Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

New Federal Medical Conscience Rule and Its Implications

Client Alert

New Statutes offer health care providers (and payors) protections against recipients of federal funds when refusing to provide services based on religious or moral grounds. The federal health care conscience protection statutes (the “Statutes”) include, among others, the Church Amendments, the Coats-Snowe Amendment, the Weldon Amendment, and certain Medicare and Medicaid provisions.

The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Final Rule regarding these Statutes on January 11, 2024 (effective March 11, 2024), clarifying the provisions, which gives the OCR the authority to receive, handle, and investigate complaints under the federal health care conscience protection statutes.

Services that are typically protected under the Statutes include assisted suicide, abortion, and sterilization. Importantly, providers cannot provide services to some patients and not others. Additionally, it is important to note that the protections apply to services/procedures – therefore, a provider cannot refuse to provide a service to a particular person or group of people based off of religious or moral beliefs.

Authority of the OCR in enforcing the Statutes includes:

  • Receiving and handling complaints;
  • Initiating compliance reviews;
  • Conducting investigations;
  • Consulting on compliance within the Department;
  • Seeking voluntary resolutions of complaints;
  • Consulting and coordinating with the relevant Departmental funding component and utilizing existing enforcement regulations, such as those that apply to grants, contracts, or other programs and services;
  • In coordination with the relevant component or components of the Department, coordinating other appropriate remedial action as the Department deems necessary and as allowed by law and applicable regulation; and
  • In coordination with the relevant component or components of the Department, making enforcement referrals to the Department of Justice.

When investigating potential violations of the Statutes, the OCR may review the practice’s policies, communications, documents, and compliance history. The OCR states that matters will be resolved via “informal means” whenever possible, but if not, the OCR will coordinate and consult with the Department responsible for the relevant funding to undertake appropriate action. The OCR may also refer the matter to the Department of Justice. It is important for entities to respond promptly to the OCR’s investigation and to keep adequate records.

In addition, the OCR encourages all entities subject to the Statutes to post a “model notice” in a prominent and conspicuous location to notify both providers and patients of their compliance. The model notice provided by the OCR can be found here.

Entities should also consider updating their policies and procedures to include the protections under the Statutes. For example, entities may include a statement that providers will not be required to participate in, and will not be discriminated against, for refusing to participate in specific medical procedures and related training and research activities or coerced into performing procedures that are against their religious or moral beliefs. Such procedures should also provide the steps providers can take to invoke their rights under the Statutes.

If you have any questions regarding the Final Rule, please don’t hesitate to contact BMD Health Law Group Member Jeana M. Singleton at jmsingleton@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2001, or BMD Attorney Rachel Stermer at rcstermer@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2019. 


CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.

House Republicans Propose Cuts to Medicaid to Finance Savings

House Republicans have introduced legislative language that proposes substantial cuts to the Medicaid entitlement program, aiming to achieve significant budget savings through policy changes. The proposed measures include stricter eligibility verification, work requirements for certain adults, and federal funding cuts to states providing coverage to undocumented residents. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed healthcare provisions would reduce spending by $715 billion and could result in 8.6 million fewer people having health insurance by 2034.

Protecting Your Image in the Age of AI-Generated “Deepfakes”

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed how we create and consume digital content, but it also poses significant risks. Among the most troubling developments in AI is the proliferation of AI-generated fraudulent content, often called “deepfakes”.