Christian Medical Association
Campaign, Targets ACOG
By Cynthia Cooper and Marjorie Signer*
The Christian Medical and Dental Associations
(CMDA) is pressing a major campaign to demand that physicians be permitted
to refuse medical care to patients. The organization has made this campaign
a centerpiece of its activities.
In the past three months, the organization has launched a fundraising drive
on the rights of Christian doctors to refuse to provide services, a special
a website collection of resources and documents, a survey of members,
letter-writing campaign , and requests for prayers.
Dr. David L. Stevens, the organization’s CEO, said on April 17, 2008,
that CMDA is making physician refusals a top priority, based on its Biblical
beliefs. The issue, said Stevens, is “a battle to determine the very
future of Christians in healthcare.”
CMDA is a behemoth among the medical groups aligned with the Religious Right,
which RCRC terms the "Medical Right." With an annual budget in excess
of $11 million, CMDA operates an extensive complex in Bristol, Tennessee,
and maintains an office in the Washington D.C. area. The organization claims
to have 15,000 members, although not all are doctors. Its mission is to equip
physicians to glorify God, influence patients towards “a right relationship
with Jesus Christ,” and advance “Biblical principles” in
The organization has been particularly incensed by a November 2007 report
from the Ethics Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
(ACOG). The ACOG report acknowledges that some doctors may ethically decline
to provide abortions based on their beliefs or conscience but states that
doctors are responsible for referring their patients to a provider who will
perform the services.
CMDA opposes abortion and insists that referring patients for abortions is
no different from performing them. “Though our members would comply
with a request for transfer of a patient’s medical record to another
licensed medical practitioner, to refer a patient for an abortion involves
moral complicity in the death of a human being,” Stevens wrote in a
letter to ACOG on April 9.
The April 17 CMDA “News & Views” newsletter notes that ACOG
may “redo” the ethics opinion. But Gene Rudd, senior vice president
of CMDA, said that the only acceptable ACOG response is a complete
"There is no way they can satisfy many people, including myself, if
they want to compromise conscience,” Rudd said.
press release, Rudd said he resigned from ACOG after the ethics opinion
Using catastrophic language and heightened demands, Stevens sent a fundraising
letter to CMDA members, declaring: “A dangerous new attack has been
launched on our right to practice medicine according to conscience.”
He said: struggle for our ‘right of conscience’ is raging all
around us -- and if we lose it, we may be denied admittance to training schools
or even forced out of practice!” (as printed) Later, he adds, “Hyperbole?
I wish it were.”
CMDA said it intends to litigate, even to the Supreme Court, and to be “the
ones framing the issues rather than those who seek to silence us.”
Stevens also claims that Christians in general are at risk: “Christian
doctors are the first line of defense in this battle. If we are ultimately
stripped of a protection … then this right will soon be under attack
in other professions, in our schools, and even in your church and mine!”
So dire is the situation, he said, that “fundamental rights such as
our freedom of speech will also fall like dominoes.”
Jonathan Imbody, CMDA vice president for government relations, raised an
implicit comparison between ACOG and Nazism in the April 7, 2008, CMDA newsletter.
He quoted Pastor Martin Niemoller about the perils of not responding quickly
to Nazi perils.
Imbody writes: “The worldview underlying the … words of ACOG
is radical autonomy - a worldview that trumps the Scriptures, the Hippocratic
Oath and any other objective standard conflicting with self-rule.” Imbody
insists: “Apart from a change of worldview -- a departure from radical
autonomy and a return to objective ethical standards - ACOG can be expected
to continue to elevate abortion autonomy over all rights.”
The CMDA resource
center includes a March 14, 2008, letter from 16 members of the U.S.
House of Representatives, including five who signed as medical doctors and
Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ), the head of the pro-life caucus in the House.
In it, the representatives object to the ACOG ethics opinion, which, they
say, could result in decertification of pro-life physicians. “(P)ro-life
women would lose the right to choose OB-GYNs who share their moral convictions,”
In February, CMDA sent a survey to its physician members, asking whether
they had “been pressured to compromise your Biblical or ethical convictions”
or been denied an opportunity because of a “right of conscience stand.”
CMDA says that it intends to use the stories to publicize the cause of doctors
who face difficulties because of their religious convictions.
This intensified lobbying and public relations campaign is in addition to
involvement in litigation. CMDA filed papers to intervene in litigation on
the Weldon Amendment, which permits the federal government to withhold funds
from entities that do not permit physicians to refuse to perform or refer
for abortions (see below).
