Religious Liberty Commission Hearing on Health Care and Social Services

The Religious Liberty Commission met at the Museum of the Bible on March 16 to discuss issues surrounding religious freedom in health care and social services. During several panels, witnesses shared their personal experiences, detailing the professional and legal repercussions they faced while practicing their faith.

Among those who testified were parents, healthcare providers, counselors, and faith leaders. They tackled various subjects, including gender ideology, abortion, vaccinations, and assisted suicide. Many witnesses expressed that government mandates and institutional policies have increasingly hindered their ability to practice religion without the risk of losing their jobs, professional reputation, or access to education.

Gender Ideology in Institutions

Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor from Colorado, spoke about state laws that govern discussions related to gender identity in counseling. She highlighted how the law necessitated her to support gender transitions for minors, even when it went against her clients’ own aspirations.

“Young individuals grappling with their identities should have counselors who can freely express themselves, ask questions, empathize, and support them in their pursuit of hope and healing,” Chiles remarked.

Valerie Kloosterman, a physician assistant, shared her own experience of losing her job for not participating in mandatory training at the University of Michigan, which required affirming statements about gender identity. Kloosterman requested a religious accommodation but was denied, resulting in her termination.

These testimonies reflected the growing tension professionals face when institutional regulations clash with their personal beliefs.

Abortion

Abby Sinnett, a nurse practitioner and CEO of Bella Health + Wellness in Colorado, discussed state laws regarding abortion pill reversal. She pointed out that Colorado was the first state to ban the prescription of progesterone for women who had taken the first abortion pill but later wished to continue their pregnancies.

“Sadly, lawmakers in Colorado chose to make it illegal to provide progesterone for abortion pill reversal,” she stated, underscoring that progesterone remains available for other medical purposes such as infertility treatment and miscarriage prevention.

Susan Bane, an obstetrician-gynecologist, shared her experiences as a Catholic physician, emphasizing that she has faced pressure to participate in abortion procedures throughout her medical training and career.

“As an OBGYN, I care for two patients — a mother and her baby. Intentionally ending the life of one patient is simply not health care,” Bane asserted.

Assisted Suicide

Dr. Leslee Cochrane, a hospice physician in California, testified against laws that mandate physicians who oppose assisted suicide for moral reasons to document patient requests and refer them to willing providers.

“Assisted suicide is not a medically necessary solution for managing pain,” Cochrane argued. “The American Medical Association deems it fundamentally incompatible with a physician’s role and poses significant societal risks.”

She recounted a situation involving a very religious patient whose family pressured her to consider assisted suicide even though the patient was not in pain, illustrating how vulnerable individuals might be influenced, and stressing the importance of allowing physicians to adhere to their conscience.

Dr. Kenneth Prager, a pulmonologist, differentiated between the withdrawal of life support and actively causing death, warning that legalized assisted suicide could create a slippery slope, citing examples from Canada and parts of Europe.

Vaccine Mandates and Education

Several parents shared their struggles with religious objections to childhood vaccinations, which resulted in their children being barred from school. One mother recounted how New York’s 2019 repeal of the religious exemption prevented her children from accessing public education, while others with medical exemptions were still permitted to attend.

The insights gathered during this hearing will contribute to ongoing discussions about how state and federal policies should balance religious freedom against evolving medical and social norms.