Religious people must be able to criticize the transformationist agenda in the public square. We live in a highly religious world, and America’s roots are in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our society has also been enriched by religious diasporas from around the globe, bringing people who seek religious and other freedoms to our shores. It is wrong to force religious individuals who are highly skilled medical and mental health professionals to violate their core religious convictions by compelling them to support and participate in terminating life, or in elective therapies that seek fundamentally to alter the human person, whether to achieve transgender ends or transhumanist ones. Forcing religious institutions to violate the tenets of their faith in the treatments and procedures performed on their premises is similarly repugnant.

The basic creed of the medical community is “Do no harm!” Today, this foundational principle, derived from the ancient Hippocratic oath, is under assault. Radical voices not only demand extreme individual autonomy in matters of life, death, and mutilation of healthy bodies, but also insist that medical professionals be willing to participate in these procedures without exception.

The Biden administration is leading the charge against faith-inspired doctors, nurses, and medical institutions. Its approach is to use the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as Obamacare) to redefine biological “sex” to encompass the full range of LGBTQI+ categories. Legislation like the Equality Act would twist the principles of anti-discrimination even further to require the federal funding of abortion.

Doctors, nurses, and other health professionals have an obligation to preserve and protect human life. For many, this obligation aligns with their religiously informed vocations to serve God and fellow human beings through the healing arts. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, we have witnessed the courageous, compassionate service of medical professionals.

But religious individuals and religious organizations may lose the opportunity to serve entirely if they refuse to participate in the controversial procedures to which they conscientiously object. Not only does this destroy the foundation of service that supports our healthcare system, it degrades the religious and moral protections necessary for the functioning of society. This bludgeoning of faith and conscience happens at the hands of employers, professional associations, universities, and state and local governments.

There are three major medical conscience areas where people of faith will face increasing pressure to violate their principles in the years to come: matters of life (and death), gender transition treatments and therapies, and emerging issues associated with the willful transformation of the human body (“transhumanism”).

The past decade has seen an alarming trend: the use of intimidation and coercion to compel participation in procedures that voluntarily end life. The Washington Post recently reported that the new Biden-era approach is to target medical providers, healthcare organizations, and insurance plans offered under the ACA exchange.

Consider the recent case of a nurse in Vermont who was deliberately misled to assist with an elective abortion, even though she had placed her name on an objector list. She faced potential disciplinary action if she refused to participate. In another case, a university required nurses applying to a residency program to sign a form agreeing to assist in abortion procedures. Such coercion is immoral and inconsistent with the principles of the American constitutional order.

The United States must fight against the rising tide of euthanasia worldwide. Physician-assisted suicide laws in Belgium, New Zealand, Canada, the Netherlands, and now in Oregon, make elective death an on-demand service. These laws not only authorize the self-solicited destruction of a few individuals. They may also force doctors and nurses to enable the suicide of a child, or, at the behest of family members, the demise of aging relatives whom they find “inconvenient.” Indeed, such scenarios are possible even in jurisdictions with alleged “conscience provisions,” where those who object to participating are often still required to be complicit in the process by referring patients to providers who will carry out the objectionable procedure.

Read More