Posted on 08/05/2025 12:58:22 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Tennessee's vague conscience protections offer an avenue for legal discrimination
When the woman stood up to speak in a Washington County town hall meeting, she had no idea her story would go viral on social mediaopens in a new tab or window.
Having recently realized she was pregnant, she sought out a physician for prenatal care -- but was denied service.
"That provider told me that thanks to [the 2025 Medical Ethics Defense Actopens in a new tab or window], they were not comfortable treating me because I am an unwed mother and that goes against their Christian values." She revealed she must now cross state lines for basic prenatal care.
"I call Marsha [Blackburn's] [R-Tenn.] office twice a day. I'm either blocked or she has all calls going directly to voicemail...When I contacted [Sen.] Bill Hagerty's [R-Tenn.] office, I was told he's not obligated to listen to his constituents."
The allegations appalled everyone present. "If you were in that room, you believed her," Tennessee State Rep. Gloria Johnson (D-90), who had attended the meeting to answer questions about Medicaid cuts, said to me. The video rapidly circulated online, attracting ire from reproductive rights advocates and critics alike. Its subject was unprepared for and overwhelmed by the attention.
"She's afraid for her job and her child," Rachel Wells told me. Wells is the journalist who first broke the storyopens in a new tab or window on her Substack, TN Repro News, and had spoken to the woman on the grounds of anonymity.
It is important to know that these are allegations. I imagine someone will speculate that it's a hoax, which would be extremely disappointing and attack the credulity of other female patients, who already struggle to be believedopens in a new tab or window. However, beyond the particulars of these allegations, a state law exists that appears to permit doctors to discriminate when providing medical care. That is dangerous.
Conscience Rights
Historically, conscience protections are usually applied to abortion and other aspects of reproductive healthcare. If you truly define life as beginning at conception, I can appreciate why you personally would not want to be involved in an abortion. A religious institution may similarly object to specific services. For instance, many Catholic hospitals will not participate in sterilization, abortion, or contraception as a matter of religious principle, which is a federally-protected rightopens in a new tab or window.
But denying a patient general care based on the patient's lifestyle choices is a different matter -- and not a new one.
In 1999, Guadalupe Benitez was denied artificial inseminationopens in a new tab or window by physicians who claimed that providing such treatment to an unmarried individual violated their religious beliefs. Benitez argued that they declined to treat her because of her sexual orientation (she had disclosed she was a lesbian, and statements made by staff members at the clinic suggested that her sexual orientation was the real issue at hand).
A Catholic physician would likely decline to provide this procedure regardless of the patient's marital status, because artificial insemination is "unnatural." But, to my knowledge, caring for an unmarried person does not violate any religious tenet. The California Supreme Court unanimously decidedopens in a new tab or window in favor of Benitez in 2008, holding that physicians do not have the right to refuse care based on sexual orientation, even on religious grounds. The question of Benitez's marital status was left largely unresolved but is relevant under this Tennessee law.
I cannot understand why treating an individual whose lifestyle does not align with your own would violate any religious principle. I'm a Christian, and know of no Biblical verse prohibiting me from caring for anyone, even if I believe they have sinned -- in fact, I distinctly recall Jesus ministering to sinnersopens in a new tab or window.
Rep. Johnson told me that the issue of conscience protections for physicians was predominantly pushed forward by the Alliance Defending Freedom, whose senior counsel, Greg Chafuen, applaudedopens in a new tab or window Tennessee's Medical Ethics Defense Act when it was signed into law in April 2025.
The law statesopens in a new tab or window:
A healthcare provider must not be required to participate in or pay for a healthcare procedure, treatment, or service that violates the conscience of the healthcare provider.
But Tennessee already had conscience protectionsopens in a new tab or window in place for physicians, argued Amy Gordon Bono, MD, MPH, alarmed by the bill's vague language. She testified unsuccessfully against it. "Time and time again, I see this legislative body choose to politicize talking points rather than prioritize real solutions to the issues at hand. This bill will not heal the moral injury present in our healthcare system."
The law does not apply to services governed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). In short, emergency protections are safe (for nowopens in a new tab or window), but are seemingly the only thing preventing a potentially bigoted doctor from actually denying a vulnerable patient vital care.
Unintended Consequences
The vagueness of this bill is troubling: a doctor could feasibly refuse to treat anyone, claiming that doing so violates their deeply-held beliefs -- highly unclear language that could mean anything.
