Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

NJ Hospital Should Tell the Truth about Its Abortion Policy

As we all know from politics, and from our childhood, real trouble comes not so much from breaking the rules but from lying to cover it up. Yet that’s exactly what the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey is doing to cover up its illegal insistence that nurses assist in abortions, in violation of their religious and moral beliefs.

Twelve nurses represented by ADF sued UMDNJ because, in October, it began forcing them to assist abortion cases. UMDNJ’s coercion is illegal, and it jeopardizes about $60 million that UMDNJ receives annually in federal tax dollars.

When the nurses filed suit on Monday, Oct. 31, the hospital scheduled Lorna Mendoza and Julita Ching to assist abortions that Friday, Nov. 4. So the Alliance Defense Fund immediately wrote to the hospital’s attorneys and asked that they back off. On Wednesday, Nov. 2, their attorneys responded with this e-mail:

Please be advised that the plaintiff-nurses named in the above-referenced lawsuit are not required to assist in abortion procedures. Rather, they are required to provide patients who have elected to terminate their pregnancies with pre-operative care (not including the administration of induction medications), and postoperative care. The pre- and post-operative care provided to these patients is of the same nature as that provided to patients who have undergone other surgical procedures. In short, UMDNJ is in full compliance with the laws cited in your email. Also, the November 4, 2011 training to which your email refers is training relating to pre- and postoperative care procedures and not, as you state, training relating to “assisting abortions.”

This e-mail is incorrect in several respects. For starters, the nurses have indeed been required to assist during abortions and not merely “pre-” and “post-” (including when the hospital gives women Cytotec to induce labor and then leaves the women in the nurses’ pre-operative care during the delivery-abortion). Also, federal law (42 U.S.C. 300a-7(c)(2)) very explicitly gives the nurses the right to opt out of assisting with any service they object to, whether pre-abortion, post-abortion, or otherwise.

But take careful note of what UMDNJ’s attorney does say in the e-mail about the nurses: “they are required to provide patients who have elected to terminate their pregnancies with pre-operative care (not including the administration of induction medications), and postoperative care.” “They are required.” The nurses object to these activities on religious and moral grounds, but according to UMDNJ’s lawyer, “they are required” anyway.

Because of this e-mail, later that Wednesday, ADF asked the court for an emergency injunction to save Lorna and Julita from being forced to assist abortion cases that Friday. On Thursday afternoon, the hospital conceded, but only temporarily, and it is now paying its lawyers to fight to lift the order at an upcoming hearing.

In the meantime, however, UMDNJ found itself in a bind. Its illegal “requirement” threatens tens of millions of dollars of UMDNJ’s tax funding annually, and besides that, UMDNJ’s actions are lawless. So how did UMDNJ’s public-relations department respond? They decided to lie about it, claiming that no one is required to assist in any objectionable procedure. UMDNJ spread the following statements to media outlets nationwide:

No nurse is compelled to be present for, to participate in the performance of, or to perform, a procedure to which she or he objects on religious or moral grounds. UMDNJ strictly adheres to both federal and state law in this regard.

No nurse is compelled to have direct involvement in, and/or attendance in the room at the time of, a procedure to which she or he objects based on his/her cultural values, ethics and/or religious beliefs.

Remember: UMDNJ’s attorney told ADF very clearly on Wednesday, Nov. 2, that Lorna and Julita “are required” to perform pre- and post-abortion activities even though they expressed religious and moral objections to doing so, and we had to get a court order to stop it.

But once the media began asking UMDNJ about their illegal behavior, they lied to cover it up. As of the time of this writing, UMDNJ still will not tell ADF attorneys if it has backed off from its Nov. 2 directive requiring nurses to assist. Yet UMDNJ continues to tell the media that no nurse is so required. UMDNJ even has the nerve to claim, “Statements in the media by an attorney identified as representing the interests of nurses employed by UMDNJ are not accurate.”

If not for the court’s restraining order, each one of these 12 nurses would have to go into work and face supervisors that would be telling them they cannot object to providing services on abortion cases and will be penalized if they do so. UMDNJ’s attorney said the same thing. Yet in the media UMDNJ is claiming that no nurse has to perform activities she objects to. If it were you, would you believe your boss telling you that you will be fired, or would you believe your boss’s public-relations department telling the newspaper that you won’t be fired?

