New York Won’t Force Catholic Religious Sisters to Counsel Assisted Suicide for Now
Catholic nuns have won a temporary reprieve from a New York law that violates their religious liberty.
Catholic religious sisters who take care of the dying won’t be forced to participate in New York’s “suicide counseling mandate” while a federal court case continues.
The religious orders, along with a Catholic bishop and his diocese, are suing over a New York law that goes into effect on Wednesday, August 5. In addition to making it easier for someone to commit assisted suicide, the lawsuit says it requires “healthcare providers to inform patients of and counsel them about the option to kill themselves,” as Legal Insurrection previously reported.
Attorney General Letitia James and the Becket Fund agreed on July 30 that several religious orders and Catholic health care ministries will not be forced to provide information to terminally ill patients about their option to kill themselves, at least for the time being. New York has until August 20 now to respond to the lawsuit with a motion to dismiss, if it so chooses.
The Becket Fund has filed a federal lawsuit and dubbed the requirement a “suicide counseling mandate.”
Catholic healthcare entities do not have to provide the suicide drugs themselves but would be forced under this law to help a terminally ill patient find someone who would.
The original lawsuit details other problems with the law:
Individual physicians could still be required to inform, counsel, and qualify patients for assisted suicide; private healthcare facilities could still be prevented from prohibiting physicians from informing, counseling, and qualifying on-premises, or even prescribing off-premises; and assisted living homes could still be required to allow their patients to kill themselves in their facilities.
Rockville Bishop John Barres said the temporary agreement is a good first step.
“This agreement is an important first step towards protecting religious freedom,” he stated through the Becket Fund.
“New York cannot force the Church to answer suffering with suicide or abandon the sick and dying when they need care most,” he stated.
Catholics will “continue to proclaim that every human life is sacred and worthy of love until its natural end.”
Among the plaintiffs are the Little Sisters of the Poor and the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne. The latter are separately challenging New York for attempting to force it to accommodate gender-confused individuals at its home for terminally ill cancer patients.
The superior general of the Dominican sisters reiterated the importance of their mission.
“We at Rosary Hill, continue our foundress’ intention to bring the healing spirit of Christ and His Church to those who are most in need while asking nothing in return. NY state’s decision not to enforce this law against us means that we can continue our loving service to Christ’s poor.”
[Featured image via Becket Fund]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So ridiculous
Ever think about it: Catholic nuns were the first feminists. They started and ran hospitals, colleges and schools. They may vote D. But still have a strong enough faith that includes common sense and individual decision making.
For now.
But if the Communists take control of the White House and Congress, and pack they Supreme Court they will go nuclear on the nuns.
Yup. They’re going to wait until their regulation forces the Overton Window for this care to move over for all providers… then they’ll be back.
It’s not really a good first step. It’s an integral part of the process, but the only real first good step would be NY repealing the rule. The next good step would be tarring and feathering those who thought this would be a good idea.
Here’s how I look at this ruling. I am happy the nuns received a temporary reprieve in their case against the State of New York. The first step towards justice is for Republicans to use this case to get out the vote and to gain control of the governor’s office. The step after that is to repeal the suicide counseling mandate rule itself.
This Presbyterian (PCA, not PCUSA) says “Good”. Now make it permanent.
.
This isn’t quite correct. The Sisters are perfectly willing to accommodate such patients, but only on the floor dedicated to their actual gender. No patient or prospective patient has complained about this policy, or demanded to be accommodated elsewhere. The AG is suing the Sisters sua sponte, for daring to have such a policy, even if it bothers no one.
Fun Fact:
The motto of the United States Army Rangers’ 75th Ranger Regiment is “Sua Sponte.” This Latin phrase highlights the Rangers’ ability to take initiative and act without being told. It also reflects that an Army Ranger volunteers three times: first for the U.S. Army, then for Airborne School, and lastly for service in the US Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment.
I’m the other way around. I fear landing in a Catholic hospital and they will ignore my DNR because “life is sacred”.
