Before October 2011, Lorna Mendoza and her nurse colleagues at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey served patients every day in the same day surgery unit without any hint that the hospital’s respect for the nurses’ religious beliefs was about to come crashing down around them.
But a few weeks ago the hospital suddenly announced it was imposing a new policy under which all same-day surgery unit nurses must assist in abortions or be terminated.
Twelve nurses represented by the Alliance Defense Fund have responded by filing a lawsuit to have the new policy overturned. And yet the hospital is planning to force Lorna and her colleague Julita Ching to assist abortions this Friday, Nov. 4, despite the hospital’s crystal-clear legal obligations not to coerce them.
Federal and state laws both prohibit forcing any health-care employees to take part in abortions.
For example, federal law prohibits hospitals that receive certain federal funds from forcing employees to participate in abortions (and UMDNJ receives approximately $60 million in federal health funds annually). Additionally, New Jersey law states, “No person shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion or sterilization.”
Yet when one of the twelve nurses objected to assisting abortions on the grounds of her religious beliefs, a supervisor responded that UMDNJ has “no regard for religious beliefs” of nurses who object to participating in abortions, even though the supervisor admitted that the abortions are elective.
The hospital’s message to these nurses, in not quite so many words, is “You’re going to help kill these pre-born children whether you want to or not.”
Forcing pro-life nurses to assist in performing abortions is flatly illegal. It is coercion in the strongest sense of the word, and UMDNJ has taken upon itself the job of penalizing employees because they object to assisting abortions.
What’s wrong with not wanting to kill a pre-born child? And why must everyone take part in killing pre-born children “or else”?
Some try to answer and say that it’s part of the job and the nurses just need to get used to it. But it’s not part of the job and never was. Federal and state law both made that clear very quickly after Roe v. Wade imposed abortion on the United States. There is nearly universal legal consensus that it is wrong to force people to assist abortions, and the Supreme Court has said so itself.
ADF is not only seeking a reversal of UMDNJ’s new policy, but is also asking the court to order the hospital to return a portion of the millions of federal dollars they’ve received. The money came with known and justifiable strings attached, but UMDNJ is obviously trying to break its public promise not to discriminate, and to get away with it.
The court needs to make sure such lawless hospitals understand that things just don’t work like that in a free society.
— Matt Bowman is legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the twelve nurses who filed suit against UMDNJ.
"UMDNJ is obviously trying to break its public promise not to discriminate."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre we talking about breaking a law, breaking a contract, or "breaking a public promise?"
Counsel for the nurses may be a poor choice to write an unbiased account of the dispute(?).
"I solemnly pledge myself before God and presence of this assembly;
To pass my life in purity and to practice my profession faithfully.
I will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous
and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug.
I will do all in my power to maintain and elevate the standard of my profession
and will hold in confidence all personal matters committed to my keeping
and family affairs coming to my knowledge in the practice of my calling.
With loyalty will I endeavor to aid the physician in his work,
and devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care."
This is the Nightingale pledge, which nurses used to take at "capping", a quaint ceremony in which we filed to the front of the chapel carrying Nightingale lamps, were bestowed our caps, and pledged the above.
Of course, I am old, and quaint, and suppose since no one wears caps anymore they threw out the morals with the headgear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a beautiful pledge. I asked a physician a few years ago if he had recited the Hippocratic oath when he received his medical degree, and he said no. Too bad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo a grocery store shouldn't have the right to fire (or not hire) a Muslim butcher who refuses to work with pork? Or a Muslim taxi driver should be allowed to refuse to carry you because you have a bottle of wine? External Link
I thought conservatives were all about "right to work" laws and at will employment? If these nurses don't want to do abortions, they should work at a place that doesn't do abortions. The government has no place in forcing businesses to make unreasonable accommodation to their employees religious beliefs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUMDNJ *IS* the government. Nobody is forcing a business to make religious accommodations. What's happening here is that a government agency is breaking state and federal law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo you thinking forcing someone to assist in burning, poisoning and dismembering another human being doesn't meet the standard or being a "reasonable" accommodation? If not, what does?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseum, it's a sate institution, not a private one, so, yes indeed, the govt can tell them what to do
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is nothing "unreasonable" about not wanting to participate in the killing of a child. This is literally a life-or-death situation--not simply "I won't drive you because you're holding a bottle of wine." There are some lines that cannot, must not be crossed--some things that are simply moral imperatives that trump the other "rules" (ie at-will employment) that conservatives champion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm pretty adamantly pro-choice, but what kind of moron equates killing an unborn child with handling pork in a butcher shop?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I'm pretty adamantly pro-choice, but what kind of moron equates killing an unborn child with handling pork in a butcher shop?"
