Part of California’s assisted suicide law has been struck down by a federal judge, who ruled it was unconstitutional to force doctors in the state to participate.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha said it was not acceptable for the law to require doctors with religious or moral objections to record a patient’s request for assisted suicide, and refer them to another physician. Aenlle-Rocha’s decision said this violates their freedom of speech, and essentially requires them to take part in their patients’ deaths.

A group of doctors with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) filed a lawsuit in February challenging that portion of the law, and asking this summer that the law be blocked while the court considers the suit. CMDA, along with Dr. Leslee Cochrane, was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

“Our clients seek to give their patients the best possible healing care, including comfort and dignity, until natural death occurs,” ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot said in a statement in July. “The Christian physicians we represent have personal religious convictions and professional ethics that oppose the practice of assisted suicide, and it’s illegal for the state of California to force these doctors to participate in this practice. We urge the court to stop this irreparable harm while our lawsuit moves forward.”

READ: California drops assisted suicide waiting period to just 48 hours

The law had required California doctors unwilling to write prescriptions for lethal assisted suicide drugs to tell the patient that they refuse, note it in the patient’s medical record, and then offer to transfer the patient to a doctor favorable to assisted suicide. The requirement to note the patient’s request qualifies as the first of two legally mandated requests, even with the doctor’s opposition to the procedure. Opponents have said the law prevents them from providing proper palliative care and medical help to those patients who need it most, in addition to violating their belief in the sanctity of life.

“The ultimate outcome of this requirement is that non-participating providers are compelled to participate in the Act through this documentation requirement, despite their objections to assisted suicide,” Aenlle-Rocha wrote, adding that doctors “have demonstrated they are likely to suffer a violation of a constitutional right absent an injunction,” and that “they are likely to succeed on their Free Speech claim” because the documentation requirement under SB 380 “exceeds merely managing medical records—it imposes an affirmative documentation requirement.”

In a statement, Theriot celebrate the ruling as a victory for doctors across California.

“Our clients seek to live out their faith in their medical practice, and that includes valuing every human life entrusted to their care. Participating in physician-assisted suicide very clearly would violate their consciences,” he said. “We’re pleased the court followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NIFLA v. Becerra that clarified First Amendment protections extend to religious medical professionals.”

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!

Part of California’s assisted suicide law has been struck down by a federal judge, who ruled it was unconstitutional to force doctors in the state to participate.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha said it was not acceptable for the law to require doctors with religious or moral objections to record a patient’s request for assisted suicide, and refer them to another physician. Aenlle-Rocha’s decision said this violates their freedom of speech, and essentially requires them to take part in their patients’ deaths.

A group of doctors with the Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) filed a lawsuit in February challenging that portion of the law, and asking this summer that the law be blocked while the court considers the suit. CMDA, along with Dr. Leslee Cochrane, was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

“Our clients seek to give their patients the best possible healing care, including comfort and dignity, until natural death occurs,” ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot said in a statement in July. “The Christian physicians we represent have personal religious convictions and professional ethics that oppose the practice of assisted suicide, and it’s illegal for the state of California to force these doctors to participate in this practice. We urge the court to stop this irreparable harm while our lawsuit moves forward.”

READ: California drops assisted suicide waiting period to just 48 hours

The law had required California doctors unwilling to write prescriptions for lethal assisted suicide drugs to tell the patient that they refuse, note it in the patient’s medical record, and then offer to transfer the patient to a doctor favorable to assisted suicide. The requirement to note the patient’s request qualifies as the first of two legally mandated requests, even with the doctor’s opposition to the procedure. Opponents have said the law prevents them from providing proper palliative care and medical help to those patients who need it most, in addition to violating their belief in the sanctity of life.

“The ultimate outcome of this requirement is that non-participating providers are compelled to participate in the Act through this documentation requirement, despite their objections to assisted suicide,” Aenlle-Rocha wrote, adding that doctors “have demonstrated they are likely to suffer a violation of a constitutional right absent an injunction,” and that “they are likely to succeed on their Free Speech claim” because the documentation requirement under SB 380 “exceeds merely managing medical records—it imposes an affirmative documentation requirement.”

In a statement, Theriot celebrate the ruling as a victory for doctors across California.

“Our clients seek to live out their faith in their medical practice, and that includes valuing every human life entrusted to their care. Participating in physician-assisted suicide very clearly would violate their consciences,” he said. “We’re pleased the court followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NIFLA v. Becerra that clarified First Amendment protections extend to religious medical professionals.”

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!