Overview
Conscience protections allow providers to opt out of delivering certain medical services to patients for moral or religious reasons. These protections have been a political football each time the White House has changed hands in recent years, and the same will likely be true in 2025.
Thanks to a June 13, 2024, US Supreme Court ruling, however, a new and important variable will be in the mix this time. In Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the Supreme Court articulated a much more absolute view of the conscience protections that federal law affords to providers to refuse to participate in the provision of certain healthcare services for personal conscience reasons than has previously been articulated in the text, legislative history, or judicial interpretation of the relevant federal statutes.
That ruling, combined with what we know about the first Trump administration’s position on this topic, may lead to a significant uptick in conscience-based opt-out requests from healthcare workforces. At the same time, the ruling may make it more difficult for provider organizations to address such requests without significant cost or liability exposure. The potential risks extend well beyond individual worker EEOC/Title VII claims for religious discrimination – they could impact providers’ past or future eligibility for various US Department of Health and Human Services administered funding streams (potentially including Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement).
During this webinar, David Quinn Gacioch, Lindsay Ditlow, Gregory E. Fosheim, and Sumaya M. Noush reviewed these developments and their potential impacts for healthcare employers.
Top takeaways included:
- A recent ruling provides broad protection for conscience-based opt outs. Before arguments could be made, the Supreme Court dismissed FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing. In its dismissal, the Supreme Court characterized conscience-based refusal rights more broadly than it has in the past. Regardless of the dismissal, individuals seeking support for broad protections for conscientious objections to medically accepted treatments are likely to rely on the the Court’s opinion to support their objections.
- The Trump administration is likely to revert back to its prior position. Given what we know about the first Trump administration’s position on rights to conscientious objection, the panelists anticipate the second Trump administration will scale up the protections available to those who directly and indirectly interact with patients.
- Healthcare employers should anticipate objections. Patients and providers would both be well-served by advance notice of conscientious objections to providing or participating in certain activities in all possible instances. The panelists explored ways an organization may prevent surprise conscientious objections to prevent adverse patient health outcomes, negative staff morale, and ultimately protect an organization’s bottom line.
