Doctors are free to discriminate against transgender patients and women who have had abortions, Texas Judge Reed O’Connor ruled in a federal district court ruling. The ruling blocked a non-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act, calling discrimination a form of “religious freedom.”
Freedom to Discriminate Against Women Who Receive Abortions and Trans Populations
The ruling came in the form of a nationwide injunction in Franciscan Alliance v. Burwell. The order’s power thus extends well beyond abortion in Texas.
In his order, Judge O’Connor blocks Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, arguing that the rule infringes upon religious freedom. Section 1557 prohibits health care discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, and other statuses. It also bans health care providers from discriminating based on certain “health activities,” including a medical history that includes a previous abortion.
The reversal of the rule means that doctors can refuse to treat patients who are transgender or who have a history of abortion.
Anti-choice activists and those who oppose rights for transgender people argue that the order is a victory for religious freedom. However, doctors were already free to refuse to perform abortions or gender reassignment surgeries, preserving religious and personal freedom. The expanded understanding of “religious freedom” serves only to discriminate against people based upon their medical histories.
How the Law Could Affect Patients
The law means that doctors could discharge patients, without warning, based solely on their medical history. For patients whose insurance providers cover a limited number of physicians, as well as those living in rural areas with access to few doctors, this could reduce health care access.
Even for patients who can choose from a variety of doctors, the ruling could have catastrophic effects. Finding a doctor can be challenging, potentially delaying medical treatment. Some patients may choose not to seek medical care at all, while others might give up when a doctor discharges them for religious reasons.
Women who have a history of abortion may choose not to disclose this fact, fearing retaliation. Safely discussing medical history with a physician is vital to quality care, so the law could undermine the health of women who have had abortions—even when the abortion is decades in the past.
Constrained Reproductive Rights Under President Trump
The move is part of a backlash against reproductive and civil rights in the wake of Donald Trump’s election as president. It’s very likely President Trump will nominate at least two Supreme Court justices. This could tip the balance of power in the court, potentially leading to the reversal of Roe vs. Wade.
Even if Roesurvives, the Court will likely weaken abortion rights. Conservative judges across the country know this, so Trump’s election may embolden them to rule against abortion, even when precedent and statutes are on the side of abortion rights.