What if doctors at academic medical centers did this? Our most complex patients, who might not be able to receive appropriate care elsewhere, would suffer disproportionately.
What if such legislation came to my home state of New York? Could I then decline to care for a child abuser, someone with racist tattoos, or an adulterer? These choices disagree with my own Christian faith. Yet, I have treated all, adhering to the standard of care without hesitation.
I wonder if the bill's authors have considered other consequences of its enactment. How might they feel if a doctor claims that a certain religion is inconsistent with their values and refuses that patient treatment? We can all agree this would be outrageous. But technically, it would be legal.
Or, hypothetically, doctors might invoke conscience protections if a former governor with an alleged history of sexual harassment, a twice-divorced real estate magnate with a sexual abuse conviction, or a CEO having an affair with the head of human resources at a Coldplay concert showed up in clinic. Would politicians pushing vague conscience protections feel differently if doctors declined to treat them on moral grounds?
Tennessee may not be alone; similar legislation existsopens in a new tab or window in Illinois, Florida, Mississippi, and potentially other states, and has not been challenged.
So, it falls on us as a profession to ask ourselves: given the opportunity to discriminate, is this who we want to be as a field?
Chloe Nazra Lee, MD, MPH,opens in a new tab or window is a resident physician in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York. The views in the above piece reflect only the author's and not any institution with which she is affiliated.
“in a new tab or window”
Found this inserted randomly 14 times in this article. Whew!
This is actually the reverse. The patient is claiming the right to discriminate against a doctor.
How so?
“had spoken to the woman on the grounds of anonymity.”
****************************
They just made up this story out of thin air.
“A healthcare provider must not be required to participate in or pay for a healthcare procedure, treatment, or service that violates the conscience of the healthcare provider.”
Seems reasonable. Not to the “bake the d@mn cake” crowd, of course.
I don’t remember any MedPage Today stories about the nurses who anonymously reported that they did not treat anyone who they knew was MAGA, or intentionally made injections and other procedures more painful for patients who they knew were MAGA. Those stories were in the conservative news during the last Trump term.
“”That provider told me that thanks to [the 2025 Medical Ethics Defense Actopens in a new tab or window], they were not comfortable treating me because I am an unwed mother and that goes against their Christian values.””
That is certainly not a Christian value. Hard to imagine Christ would have turned her away.
"If you practice what I believe, you're allowed to stay in business. If you don't practice what I believe, you will be discriminated against for your beliefs and disallowed from being in business."
Does a patient have a right (or the power) to force another person (regardless of profession) to violate the person’s values and embrace the patient’s values?
Do laws exist that force a person to act against the person’s values and embrace the values demanded by another?
If so, which laws specify which values?
3 Questions, no answers.
Hmmm. Why would she want such a doctor to be forced to treat her?
"Pardon me while I retrieve the forceps from the refrigerator."
This article just screams “BS!” because the medical establishment is nearly unanimous on promoting prenatal care where and whenever possible to prevent problems and save lives.
And nothing prevents this woman from seeing another physician if the first one is denying her care.
Someone’s grinding an agenda here and Tennessee’s Senators are obviously targets.
She is claiming she has to go to another state.
I don’t know any nurse who gives enough of a hoot to care about the politics of the people they are giving shots.
It is more likely the nurse just sucks at giving shots. Or the person getting the shot thinks too much of themselves.
99% of people providing services just want to do their job and go home.
If you are taking Gooobemrint money for payment of services, you do what the Goobermint tells you to do.
Don’t like it? Petition your Goobermint for change.
Private practice? No Goobermint money?
You run your business as you want to run it.
That’s right, it’s a BUSINESS.
Can’t have both.
I call BS on this Christians-are-discriminatory story. The left always tell you whom they fear the most.
How quaint. I thought the new breed of preachers have “discovered”, for the first time in thousands of years (aka Reverend Delman Coates), that the Bible says all consensual sex is good. As long as you don’t have to pay for it.
I was lazy and did not read but I am guessing the sum up would be “We must make doctors perform abortions or women will die!”
“That provider told me that thanks to [the 2025 Medical Ethics Defense Actopens in a new tab or window], they were not comfortable treating me because I am an unwed mother and that goes against their Christian values.” She revealed she must now cross state lines for basic prenatal care.
I am quite sure the above is a lie. No Christian provider would deny prenatal treatment because a woman was unwed.e . This is not the first time people have lied regarding laws on conscience protection. The goal is simple, force providers to perform abortions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.