The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

White House delays conscience protections

by Kyle Ziemnick
Posted 7/01/19, 11:13 am

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decided Friday to delay the implementation of new rules allowing medical workers to claim religious exemptions to performing abortions or other procedures that violate their consciences. The rules require agencies that receive federal funding to comply with about 25 laws codifying protections for religious workers.

Several states and cities across the country sued to block the new HHS rules shortly after President Donald Trump announced them in May. The Trump administration and opponents behind a lawsuit out of California mutually agreed Friday to delay a final ruling on the matter to Nov. 22. The city of San Francisco claimed that its healthcare programs would lose about $1 billion because of the rules, which were set to take effect Jul. 22. HHS called the delay “the most efficient way to adjudicate” the concerns, and a federal judge approved the decision Saturday.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Kyle Ziemnick

Kyle is a WORLD DIgital news reporter. He is a World Journalism Institute and Patrick Henry College graduate. Kyle resides in Purcellville, Va. Follow him on Twitter @kylezim25.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
    Posted: Mon, 07/01/2019 06:14 pm

    Don't cave to their lawsuits!

    It continues to be their way or no way. 

  • EB
    Posted: Tue, 07/02/2019 04:56 pm

    So if "The rules require agencies that receive federal funding to comply with about 25 laws codifying protections for religious workers," and if San Francisco would lose money (one billion dollars!) by not being able to require (essentially force) people to act in ways that are contrary to their religious beliefs, doesn't that seem like evidence -- or at least a very strong indicator -- that San Francisco is eitber (1) acting in a way that is profoundly unconstitutional by thwarting religious liberty, and therefore should be taken to court and sued, and/or (2) is lying or putting up a straw man about losing money, thereby seeking to falsely manipulate public opinion against the federal government?  I'm not any sort of expert on this stuff so I'd appreciate seeing a piece that would enlighten us on the implications of this situation, and whether or not someone is going to take them on.  Thanks guys.  I love World Magazine!  Go World Magazine! 

  • OldMike
    Posted: Tue, 07/02/2019 10:17 pm

    Those are excellent questions, Mr. Beach. I sure hope someone in the Administration is contemplating them.