In 2007, CMDA also filed two
briefs in pending cases that have issues of medical refusals on reproductive
healthcare. One supports the refusal of two California doctors to perform
artificial insemination on a lesbian patient; the other is on behalf of pharmacists
in Illinois who oppose a rule requiring them to fill all legal prescriptions,
including for emergency contraception.
May 23, 2008
Decision in Weldon Amendment Lawsuit
Does Not Require Religious or Moral Basis for Refusals
A little-noticed ruling from a federal district court in San Francisco could
have a critical effect on the operation of state refusal clauses. In the ruling
on March 18, 2008, the court turned down a
challenge to a national medical refusal provision known as the Weldon
Amendment and left the clause standing unimpeded. The decision by Bush appointee
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the northern district of California ended litigation
brought by former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in 2005.
The Weldon Amendment states that the U.S. government may withhold federal
funds from any federal, state or local entity that does not permit medical
institutions or doctors to refuse to provide abortions or refer for them.
After Congress failed to pass a separate bill with the same language, Rep.
Dave Weldon (R-FL), aided by the Bush Administration, slipped the proviso
into a 3,500-page omnibus spending bill for the year 2005. It has been continued
every year since.
argued that the Weldon Amendment conflicted with state law requiring
medical providers to deliver all services, including abortion, in the event
of an emergency. Officials said the Weldon Amendment could cost California
$37 billion if the state were to enforce its own law and lose federal funds
as a result. The state also argued that the clause created an undue obstacle
to women’s exercise of their constitutional rights to legal abortion
Three years after the lawsuit was filed, Judge White dispensed with the state’s
claim on a summary judgment motion, saying that no one had been harmed in
California because of the Weldon Amendment, nor had the state lost any money.
As a result, the
judge said, the matter was premature for a decision by the courts and
The result is to leave the Weldon Amendment in full force. The language of
the Weldon Amendment states that it is “discrimination” to take
action against medical personnel or institutions that refuse to provide abortion
care or referrals, or that refuse to pay or cover them, for example, in insurance
Unlike another federal provision, the Church Amendment, which allows doctors
to refuse to provide abortion because of religious or moral beliefs, no religious
or moral basis is required for refusals to be considered discrimination under
the Weldon Amendment. To many observers, the
language was seen as radical expansion of refusal clauses.
Previously, a federal court in the District of Columbia dismissed an action
brought by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association,
saying that it lacked standing to bring a claim. That decision was upheld
by an appellate court in 2006.
Although the California judge’s decision is on strictly procedural
grounds, Medical Right organizations have been celebrating the ruling. Several
Medical Right groups had become formal intervenors in the matter, permitting
them to participate on an equal footing with the state and federal government.
The intervenors included the Christian Medical Association, the American Association
of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Alliance of Catholic Health
On a more serious level, HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt referenced the Weldon
Amendment when he wrote to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
(ACOG), objecting to an ethical opinion that said doctors who decline to provide
abortions should refer the patients. Organizations representing anti-abortion
doctors objected vehemently to the statement that doctors who would not perform
abortions should refer patients to doctors who would do so. Leavitt said that
any disciplinary action against doctors who refuse to refer patients could
result in a loss of federal funding.
Leavitt wrote: “As you know, Congress has protected the rights of physicians
and other health care professionals by (two laws and) … annually renewing
an appropriations rider that protect(s) the rights, including conscience rights,
of health care professionals in programs or facilities conducted or supported
by federal funds.”
States that have more restrictive medical-refusal laws than the Weldon Amendment
can expect ongoing pressure to buckle to federal government demands and refuse
to enforce their own state laws, or face a loss of federal funding.
Cynthia Cooper is the primary researcher and author of this article. She
is an independent journalist who writes frequently on reproductive rights
issues. Marjorie Signer is director of communications for RCRC, primary author
of RCRC's publication "The Medical Right - Remaking Medicine in Their
Image," and creator of Medical Right Watch.
May 23, 2008
Specific ways you can help fight back against the
Sign up to receive
the full Medical Right Report!
Make a donation
NOW to support our Medical Right Watch.
Join our activist network to share
your views about the Medical Righ with opinion leaders and elected officials
and to stay updated on the latest developments.
Email us if you see organizations from
our Rogue's Gallery in the media
or actively working in your community.
Download the Medical Right