U.S. Senators Bill Cassidy and James Lankford have submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Oklahoma v. Department of Health and Human Services. This legal action follows the Biden administration’s decision to withhold healthcare funding from Oklahoma unless the state refers women for abortions.
“The Biden-Harris administration has spent four years pushing its radical, pro-abortion agenda at every opportunity with alarming disregard for the conscience rights of health care providers,” said Dr. Cassidy, who is set to become the incoming HELP Committee Chair. He expressed his support for the brief as a means to restore Oklahoma’s Title X funding and defend healthcare providers’ rights nationwide.
Senator Lankford criticized President Biden’s approach, stating, “Oklahomans should not have to miss out on funding for critical health services for women, including AIDS testing and cancer screenings, because of the Administration’s extreme abortion agenda.” He emphasized that he is proud to lead this effort which prioritizes actual healthcare over abortion.
Senator Steve Daines also voiced his support: “The Biden administration cares more about pushing a radically extreme abortion agenda than they do about actually protecting women’s health.” He underscored that this legislation aims to ensure women’s access to necessary medical care while safeguarding government and healthcare employees from being compelled to provide abortion referrals.
Additionally, Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith commented on the implications of withholding funds: “The Biden administration’s decision… sets a dangerous and coercive precedent.” She reiterated her commitment by joining Senator Lankford in defending Oklahoma’s right through this amicus brief.
The brief highlights several points regarding conscientious objections under existing law:
– The Weldon Amendment robustly protects conscientious objections from institutions like the Oklahoma Department of Health.
– It safeguards all healthcare objectors irrespective of their reasons.
– Legal precedents view such objections from the perspective of those objecting.
