Catholic nuns sue NY over law forcing them to use trans pronouns, let men into women’s bathrooms in hospice care
A century-old order of Dominican nuns operating a free hospice in New York filed a lawsuit against Governor Hochul to challenge a state law mandating gender-identity accommodations in long-term care. The nuns argue the requirements—such as housing residents by biological sex, allowing access to bathrooms by gender identity, pronoun use, and cultural competency training—conflict with their Catholic mission. The state insists the rights of residents to avoid discrimination under the law apply to all facilities. The case foregrounds a clash between religious liberty and evolving gender-identity policy in elder care, with potential penalties for noncompliance looming for the nuns. The outcome could affect how religious providers balance faith-based care with state nondiscrimination mandates going forward.
Dive Deeper:
The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, who run Rosary Hill Home in Hawthorne, New York, filed a lawsuit against the state law, seeking protection of their religious exercise and freedom of speech to continue providing free care to the dying poor.
Provisions highlighted by the sisters include housing residents by sex rather than gender identity, allowing entry to women’s bathrooms for residents who identify as male, use of preferred pronouns, and mandated staff training in gender-identity ideology and cultural competency.
The law, framed as protecting long-term care residents from discrimination, bans discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or HIV status, and it carries enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance.
If they do not comply, the nuns face concrete penalties such as fines per violation, potential license revocation, and possible imprisonment, creating a risk to their operation and religious mission.
A Hochul spokesperson noted that state health authorities aim to follow existing laws that protect residents’ rights, while not commenting on ongoing litigation, signaling the government view of the law as integral to resident protections.
The dispute centers on reconciling a religiously motivated, no-cost care model with state-mandated policy changes tied to gender identity and related cultural training, with broader implications for other faith-based care providers.
The lawsuit was prompted by a period of mounting tension between religious institutions and evolving norms around gender identity in public policy, especially in the context of long-term, hospice-type care for vulnerable populations.