed a goal to "sideswipe" U.S. President Barack Obama by depicting him as a "social radical," via issues including child protection and pornography.

The revealed NOM tactics were described as "one of the most cynical things I've ever heard" and "scary" by Julian Bond, Chairman Emeritus of the NAACP. The National Black Justice Coalition said that the "documents expose N.O.M. for what it really is - a hate group determined to use African American faith leaders as pawns to push their damaging agenda."

The Christian right, intelligent design-spouting disinformation group Center for Science and Culture - part of the so-called "Discovery Institute" - has also employed the wedge strategy in an attempt to push their agenda.

Issues & Consequences

Access to Health Care

Conscience clauses are legal clauses attached to laws in some parts of the United States and other countries which permit pharmacists, physicians, and/or other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience. It can also involve parents withholding consenting for particular treatments for their children.

In many cases, the clauses also permit health care providers to refuse to refer patients to unopposed providers. Those who choose not to refer or provide services may not be disciplined or discriminated against. The provision is most frequently enacted in connection with issues relating to reproduction, such as abortion (see conscientious objection to abortion), sterilization, contraception, and stem cell based treatments, but may include any phase of patient care.

Conservative Party of Canada Leader Erin O'Toole says he can both be pro-choice and fight to protect the rights of health-care professionals who refuse to perform a medical procedure for moral or religious reasons. ...

• [CBC.ca, 2021-08-19] 'I'm pro-choice,' O'Toole says as abortion issue emerges on the campaign trail.  The Liberals are raising questions about 'conscience rights' in the Conservative platform.

• [CTVNews.ca, 2021-08-20] O'Toole says doctors must refer for services they object to, reversing pledge.

• [PressProgress.ca, 2021-08-20] Several Conservative Candidates Directed Public Money to Canada's Biggest Anti-Abortion Lobby Group.  One candidate billed taxpayers for a $169 'gift' to the anti-abortion group.  Several candidates for Erin O'Toole's Conservatives used money from their MP's office budgets to place self-promotional advertisements with Canada's biggest anti-abortion lobby group last summer. One candidate even billed taxpayers for a $169 gift to the anti-abortion group. Campaign Life Coalition, an anti-abortion group that has likened abortion to the "Nazi holocaust" and launched homophobic attacks against former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, received a total of $2,149 from the taxpayer-funded offices of seven Conservative MP's who are currently seeking reelection. ...

Conscientious Objection to Abortion

Conscientious objection to abortion is the right of medical staff to refuse participation in abortion for personal belief. Because of conscientious objection in some countries, even if abortion is legal, it is difficult for women to find non-objecting gynaecologists and thus to access abortion.

Access to Shelter & Housing

Denial of Self-Determination & Self-Identity Assertions

Employment discrimination

Trans Women in Sports

Proponents against the participation of transgender women in gender-segregated sports include Joe Rogan, and Republican and Trump supporter Caitlyn Jenner (who herself is transgender).

... In 2021, Caitlyn Jenner's decision to run for governor of California was met with pushback from many LGBT activists and trans people, with activists criticizing Jenner for her views on transgender issues and support for the Republican Party. Katelyn Burns of Vox said "Jenner's politics and controversial existence as a self-professed trans advocate has long put trans Americans in a double bind, forcing them to defend her from transphobic attacks while deploring her political views." This decision became even more controversial following Jenner's opposition to trans girls in girls' sports, with some advocates saying that Jenner "did not represent the broader LGBT community." ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner

Additional Reading

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the Supreme Court of the United States allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by a 5-4 vote. The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of privately held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control. The ruling is considered to be part of the political controversy regarding the Affordable Care Act in the United States.

[ ... snip ... ]

A conservative federal judge ruled on Wednesday (2022-09-07) that it is a violation of corporations' and health insurance companies' religious freedom for the government to mandate that health plans cover the life-saving HIV prevention drug PrEP  [pre-exposure prophylaxis], in a win for Christian right-wingers who brought the lawsuit. President George W. Bush-nominated District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled that the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did not show enough evidence to prove that "private, religious corporations" should have to cover PrEP under regulations implemented by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The Christian plaintiffs - led by Republican private lawyer Jonathan Franklin Mitchell - brought the case for openly homophobic reasons. While public health experts say that PrEP is a crucial tool for containing HIV in the population as a whole, the plaintiffs argued that allowing people to use the drug "encourages" people to engage in same-sex intercourse - which would be a violation of corporations' religious rights, they claimed.

Reed O'Connor is a notoriously anti-LGBTQ and anti-ACA. Reed O'Connor has previously ruled against rights for gay couples and has made multiple attempts to strike down the Affordable Care Act (ACA) altogether - and it's possible that the plaintiffs specifically sought out Reed O'Connor for their case.

The legal ruling is a win for the far-right, which has been perpetuating a renewed wave of anti-LGBTQ panic while working to legally rescind the rights of LGBTQ people in some Republican-governed states and localities - an effort that now includes rescinding the right of people to affordably access potentially life-saving drugs for an illness that disproportionately affects gay and bisexual men in the United States

The ruling is also another win for Jonathan Mitchell, who last year (2021) played a huge hand in crafting ' anti-abortion bill that legally marked the beginning of the end for Roe v. Wade  [anti-abortion movements  |  Texas Heartbeat Act of 2021].

In his decision, Reed O'Connor accepts the plaintiff's argument that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) incentivizes people to have more risky sex. But, aside from the ethical nature of the argument, this isn't even true; experts say that the use of PrEP generally doesn't cause people to engage in more risky sex or use more intravenous drugs. Even if PrEP did encourage people to have more risky sex, however, it is concerning that Reed O'Connor or the plaintiffs think that employers should have a say in their employees' sex lives. The plaintiff's argument that only gay and bisexual people need PrEP is also untrue.

[ ... snip ... ]

The United States Department of Labor on Monday [2021-11-08] announced a proposal that would rescind a Trump administration rule that expanded a religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws for federal contractors. The rule, which went into effect in the last days of the administration of President Donald J. Trump, broadened the exemption to include employers who "hold themselves out to the public as carrying out a religious purpose." The exemption previously applied to a more narrowly defined set of religious groups.

By rescinding the rule, the department will return to policies consistent with those in place during the administrations of President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush, Jenny Yang, director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in an interview. "We are proposing a rescission of the religious exemption rule to protect workers from discrimination and safeguard principles of religious freedom," Yang said.

The Trump administration framed the rule as a necessary step to ensure the full participation of religious organizations in the federal contractor system. But critics of the rule, including LGBT groups, warned that it would open the door to discrimination.

In light of pre-existing protections for religious organizations, the OFFCP found the Trump rule to be "unnecessary and problematic," Yang said. Rescinding the rule would help ensure the exemption is applied consistently, she added. The OFCCP enforces discrimination and wage-and-hour laws against federal contractors. In 2014, the agency banned contractors from discriminating against workers on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Return to Persagen.com