comscore Hawaii among states suing over Trump’s anti-abortion rule | Honolulu Star-Advertiser
Top News

Hawaii among states suing over Trump’s anti-abortion rule

  • VIDEO COURTESY ASSOCIATED PRESS

    Activists today were joined by members of Congress to rally near the Supreme Court on "National Day of Action to Stop the Bans" on abortion. Two dozen states, including Hawaii, and municipalities sued the federal government to stop a new rule that lets health care clinicians decline to provide abortions and other services that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs.

  • ASSOCIATED PRESS

    Demonstrators take part in a protest against abortion bans, today, in New York. Abortion rights supporters held rallies across the country in opposition to the wave of sweeping abortion bans being enacted this year in Midwestern and Southern states.

Hawaii Attorney General Clare E. Connors today joined a coalition of 23 cities, states, and municipalities, in filing a lawsuit against a set of revised rules issued by the Trump Administration that the plaintiffs said would allow businesses and individuals to refuse health care on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions.

The federal suit led by New York Attorney General Letitia James was filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service in the southern district of New York, seeking to prevent a set of revisions to its federal policy — referred to as the “final rule” — from going into effect.

“This rule is a license to discriminate,” said Connors in a news release. “It allows health care providers to refuse service based on personal beliefs about who is worthy of receiving the provider’s services. As such, it is a misinterpretation of religious freedom that could have devastating consequences.”

The lawsuit alleges that the “final rule,” scheduled to take effect in July, would undermine the delivery of health care by giving a wide range of institutions and individuals “the categorical right to deny lawful and medically necessary treatment, services, and information to patients, based on the provider’s own personal views.”

The new rule, said the plaintiffs, expands the number of providers eligible to make such refusals, ranging from receptionists to ambulance drivers, and emergency room doctors.

Under the new rule, for example, an emergency room doctor could refuse to assist a woman who arrived with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, even if her life was in jeopardy.

Businesses, including employers, would also be able to refuse insurance coverage for procedures they consider objectionable, and allow individual health care personnel to not fully inform patients of their medical options or refer them to providers of options they consider objectionable.

The lawsuit further alleges that the risk of noncompliance is the termination of billions of dollars in federal health care funding.

All of this, the lawsuit said, violates the federal Administrative Procedures Act and the Spending Clause and separation of powers principles in the U.S. Constitution.

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, City of New York, City of Chicago, and Cook County, Ill., joined New York and Hawaii in the suit.

Comments (38)

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Terms of Service. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. Report comments if you believe they do not follow our guidelines.

Having trouble with comments? Learn more here.

Scroll Up