Wednesday, July 17, 2019

July 19: Final Conscience Regulation: Does the New HHS Rule Promote Injustice?

On May 2, 2019, The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the final version of its conscience rule. This updated rule purports to authorize individual healthcare workers and institutions to refuse to provide certain services by citing a religious or conscience objection.
Such leeway may have serious implications for patients, especially for women, LGBT people, and those seeking end-of-life care. Some view the rule as consistent with the Administration’s promise to promote religious interests. Others fear the harmful effects of allowing individual workers at healthcare facilities to deny critical and sometimes life-saving care to patients.
What are the legal implications? Join us on Friday, July 19, 2019 at 1:00 PM PM EST to engage in this captivating and informative conversation with Susan Berke Fogel and Richard Katskee.
Final Conscience Regulation: Does the New HHS Rule Promote Injustice?
Friday, July 19, 2019
10:00 AM - 11:00 AM PDT
Webinar - Register Now
  • Susan Berke Fogel, J.D. is the Director, Reproductive Health at the National Health Law Program (NHeLP), a national non-profit organization that protects and advances the health rights of low income and underserved individuals. She is nationally known for her work on religious restrictions in health care, and is the co-author of Health Care Refusals: Undermining Quality Care for Women, a foundational analysis of the impact of religious restrictions on medical standards of care in reproductive health.
  • Richard B. Katskee is Legal Director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, where he litigates cases under the First Amendment’s Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech Clauses. Previously, Richard was a member of the Supreme Court & Appellate practice at Mayer Brown LLP and was Deputy Director of the Program Legal Group in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. He is currently a counsel to the plaintiffs in two of the cases challenging the rules issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: County of Santa Clara v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. (N.D. Cal.); and Mayer & City Council of Baltimore v. Azar (D. Md.).
The event announcement does not mention CLE Credit applications. You may wish to self-apply, depending on the rules of your jurisdiction.
Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice, American Bar Association

No comments:

Post a Comment