In response to the complaints filed yesterday by ADF with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concerning Vanderbilt’s requirement that Women’s Health Track applicants in its Nurse Residency Program must sign an acknowledgement that they must assist in abortions, Vanderbilt has today amended its application packet  to eliminate this requirement.  Applicants are now asked to read a statement that such procedures are in the program, but it also explicitly informs applicants of the availability of a right to be excused from assisting with abortion procedures and does not require applicants to acknowledge in advance of admission any willingness to participate in abortions.  An email by Vanderbilt  to all applicants informed them of the change this afternoon.

Vanderbilt’s application for its Women’s Health Track in its Nurse Residency Program had required applicants to acknowledge they would have to assist with women undergoing an abortion.  It did not qualify this acknowledgement in any way nor inform applicants of any protection for their rights of conscience once admitted.  A student applying to the Vanderbilt program had to promise in advance that he or she would provide any and all assistance for any woman undergoing an abortion.  Vanderbilt’s prompt action to change their application means that applicants will now be able to apply to Vandy’s prestigious Nurse Residency Program without signing away their right under federal law to refuse “to counsel, suggest, recommend, assist, or in any way participate in the performance of abortions” in violation of their conscience.

Yesterday Vanderbilt had claimed that despite the requirement of a signed acknowledgement making no reference to conscience protections it actually did allow conscientious and religious objection by its employees.  But the application itself provided no such protection.  It also informed them that if they could not sign the open-ended “acknowledgement” that they should “apply to a different track of the Nurse Residency Program to explore opportunities that may best fit your skills and career goals.…”   

As I mentioned yesterday, there was once a time not so long ago when right wing pro-life radicals like Senator Edward Kennedy would stand on the floor of the United States Senate and speak on behalf of the rights of conscience of pro-life medical professionals.  Through hard work and obfuscation by the pro-abortion lobby, in the last decade or so it has become controversial for a doctor, nurse, or other medical professional to assert a right not assist in the destruction of human life.  The Obama Administration is even threatening to repeal regulations (not the statutes themselves which will remain binding on recipients of taxpayer funds) that implement federal laws protecting healthcare workers’ rights of conscience and provide the mechanism for complaining (as ADF did here) to HHS of violations of those rights. 

Sadly, my experience is that Vanderbilt’s requirement was not one of a kind.  And taking Vanderbilt at its word, that it truly does protect the conscience rights of its employees, Vanderbilt may now even be ahead of the game.  Despite decades-old federal statutes specifically on point, I am aware of other universities, receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer funds that have sought to coerce students or employees into participating in abortions.  Unsurprisingly, the University of Wisconsin was among them until ADF intervened.  If you are a medical or nursing student who has experienced any pressure or coercion of any kind to assist with abortion procedures in violation of your conscience, please let us know.

Kudos to the Commodores.  However it got to this point, Vandy deserves credit for getting it right.

Today, the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit against officials at Augusta State University on behalf of counseling student Jennifer Keeton.  Jennifer’s counseling professors have told her she must change her Christian beliefs to graduate, told her that she cannot share her faith with students even outside of class, and have imposed impossibly vague speech codes on her in an effort to implement a comprehensive program of thought reform.  You can read Jennifer’s Complaint and her Preliminary Injunction Motion to learn more.  Or, you can watch her tell her story.

LifeSiteNews.com reports that the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) is being pressured to expel members who seek to help clients with unwanted same-sex sexual attraction.  The article also reports that CAMFT, in response to pressure, pulled from its magazine an article favorably describing therapy designed to address such attractions.

Suppose that a male patient comes to a therapist saying he is attracted to other men.  He expresses his desire to be attracted to women.  He asks the therapist to help him.  Perhaps the patient has religiously-based ethical objections to same-sex conduct; perhaps his motivations are entirely secular.  Those exerting pressure upon the CAMFT apparently believe that the therapist’s job in such a circumstance is to convince the patient to accept (and perhaps even “celebrate”) his attraction to other men.

It appears as though those pressuring the CAMFT are willing to subordinate the legitimate desires of patients to their own cultural objective of normalizing homosexual behavior.  They are also apparently willing to trample the consciences of therapists whose own convictions prevent them from encouraging a client to embrace same-sex attraction and same-sex behavior.

This sort of conflict in the so-called “helping professions” is not new.  Thankfully, ADF and its allies are fighting to protect the freedom of therapists, social workers, counselors, and others who seek to serve their clients in a manner consistent with their consciences.

   Elane Photography lost another round in court with a New Mexico trial court ruling  that the company engaged in illegal “sexual orientation” discrimination when the main photographer declined an invitation to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony in Taos, N.M.  Same-sex “marriage” is not legally recognized in New Mexico.  UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has already blogged about the decision here, here and here,  pointing out how the decision fails to protect the First Amendment rights of the photographer and her company.  

    Earlier, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission had ruled against Elane Photography, the small company in Albuquerque run by a young husband and wife,  Jon and Elane Huguenin.  The state commission found the company guilty of discrimination and ordered it to pay approximately $6600 in attorneys fees to the lesbian who filed the complaint. Jon and Elaine have religious beliefs and public policy beliefs that marriage is defined only as one man and one woman. ?

     The District Court’s opinion found that the business was a “public accommodation” under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, even though Elaine Huguenin uses immense amounts of creative and artistic talent to make the photographs of a wedding ceremony.  Usually, “public accommodation”  laws apply to businesses that dispense uniform products or services, such as a restaurant or a hotel, not to a business that creates unique products. This is a massive and  unwarranted expansion of the concept of “public accommodation.”  Not every commercial business is a “public accommodation” like a restaurant, hotel or store might be.

    Also, the District Court rejected the claims that the state commission’s actions violated the free speech rights and religious liberty of Elane Photography.   The District Court reduced the creative role of the photographer to a mere conduit of photos for the buyer.  This severely understates what a photographer does in selecting images from among the many taken, altering their tone and color, cropping them, etc.  A couple hires a wedding photographer because of her artistic skills.  They are not like an employee behind the counter taking passport photos with a stationary camera.

   Also, the District Court rejected the religious liberty claims under the federal and state constitutions.  Again, the court diminishes the impact of the state’s actions against the photography company, with its statements that Elane Photography is merely being asked to photograph something for a fee.  There is no sense that  people can be asked by their customers to do something with their businesses that violate the business owners’ beliefs.  A photographer who is a vegetarian might decline to create photos for the promotional materials of a meat packing plant.  If New Mexico law made that an act of discrimination, the District Court opinion says that there is no First Amendment protection.  That can’t be right, and that is why we will appeal this decision to the New Mexico Court of  Appeals.