A natural death without resort to extraordinary means is considered moral and just by Catholics. DNRs are respected in Catholic hospitals. It is the unnatural TAKING of life that they object to.
No they won’t. A DNR is totally different than what the scum in New York, Canada, and other places want to allow or mandate.
I fully understand that. My fear is that they will tie me up to a bunch of beeping machines and try to keep me alive because life is sacred. I do not wish to be lying in a hospital better as a vegetable for 10 years because life is sacred.
What part of Kelly’s response, that DNR orders are honored in Catholic healthcare facilities, did you not understand? Apparently you did not understand, regardless of your stating that you did. Or is it that you don’t have a DNR order for yourself and you are afraid some relative will not honor your current verbal wish when the time comes?
I see you now do understand, Wish we had edit capability,
Totally wrong. In Catholicism, a DNR is respected and honored.
I learned something. Thank you.
The nuns will never provide counseling on assisted suicide. They will either ignore the mandate if it is reinstated or stop providing this type of care altogether. The state of NY must know this, so the real question is whether or not the beds provided by Catholic facilities are valued by the state.
You are quite right 3406, and I really wish conservatives would follow their lead and practice civil disobedience more often.
What did Hochul and James hope to achieve by introducing this mandate and taking action during an election year?
Kathy Hochul comes from an Irish Catholic family and earned her law degree from the Catholic University of America. Is it not ironic that someone who identifies as Catholic would choose to challenge nuns who care for terminally ill elderly patients, many of whom have little money?
Catholic in Name Only?
We have witnessed the astonishing rise of anti-semitism among Ds, even though a significant part of their coalition is Jewish. At the same time, it has been under-reported that there has also been a rise in hostility toward faithful Catholics. The state seem intent on bending the behavior of these groups toward its will. One of the liberal proposals has been to remove the tax-exempt status of churches.
Constitutionally, can the government compel speech?
Generally, no.
If the government hires you to speak on its behalf, then it can tell you what it wants you to say. If you don’t like saying those things you can quit your job. Ditto if you want to say things, on the government’s behalf, that it doesn’t want to say.
Another exception, the one relevant here, is that if you are a licensed professional providing paid advise to your clients, you are required to give them good advice, even if you don’t agree with it. So for instance if you’re an investment adviser telling some elderly person where she can put her money for the best return, and you happen to be a radical environmentalist and think that oil companies are evil, but the market makes them a good investment, you are not entitled to hide that option from your client; you have to tell her that if she buys shares in an oil company they’re likely to do well for her. You can tell her why you think that would be an evil choice to make, but you can’t hide it from her.
And that’s what the government is claiming here. They’re saying that a doctor must give patients professional and appropriate advice, and that if a patient’s condition is such that suicide is a legitimate option then the doctor must advise her of that, and failure to do so is a betrayal of the doctor’s professional duty to the patient. If the doctor can’t bring herself to do that, then she must find the patient some other doctor who is willing to give that advice.
Of course the nuns’ position is that suicide is never a legitimate option, it’s always a crime against God, exactly the same crime as murdering someone else, and advising someone about it is the same as advising the patient’s heir on how to bump the patient off for her money.
Certainly, and they do it every day. Witnesses in civil actions (including family law) who would otherwise prefer not to get involved are subpoenaed to testify in trials. The Fifth Amendment is not in play because these people are not on trial and in most cases are not even suspected of wrongdoing.
A Libertarian lawyer acquaintance of mine (who ultimately made it to state supreme court justice) used to complain that this was a violation of libertarian principles, yet one to which he feared it was impossible to construct a principled alternative.
The question wasn’t about the fifth but the first. Compelled speech generally violates the first. The duty to testify doesn’t really violate that, because the duty is to tell the truth, not to say what the government wants.
But yes, silence is not an option, so to that extent it is an exception to the freedom. The duty to testify predates any notion of freedom of speech; it’s in the Bible. The freedom developed against the background of this duty, and therefore never included a right to refuse to testify when called, just as it never included a right to defame or defraud people.
Leave a Comment