VA says accommodation for abortions always in place, but record is silent

The Department of Veterans Affairs said Tuesday that an accommodation for employees objecting on religious grounds to providing abortion counseling or services has been available since the policy was announced in September.

However, if the accommodation has always existed, it was not communicated to Stephanie Carter, the Texas nurse practitioner who sued over the issue in December; First Liberty Institute, the conservative Christian legal nonprofit that represented her; or The Washington Times, which has repeatedly requested comment on the issue.

What’s more, Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis R. McDonough failed to mention the existence of religious accommodation when asked about the Carter lawsuit at a press conference in March.

First Liberty announced Monday that the VA will allow workers with religious objections to abortion services to opt out of such work, The Times reported.

“Since the day this policy was announced, VA has provided accommodations for VA employees who wish to opt out of providing abortion counseling or services,” VA press secretary Terrence Hayes told The Times via email on Tuesday.

But Holly Randall, associate counsel at First Liberty, disputed that claim.

“The timeline of the case speaks for itself,” Ms. Randall said via email. “The VA has made many claims about having an accommodation process, but the fact remains that Stephanie asked repeatedly about an accommodation and was told repeatedly by her supervisor that there was no process or more information would be made available at some vague point in the future. Regardless, the VA was not granting accommodation or making their supervisors aware of what was in place.”

Department officials filed an “interim final rule” in the Federal Register regarding abortion counseling and services on Sept. 1 and announced it in a news release the next day. Neither the final rule filing nor the announcement made a reference to any religious accommodation.

The VA’s announcement came weeks after the Supreme Court had rescinded a national right to abortion and returned jurisdiction on the issue to the states. The VA said offering abortion services to its beneficiaries was “a patient safety decision,” and the rule took effect 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

Ms. Carter, a Christian and nurse practitioner at Olin E. Teague Veterans’ Center in Temple, Texas, sought an exemption from the VA requirement, claiming her religion opposes abortion except to save the woman’s life, according to court documents.

She and her First Liberty attorneys in December filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, saying she “initially requested a religious accommodation, but was told by her supervisor that there was no process in place for the VA to consider her requests.”

The VA did not respond to a Times’ request for comment about the lawsuit and did not contact The Times about its report on the lawsuit in December.

During a news conference in March, Mr. McDonough acknowledged the Carter lawsuit. However, said he would not elaborate on the case because “I want to not get in the middle of ongoing litigation,” according to a VA transcript.

“[T]here is a VA provider or a VA nurse who felt like her access to a reasonable accommodation to not participate in the provision of abortion was not adequately exercised or was not adequately protected. That’s a case in Texas. It continues, but I don’t have anything to say more than that,” the VA secretary said with no mention that a religious accommodation had been available from the outset.

In May, The Times sought VA comment for a report about the Catholic Church’s archdiocese for the U.S. military community criticizing the agency’s new abortion policy. A VA spokesman said the agency “will not be able to respond” to a request for comment, citing time constraints. No mention of religious accommodation was made.

On Monday, The Times requested VA comment about First Liberty’s announcement on the Carter case. A spokesman said the agency “has no comment on this litigation” and repeated that statement when asked specifically about accommodations for religious employees.