Stop the lies, UMDNJ. If you are telling the truth that “no nurse is compelled” to work abortion cases, then assure the nurses of that truth and withdraw your directive telling them that “they are required” to assist. Or, if you are continuing to require them to assist abortion cases, then stop lying to the public by saying that no nurse is compelled to perform practices she objects to.

UMDNJ needs to either admit that it is breaking the law or assure its nurses that it believes its own press releases and will actually stop requiring the nurses to assist with activities related to abortion.

— Matt Bowman is legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the 12 nurses who filed suit against UMDNJ.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   11

EXPAND  

   11/11/11 11:14

Ironically, the pro-aborts like to call themselves pro-choice.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/11/11 11:49

PR is nice, but discovery is dispositive. And once the suit moves into the discovery phase, maybe Christie will wake up and remember that this hospital is basically on "probation" for prior major federal offenses.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/11/11 12:27

I don't think you understand the distinction the hospital is making. It's saying that a nurse is not required to be present in the room and/or assist while an abortion is being performed, but that a nurse is required to treat those patients before and after the medical procedure is performed. That strikes me as precisely the right balance between respect for a nurse's religious beliefs and a requirement that the nurse perform his or her job. A hospital can't let nurses decide which patients they do and don't want to treat. Imagine, for example, a nurse who objects on religious grounds to blood transfusions. Should she be allowed to refuse to treat any patient who underwent surgery involving a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs (which, I'd imagine, is probably every surgery)? If your answer is yes then what exactly is her job? To lounge around the hospital all day and glare at the patients?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
blar
   11/11/11 14:03

This would be a good point if the controversy surrounding abortion were anything like any controversy surrounding blood transfusions. Since the moral stakes in the abortion debate are much higher than anything I could imagine related to blood transfusions, the comparison just sounds glib. No one claims that human-to-human blood transfusions are the willful termination of any sort of life, let alone murder, and refusal to treat abortion patients won't bar a nurse from "probably every surgery," as you put it.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
linUSA
   11/11/11 14:28

And next the distinction will be that the nurse isn't required to actually puncture the baby's skull, but is required to hold the baby so that someone else can do it.

And then comes the federal law saying that every hospital in the land has to follow the same rules.

Clearly the goal here is an assault on the distinction between abortion vs. genuinely medical procedures.

Which is an assault on the very definition of what medicine is, because it is an assault on the idea that what makes medicine "medical" is that it is about healing.

Abortion is not medicine. Even when the justification is "saving the woman's life", the part about removing the fetus from the mother might be medicine, but deliberately killing a fetus that might otherwise live is not, in any way, medicine, and no genuine medical professional participates in such a procedure, because medical professionalism begins with "first, do no harm".

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/13/11 07:27

The devil is in the details, and the details of this case will determine exactly who is in the right here - details that are not in the original post.

However, it is absolutely ridiculous to argue that nurses can refuse to take care of a patient who is to undergo or has undergone a procedure that they object to. The nurses work for the hospital, the procedure is legal. Fine, they don't have to assist during the procedure itself (although I would argue that since this is a part of the job function, they should have to). If they don't like it, they should FIND ANOTHER JOB. Nobody is forcing them to work at UMDNJ. Again, the procedure itself is completely legal. Jeez.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/11/11 13:01

So an organization that will force nurses to assist with abortions is also willing to lie to the press? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/11/11 13:08

Right hand meet left hand. Get coordinated fellows!

I'm betting that the head administrators told the PR office what to say, believing/thinking/wishing that was reality on the wards.

This reeks of incompetent administrators as well.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/11/11 13:32

I don't think the excuse of "Oh, I was just the night watchman at the baby killing factory" is going to be a legit excuse come Judgement time. Methinks these nurses should ply their trade elsewhere.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/11/11 20:07

I don't know how much of this has been said in court and how much in the media. The reporter, once again, is legal counsel to one side in the dispute, and can't be trusted to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in speaking (here) to the media.
However, a judge can sanction those who give contradictory testimony in his courtroom.
It's sad that so few of them do.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Bill Fortenberry
   11/12/11 13:02

"The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law." Download the free Personhood Booklet at: External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact