— They “will be watching closely the VA’s use of this rule and we will be ready to act if the VA defies the law.” The attorneys general also emphasized the rule must be administered in a way that is consistent with a health-care worker’s right to refuse to participate in an abortion on the basis of “conscience or religious belief.”
“Like many of the [Biden administration’s] abortion-related efforts, this new rule is an unlawful attempt to wrest” authority from the American people, the attorneys general wrote. “That attempt will fail.”
Joining Fitch on the letter were Mark Brnovich of Arizona, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Ashley Moody of Florida, Christopher Carr of Georgia, Todd Rokita of Indiana, Daniel Cameron of Kentucky, Douglas Peterson of Nebraska, Drew Wrigley of North Dakota, Dave Yost of Ohio, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Jonathan Skrmetti of Tennessee, Ken Paxton of Texas, Sean Reyes of Utah and Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia.
According to the IFR, decisions regarding what constitutes endangerment of life and health will be made case by case through consultation between a V.A. medical professional and a woman. The V.A. will accept a report by a veteran or beneficiary as satisfactory proof of rape or incest, the department said.
RELATED: Biden Pledges To Make Abortion Rights No. 1 Priority in Congress
The rule’s language regarding the “health” of the mother is open to a potentially expansive understanding. In the past, “health” has been interpreted to include not only physical well-being but such factors as the emotional and psychological condition of the mother.
Nine days before the Supreme Court’s ruling, messengers to the SBC’s annual meeting adopted a resolution that called on the justices to overturn Roe and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that affirmed it. The resolution also urged state legislators to pass “pro-life policies that uphold the dignity and value of every human life, including both vulnerable women and children.”
This article originally appeared at Baptist Press.
