I am informed that a federal judge in Newark today issued a temporary restraining order protecting nurses from being coerced by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey to assist in the performance of abortions. As noted here yesterday, the state hospital has been attempting to force nurses to participate in abortions despite federal and state law which holds that those who conscientiously object may refrain from participation.
The TRO extends only for two weeks — until November 18. That is, even though the TRO really does nothing other than require the state hospital to obey the law, UMDNJ did not agree to obey the law permanently — in order to promote abortion, it apparently intends to fight against the laws that safeguard freedom of conscience.
In yesterday’s post, I expressed the hope that Governor Christie would get involved and do whatever he can to ensure that this state institution complies with its legal obligations. I have nothing to report in the way of activity from the governor — though I hasten to add that today’s proceedings were judicial: litigation between the hospital and the nurses; they did not call for the governor to take any action.
Coerced? Can't they just work somewhere else? I have said many times that if you don't like your job, leave. Free enterprise and contract. Are we saying federal regulations are the proper way to dictate the employer/employee relationship?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a complete lie.
No one is "forcing" nurses to do anything. The job description is clear. You either do the job or you don't and quit or be fired for not doing your job. If you have a problem with the job as it's described, go get a job somewhere that subscribes to your beliefs. There are undoubtedly plenty who would love to have the paying job you currently refuse to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is it about abortion that causes liberals to embrace complete laissez-faire and conservatives to discover labor rights?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou have no idea how long any of these nurses have worked there. Some may be long-time employees who have performed their duties well. And having worked in nursing for years, I've spoken to some who at first assisted in abortions, but came to be unable to participate after seeing the consequences of them on the baby, as well as the mother. Death of any kind takes an emotional toll on people who provide health care services. And over time it can cause post traumatic stress. It isn't unusual for a nurse working in an area such as oncology or geriatrics to suffer burn out due to this very thing. I've seen it. I wonder if men are capable of understanding as well as a woman the emotional trauma that can occur after an abortion is performed? I've seen women grapple with it 20 years later--even after they had married and had other children. I've also see nurses grapple with the guilt of having participated in them. I wonder if you can imagine the horror of a nurse who felt she was alright with assisting in abortions--until the first time she saw the after affects and recognized tiny arms and legs? She told me it didn't matter how many times anyone called it a "fetus" or "fetal tissue" at that point. She recognized parts of a baby. Another nurse shared that story with me years ago. There is a legal precedent that has been set that allows a person nonparticipation in anything they might deem as "murder." And that is in the U.S. Military. Although during war time anyone can be drafted, conscientious objectors can't be forced to participate in the killing of anyone if it goes against their religious beliefs: "Any person. . . whose claim is sustained by the local board shall, if he is inducted into the armed forces. . . be assigned to noncombatant service. . . or shall, if he is found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service. . .perform...civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest. . . "Section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act.' A person can have a religious conversion any time during their lives. If a person does, and suddenly finds they are looking at the situation in a different light--one that will cause them emotional harm to participate--then I think they need to be protected in the legal arena. Do you also feel that someone in the military who is a conscientious objecter should be forced to kill? It's really no different.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery thoughtful and well-informed comments. A nurse should not be faced with the Hobson's choice of participating in a procedure that she finds morally objectionable, or lose her job. The law protects her for good reason. UMDNJ is absolutely off base, legally and morally. Governor Christie knows what a cess pool this insitution is. It's time to intervene. Governor Christie???
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehughman, As others have already pointed out to you, a job description does not trump state and federal law. If you insist otherwise, you lose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo if your employer tells you to do something the law says your employer can't tell you to do, you should just quit and go find another job? Got it. After all there are plenty of jobs in the robust Obama economy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd its not like we should give a rip about those worthless hunks of flesh they are going to be 'disposing of'. After all, that is one of those messy social issues and we wouldn't want to worry about those. We can have a nice robust economy with no morals - just like the Nazis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho are we to object to having to help run those gas chambers?
The Culture of Death is strong in this one...
Nobody should be required to participate in ritual murder.
In the meantime, anything the correct side can do to make abortion less available, more expensive, and more shameful, the better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMedical practitioners should never be forced to violate "first, do no harm".
That we even allow medical practitioners to do abortions in the first place is troublesome. We ought to have a separate category for those who do abortions, because how can you trust a medical practitioner after they've shown they can and will throw out the very essence of what makes them trustworthy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember when abortion rights advocates used to say "Opposed to abortion? Then don't have one."? Now, it seems, they say "Don't have one. And don't make a career as a nurse. Or a physician. Or a pharmacist."
In "The Story of the Trapp Family Singers," Maria von Trapp tells how one of the reasons she and her family decided they must leave their homeland was that one of her stepsons wanted to become a doctor, and it became clear that if he was going to pursue that profession, he'd have to cooperate in the anti-life practices (such as euthanasia) that the Nazi regime was mandating. No conscience protection there. I wonder if hughman thinks it's perfectly acceptable that Rupert von Trapp had to leave his country in order to practice medicine. The way things are going in this country, physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals to want to avoid cooperation with evil will have to move to Malta.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRegardless of what the job description says, the LAW says that medical personnel can not be forced to engage in procedures that violate their conscience. As a state institution, the FIrst Amendment applies as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHughman, what part of "against the law" do you not understand? It's amazing to me also how breezily leftists will suddenly assume that a working person can just go land a job in whatever industry he likes, while rejecting outright any similar claim made by a conservative when the subject is, say, organized labor. Suddenly when people are being coerced by employees into butchering babies, it's all just part of the job and if you don't agree, well, there's a great big free market out there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember that there are 2 sides to every story people and that reporters don't always provide the public with all the facts!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have zero knowledge of the underlying dispute, so I'm not going to weigh in on who's right or wrong. But I am a lawyer, and I know that McCarthy is somewhat shading the facts when he describes a TRO. TRO's are always short, because they're usually granted on very little, if any notice. In fact, a lot of them are granted ex parte without the other side (ie, the side that is to be restrained) from even having an opportunity to present its case. In that sense, TROs represent an exception to how the American legal system usually works, where adversaries present their cases on equal footing and a findings of fact and conclusions of law are determined. If anything, a two-week TRO is actually somewhat long--I've seen them last as short as just a few days, to give the parties an opportunity to get their witnesses in for a hearing on a preliminary injunction. So the idea that, pursuant to the TRO, UMDNJ only has to "obey the law" for two weeks isn't true. I'm sure they have a side to tell as well (not saying they're right, but you know, this is America--we have this thing called justice, everyone gets a lawyer, an opportunity to be heard...all that good stuff), and they shouldn't be forced to adopt the other side's position for too long before they have an opportunity to tell it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the law is clear (and it sounds like it is), the UMDNJ was knowingly breaking the law, secure they'd be able to do so with impunity unless aggressive steps were taken to force their compliance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf this is so, prosecutions of those making the knowingly illegal decisions should be underway, otherwise what disincentive is there to keep the same thing from happening again and again?