We’ve been talking a lot about cover-ups lately, from the administration’s blatant lies about Operation Fast and Furious to the sordid affair taking place at Penn State.
Now, across the bridge, another type of cover-up is taking place, only this time it doesn’t involve guns or sexual abuse. It involves religious freedom.
The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey performs abortions. Since they’re legal (even though a growing number of Americans, particularly people under the age of 30, think the procedures are simply legalized murder) there’s not much any of us can do to prevent them from terminating pregnancies.
However, as an organization which is funded by the government and operating within the United States, it is bound by the First Amendment. That document guarantees religious freedom.
So you would think that someone who is employed by the hospital but who is opposed to abortion on religious grounds would be eligible for a conscience waiver, right?
Not so fast. The UMDNJ does not believe that nurses who refuse to participate in the dismemberment of fetuses in any way, shape or form (including prepping the patient for the procedure) should be able to opt-out. They’ve been refusing to honor the religious concerns of their employees as required under federal law 42 U.S.C. 300a-7(c)(2)) which explicitly gives the nurses the right to opt out of assisting in abortions.
So twelve of those nurses decided to file suit. You think that would make the UMDNJ rethink its policy?
Nah. They just lie about it. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the hospital ordered two of the plaintiff nurses to ‘assist’ at abortions. When they objected, the women received a command to ‘assist’ patients with pre- or post- operative care. In other words, they were supposed to get the women ready to have an abortion, or make sure that they had successfully recuperated from the procedure, even though they didn’t have to actually take part in killing a child or, to be more specific ‘destroying a fetus.’
In other words, they just had to grease the wheels for the actual abortionists. In fact, this is exactly how the hospital framed the issue:
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. (emphasis supplied)
The hospital is playing word games, as noted by the nurses’ attorney, Matt Bowman:
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 require.
It’s one thing to perform abortions. It is quite another to force people to engage in activity that goes against their religious beliefs, particularly where this violates both the Constitution and federal statute.
I find all of this fascinating. The people who support the so-called ‘choice’ of a woman to terminate her pregnancy are not willing to give that same, legally-protected ‘choice’ to others who disagree with them on moral or religious grounds.
Sounds more like a Hobson’s choice, to me.
Glad my place of employment is severing their ties with them...for lots of reasons. Left wing intolerance for anything the deem to be "unenlightened" is becoming more widespread and blatant. They used to keep it better hidden but in this "the gloves are off" world, they find it harder and harder to not state their cazse based on the notion that they know best the way the world should run. Of course, nurses who have religious objections to abortion are backward, and Muuslim nurses get to wear burkas in the operating room....what are you stupid? Chrisnchris
I can see helping a patient after a procedure like that, but not to prep them for it. At least afterwards, they are merely providing post-op care to perhaps stop the bleeding or look out for other dangerous conditions. It does not assist the abortion but provides minimal care for a patient who needs it.
The tactics of the hospital in question are of course unethical and unconstitutional. Magistra
Magistra, you are a compassionate woman, but the reason the women would be in distress is because of the procedure that is morally objectionable. True, it would double the offense to allow the woman to die, even though, frankly, it's her fault for electing the abortion (we're not talking about therapeutic cases here, we're talking elective abortions) But I would agree that you simply can't allow a woman, even one who has committed what you believe to be murder, to bleed to death. Hard choice, though for the person who weeps for the lost human potential. And Chrisnchris, your comment about the vast differences in the way religious beliefs are treated is right on target. Christine
Comment removed.- Hamblin, it should not surprise you that I differ with your reasoning. Let's do this in friendly way.
If my conscience, which is a valuable part of me, objects to abortions and I am legally entitled to believe that, then I should be permitted to work in whatever department I work and simply not be commanded to participate in abortions or any aspect of them.
That is the point. Skirting it does not resolve the issue.
Chris, I see we all actually agree on the conscience part. NO one should be forced to participate in any act they feel is wrong in any job.
I do not think it should mean that a nurse may never work in obstetrics on the off chance of being involved in an abortion.
And as a matter of simply saving a life, no nurse should refuse to assist a patient in distress, no matter what the cause.
Also, remember, abortions may be performed for all kinds of reasons, including saving the mother's life or the life of a twin fetus, as has happened to someone I know.
Nurses should simply be allowed to use their judgment and conscience to decide what orders they can and cannot follow and be up front about it.
Buona notte. 8-) Magistra- Oh Christine, you've done it to me again... got me thinking down in that weird part of my mind on this one. My personal opinions on the abortion issue aside, I want to respectfully look at this from a different angle. And that is: how far exactly do we need to go to respect one's religion in the workplace?
For example, a science teacher takes the job teaching science knowing that a school's curriculum teaches evolution. Problem is, said teacher's religious beliefs strongly disagree. Is the school required to find a substitute for the teacher when that topic arises? I see this as a giant Pandora's box. Is it fair to require an employer to pay an additional person to do a job when the person who has the job is uncomfortable performing it?
I'm paid by my employer to do a specific jobs that were outlined to me during the interview process and are listed on the job requirements sheet. I know exactly what I signed up for, as these nurses should have as well. If I'm uncomfortable performing such tasks due to a personal religious qualm, shouldn't the onus be on me to find a career where the expectations are more in line with my preferences?
I often talk about religion being one's choice, and Plumber will counter with it being so, only if there is free will. Don't we have free will when choosing our careers?
phillycc74 - OMG we must have the same weird mental processes. I also thought of the evolution thing. The good thing about teaching is that one can train for and ccept positions from pre-K to college and the curriculum varies in all these levels. One can teach below the grade level where actual evolutionary science is taught. Or one can become a French teacher and never enter a biology lab. I had a student who told me early on that he was a religious fundamentalist and could never teach that the world was old or that species were not fixed. I told him to stay in the lower grades where the subject might not come up, but that to be a certified teacher, he needed to at least know the science. Magistra
For nurses there are many fields, like teaching, that would keep them away from the birthing room, if they are so concerned about assisting abortions. One can pick a field of nursing that avoids such decisions.
But it is too bad that people have to go to work knowing they will be asked to do something contrary to their conscience on a daily basis.
Nursing is a unique field, however, where life and death decisions are made all the time. Not only abortion but end of life issues are always going to come up. Nurses may be called upon to administer drugs that are potentially life ending.
Surely, as with all professions, there must be classes in ethics that help these nurses come to career decisions while they are in school. Magistra- philly, I'll not address the free will part, although it plays an important role when one chooses their religion as religion is a choice, sooner or later. Thanks for remembering me.
Employers have to deal with many burdens. Maternity leave impacts an employer. There is usually little or no planning in the timing; it just happens and the employer has to deal with it. Tax increases impact employers and they have to deal with it. This is just one more of the burdens of being an employer.
Most abortions are scheduled, making it somewhat simpler for the hospital to schedule staff. Emergency abortions are different. An override of the conscience is in order in that case to preserve or save the life of the mother.
The issue at hand really involves long term planning of hospital staffing. The hospital may not like it, but the law says otherwise.
In the situation cited, it is a Hobson's choice for the nurses, which is assist or leave the OR, permanently. Let's let the lawyers and the courts decide. But move fast, boys, the first trimester is fast approaching.
Hamblin, you have made my weekend. Succinctly put, well thought-out and cogent in its analysis. That was your comment, and I agree. Philly, you also raise an important point, and I think that the whole issue of religious freedom intersecting with our freedom of job choice is a difficult one. But since abortions are not necessary medical procedures (unless they are involved in saving a life, which is the job of a nurse) and the teaching of evolution is a regular part of the science curriculum (whether you agree with it or not, which, to the surprise of many of my critics out there, I do) we can make a special exception for forcing nurses to perform procedures that amount to what they believe is murder. Great stuff all, now off to enjoy the incredible weather...and watch Penn State's football players, poor guys, try and concentrate on the field and not the furor. Christine- Christine, sorry to spoil your weekend, but this time you knickers are already in a twist. If you read your post carefully you will come to the link-
http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-nurses-say-umdnj-forced-them-to-train-for-abortions,0,5835421.story
In that link you will find that the affected nurses were being compelled to undergo cross training related to abortion care, pre and post procedure. These affected nurses work in the CCU (Critical Care Unit). There is no need for them to transfer to any other department or the like. All that is needed for a cogent solution is to eliminate the cross training, which would be consistent with the law. My dear friend Hamblin, as usual, is unprepared, spouting solutions (from a high horse) that are completely illogical and mainly non sequitur. Sorry Hamblin but the truth is mightier than a spoiled weekend.
PJ, I checked your link and I failed to see where there was any mention of "cross training". Apparently, the decision by one head nurse was all that was needed to compel the nurses with a conscientious objection to choose either to take the training and BE READY to assist in abortions or basically quit.
The solution is very simple: don't force people to violate their consciences under any circumstances in order to keep a job...but especially when it comes to ending a life.
Too bad the Lions lost, but the weather has still been wonderful and that makes the weekend worthwhile. Magistra- Magistra, your statement is very kind, but also simple. It doesn't work that way. "Just say no to drugs." Also a very simple solution. That doesn't solve the problem either.
The nurse in the CCU loves her job. She has been working that job 22 years. Now she must obtain a lawyer to state the law to her employer and preserve her job. And when that happens there will be a solution. So, the solution for that nurse is to make sure the EXISTING laws are FOLLOWED by UMDNJ. She does NOT NEED to TRANSFER to another unit. In fact she is ALREADY IN ANOTHER UNIT. She does not work "maternity" which is in fact more accurately known as "delivery."
So, now I have learned that there is such a thing as justice, but it is not handed to you. You must fight for it. But why not? Sometimes you get lucky. Paterno was not so lucky this past week. Maybe the Eagles will get lucky today. I have a friend going to that game. With a little bit of luck he could have been another Chuck Bednarik. He was that good. But he had a different kind of luck. He has a wonderful family. Enjoy your day.
"All jobs should have a legal opt-out for reasons of conscience." Chris I understand how you would think this is a good solution for pro-life medical personel, but how will this work in the military or for the police? Sounds like the slipperiest of slopes. retour