It's an intentionally provocative statement, but if you view the fetus as more akin to an extra limb or organ (rather than an unborn child), it's not that absurd. I suppose a closer analogy would be a Jehova's Witness nurse refusing to do blood transfusions, or a Christian Scientist doctor refusing to prescribe medicine to his patients. Would you argue that a hospital shouldn't be allowed to fire a person in those circumstances?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@AbeFroman
Say it isn't so, Mr. Froman! I love your posts. How is it you miss the mark on this one?!
This isn't meant to draw you into a protracted virtual debate on abortion. But I always wonder how intelligent, thoughtful (and otherwise conservative!) folks as yourself can not defend the most vulnerable.
When, after all, do you think life begins? If wrong to kill a baby one minute after birth, is it fine one minute before? One hour? A day? Etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe flippant answer is that you have a very hot but kind of stupid and barely likable girlfriend tell you she thinks she missed her period when you're 24 and watch your entire life flash before your eyes for the next day or so.
The serious answer is that as nauseating as the left's efforts to minimize abortion as some kind of casual procedure may be, I don't like the government being in the business of legislating morality either. No government funding for it and making it easy for people to exercise their conscience with regard to assisting in abortion procedures strikes me as a reasonable balance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut the government legislates morality when it protects children from child abuse...how is that different?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCultural consensus. It doesn't say particularly good things about our civilization that people are so closely divided about something as gruesome as abortion, but it is what it is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, if the cultural consensus was branding irons and whips for disobedient children, you'd have no objection to the law permitting that, however distasteful?
Morality gets legislated for a reason, after all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy don't you get back to me when there's a cultural consensus in favor of branding irons and whips for children.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@AbeFroman
I want to hold to my word about not drawing anyone into a protracted debate, so I'll resist extended comment.
But I do commend to your consideration the following video, which I assure you is nothing grotesque or disturbing.
It's simply a sonogram at 8 weeks where you can see the heart beating. Taken from the University of New South Wales Embryology unit. Pretty awesome!
External Link
This is clearly life and life in need of protecting.
I'd love to show it to Obama and ask -- if it's not above his paygrade -- whether this is what he means by restoring science to the public sphere...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it should be rather obvious from the way I approach the subject that I'm under no illusions about what exactly abortion is. Clearly the left is largely in denial about this because it makes the decision to abort a lot more palatable, but that's where the tension in a free society should rest I think. Not in law, but in moral persuasion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGovernments legislate morality all the time. Laws against murder exist because murder is seen as an incompatible practice in a decent society - this assessment is a moral one, based on the intrinsic value of human life as much as the practical necessity to live in a society where people aren't freely blowing each other away.
With all due respect, the "not legislating morality" argument is a nonsensical one in the case of abortion. Even if one were to accept the premise, the opposition to abortion is founded on the same premises as the opposition to murder - the belief that the wanton taking of human life for personal gain (whether avarice or the avoidance of responsibility) violates the rights of the human being who is killed. Opposition to abortion isn't simply a religious position on personal choice (like whether to take communion weekly or monthly, for example)
In other words, if murder is not a legislation of morality, then neither would be laws against abortion. The appeal to a disdain of moral compacts doesn't really work here in the context of how the law is made and the opposition to abortion in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst of all, if there are state and federal laws exempting you from working with pork, or carrying wine, then yes, you should be exempt. Our society does not regard these things as significant in the way it regards abortion as significant- and rightfully so. Furthermore, abortion is not nearly as central to the practices of medicine and nursing as the use of pork is to butchery. Abortion can be reasonably regarded as unusual, and not what is to be expected for a doctor to have to do. Only about 1,700 people actually perform abortions in this country.
Conservatives are for freedom in employment, but a hospital that receives federal funds is not a 'business' in the same sense as any other business. If you receive federal funds, you obviously need to follow the law. If it is true with Catholic Charities, it is true here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse