The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), specifically its Office of Civil Rights (OCR) division, announced Wednesday that doctors in Illinois can no longer be forced to violate their conscience on matters of abortion.

This development stems from the state’s Health Care Right of Conscience Act. At face value, it seems straightforward: doctors need not carry out abortions if they hold religious or moral objections. Yet a key provision complicates matters. To receive full legal protection — such as protection from lawsuits and other penalties — doctors must still inform patients that abortion is an option and, if the patient chooses it, refer them to an abortion business.

Enter HHS, which launched an investigation into the law’s nuance for potential violations of federal law. In its January 21 announcement, HHS detailed how the Illinois laws do violate the Weldon Amendment and the Coats-Snowe Amendment — both of which say the government cannot discriminate against or punish doctors, hospitals, or other health care providers who refuse to carry out abortions, refer for abortions, pay for them, or arrange them based on their beliefs.

According to HHS, Illinois’s laws ultimately do force providers to make abortion referrals despite their opposition — effectively forcing them to participate in a procedure they morally reject, which federal law expressly forbids. As a result, HHS issued the state a Notice of Violation. Failure to resolve the issue could lead to cuts in federal health funding, including Medicare and other HHS-related programs.

What HHS is doing “is protecting the rights of health care workers — their conscience rights — so they’re not forced to do something that they find morally reprehensible,” said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council and host of “Washington Watch.” Joining the conversation, OCR Director Paula Stannard stressed the irony of Illinois explaining “that in order to have a protection under the statute for one’s objections on religious or conscience, they have to, in fact, refer for the very health service that they object to.”

Stannard explained how the reason OCR is “so focused on enforcing the federal health care conscience statutes” is because “if health care professionals and health care organizations are not permitted to follow their conscience, we will have less access to health care.” She described a two-fold dilemma: First, compelling professionals to violate their conscience discourages them from entering or remaining in the field. Second, the very nature of having an objection may make them less desirable to those already in the field. Either outcome, she asserted, results in “less health care all around.”

This creates broader stakes, making it “an issue not only of conscience … protection of conscience, and religious freedom, but also a matter of access to health care.” Perkins added that “most of our hospitals in this country were founded by faith-based organizations to begin with,” increasing the likelihood they would prioritize life-affirming care over abortion.

An HHS press release emphasized how the announcement “fulfills an Administration promise that the [OCR] ‘reevaluate its . . . guidance pertaining to Federal laws on conscience and religious exercise’ to strengthen enforcement of these laws. OCR’s actions advance the federal health care conscience rights of physicians, health care facilities, and health care personnel to live out their professions without compromising their conscience regarding abortion and the dignity of human life.”

And in a related step, Stannard explained that HHS has reviewed and plans to cancel several guidance documents from the Biden administration concerning abortion and the protection of human life.

For instance, Stannard detailed how one document from September 2021 explained nondiscrimination rules under the Church Amendments — federal laws that allow health care workers to refuse to participate in abortions, sterilizations, or similar procedures if they go against their beliefs. That Biden-era guidance was criticized for only protecting businesses who were willing to carry out those procedures while ignoring those who objected, which made it one-sided and not fully in line with the actual law or the current administration’s emphasis on protecting life and enforcing the Hyde Amendment (the rule that generally blocks federal money from paying for abortions).

Stannard also noted plans to rescind a 2023 guidance directed at retail pharmacies. That document emphasized nondiscrimination under federal civil rights laws, with particular focus on drugs used for abortion. Many contended it misinterpreted the law, contradicted biological realities, and relied on executive orders that have since been revoked.

Given these developments, Perkins asked, “Should we anticipate some other announcements coming in the days ahead?” Stannard affirmed yes, noting that these changes coincided with additional measures, including a Dear Colleague Letter summarizing federal conscience protections in health care. The overarching goal, she stressed, is to restore balanced enforcement that better supports health care workers who do not want to be involved in abortion-related procedures.

“[I]f we receive complaints about potential violations of the statutes or reports that indicate that a regulated entity may not be complying with them, we will launch investigations or compliance reviews,” Stannard concluded.