ADDITIONAL CASES Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, Inc., Plaintiffs v. Alex M. Azar II, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, in his capacity as Director, Office for Civil Rights, United States Department of Health and Human Services, and Office for Civil Rights, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants; 19 Civ. 5433. National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, and Public Health Solutions, Inc., Plaintiffs v. Alex M. Azar, II, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, in his official capacity as Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants; 19 Civ. 5435. OPINION & ORDER These consolidated actions concern a challenge to a final rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) on May 21, 2019. The rule is entitled “Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care,” 84 Fed. Reg. 23,170 (May 21, 2019) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 88) (the “Rule”). Before the Court is a motion by Dr. Regina Frost and the Christian Medical and Dental Association (“CMDA”) (together, the “Proposed Intervenors”) to intervene as defendants. Plaintiffs in all three cases have opposed the motion. Defendants (collectively, “HHS”) have neither consented to intervention nor conveyed to the Court their reasons for declining consent. For the following reasons, the Court grants the Proposed Intervenors’ motion to intervene. I. Background The Rule at issue interprets a number of federal conscience and anti-discrimination laws to allow health care providers, including individual medical personnel and affiliated employees, the right broadly to abstain from providing medical services that conflict with their beliefs. The Rule also strengthens HHS’s investigative and enforcement tools to ensure that such providers may abstain free from discrimination by their employers. There are two sets of plaintiffs in these consolidated cases. One consists of state and local governments that are concerned about the impact of the Rule’s enforcement mechanisms on states and localities and on their regions’ health care plans. The other consists of non-profit organizations or associations which, or whose members, provide health care services of a nature — e.g., relating to family planning and reproductive rights — anticipated to produce abstentions by health care providers under the Rule based on personal beliefs. Plaintiffs argue that the Rule, in various respects, violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See, e.g., Dkt. 11
159-82. The governmental plaintiffs also argue that the Rule unconstitutionally encroaches on state sovereignty and reaches beyond the limits of Executive power. See id.
