Courts side with Catholic groups on transgender mandate

NEW YORK – Last week, a federal ruling in North Dakota went unnoticed allowing medical professionals, hospitals and Catholic organizations to refuse to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender transition procedures , or insurance coverage for gender transition drugs, if it violates their religious beliefs.

The ruling concerned a 2016 lawsuit filed by the Catholic Benefits Association – an association of 65 Catholic dioceses and 1,100 Catholic church affiliates and private business owners – against the US Department of Health and Human Services for what is known as the Affordable Care Act’s “transgender mandate”.

“This decision is a very important victory protecting physicians and hospitals that allows them to continue to provide top-notch care to everyone in accordance with their best medical judgment and religious beliefs,” Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior advisor to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty law firm said Node.

The decision covers all current and future members of the Catholic Benefits Association. It also covers the Sisters of Mercy, the University of Mary in North Dakota, and the Sisters of Mary of the Presentation Health System in North Dakota.

The Becket Fund filed a separate “transgender mandate” complaint on behalf of the latter three organizations in 2016. The judge ultimately consolidated the two lawsuits.

In addition, the ruling prevents the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from issuing warrants or similar enforcement actions based on how it interprets gender discrimination in under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964.

The law prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex. In a conversation with Node, Doug Wilson, CEO of the Catholic Benefits Association, said it was “exceptionally important” that the EEOC and Title VII be included.

“If health and social services couldn’t enforce the (transgender mandate), we thought they would look to the EEOC to establish employment rules that would make participation mandatory. Then we further thought that, on the basis of discriminatory action, Title VII could be introduced, ”Wilson said.

After Joe Biden’s inauguration, he signed an executive order directing all federal agencies to implement a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that Title VII covers LGBTQ people.

Last week, several prelates, including Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York and Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City, spoke out against the order in a statement, saying “it threatens to infringe on human rights. who recognize the truth of sexual difference or who defend the institution. marriage for life between a man and a woman.

In a statement after the ruling, Wilson noted that members of the Catholic Benefits Association can now “continue to provide the highest quality employee benefits to their 90,000 employees and families, while living their religious beliefs.”

Another lawsuit in 2016 against the “transgender mandate” did not, however, obtain the same permanent injunction: filed by the Becket Fund on behalf of the Franciscan Alliance, the federal judge instead granted a vacatur, which essentially canceled the mandate. .

“We were happy to get the vacatur, but we also think it’s important to get the injunction to tell the government that it is not allowed to have this settlement,” Goodrich said.

For this reason, the Becket Fund has since appealed the decision and it is expected to be heard on March 2. The Biden administration has yet to decide whether or not to appeal the Catholic Benefits Association’s decision.

Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, lawyer and director of the Conscience Project which supports religious freedom cases, warns that while the Catholic Benefits Association’s decision is important, its effects are limited, since only complainants are protected. *

“The best way for the federal government to oppose this is to come up with a uniform rule, essentially applying what these two lower courts have ordered for all Americans who oppose it,” Picciotti-Bayer said. Node.

“It goes back to the protection of conscious rights and the protection of religious freedom. We don’t want everyone to have to go to court in order to protect themselves. It’s much more preferable if the federal government takes the hint of the judiciary and does it, ”she said.

Picciotti-Bayer also noted that it is important for the government not to pit those seeking sex reassignment against people with religious objections.

“When we protect religious freedom by demanding exemptions or protecting rights, it is not to the detriment of another party, it is to protect the rights of the person who opposes it,” he said. she declared. “When developing rules and even executive actions, it is important to ensure, in the quest for unity, that you do not trample on the constitutional rights of those with whom you do not agree. . “

Follow John Lavenburg on Twitter: @johnlavenbourg

* Clarification: Because the permanent injunction in the Catholic Benefits Association case does not benefit its current members but also its future members, Catholic employers can free themselves from the mandate of transgender services by joining the CBA. The permanent injunction that CBA lawyers obtained in 2018 from the HHS contraceptive and abortion mandate benefits current and future members alike.