New Jersey Nurses Charge Religious Discrimination Over Hospital Abortion Policy
A dozen nurses in New Jersey have rekindled the contentious debate over when health-care workers can refuse to play a role in caring for women getting abortions.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court Oct. 31, 12 nurses charge that the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey violated state and federal laws by abruptly announcing in September that nurses would have to help with abortion patients before and after the procedure, reversing a long-standing policy exempting employees who refuse based on religious or moral objections.
“I’m a nurse so I can help people, not help kill, and it just doesn’t seem right to me,” said Beryl Otieno-Negoje, one of the nurses. “No health professional should be forced to choose between assisting abortion or being penalized at work.”
The University Hospital issued a statement that “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.”
“The university is in full compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and is confident its position will be vindicated when the court gives this matter a full hearing,” according to the statement.
For decades, most states, including New Jersey, have had laws protecting nurses and other health-care workers who have moral objections to participating in abortions. In addition, federal laws, such as the Church Amendment, require health-care facilities that receive taxpayer money to permit workers to refuse on ethical grounds.
On Nov. 3, U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares granted a request for a temporary restraining order barring the hospital from requiring the nurses to undergo training to care for abortion patients, pending a Dec. 5 hearing on the case, which involves 12 of the 16 nurses who work in the hospital’s same-day surgery unit.
Matt Bowman, an attorney representing the nurses, said he had received an e-mail from a lawyer for the hospital arguing that no laws had been broken, because the nurses are required to care for abortion patients only before and after the procedure.
“The pre- and post-operative care provided to these patients is the same nature as that provided to patients who have undergone other surgical procedures,” Edward B. Deutsch of McElry, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter of Morristown, N.J., wrote in the e-mail.
Bowman argued that requiring the nurses to get involved before and after an abortion violated their right to refuse based on their conscientious objections.
“Federal and state law explicitly prohibits requiring nurses to assist in abortion against their moral and religious convictions,” Bowman said. “All these nurses are asking is that they not have to assist in any part of an abortion case.”
One of the nurses, Fe Esperanza R. Vinoya, said a manager told her: “‘You just have to catch the baby’s head. Don’t worry, it’s already dead.’ ”
“Nursing is a healing profession, and the law protects our right not to provide any services related to abortion,” Vinoya said at a news conference this month. –Washington Post
A dozen nurses in New Jersey have rekindled the contentious debate over when health-care workers can refuse to play a role in caring for women getting abortions.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court Oct. 31, 12 nurses charge that the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey violated state and federal laws by abruptly announcing in September that nurses would have to help with abortion patients before and after the procedure, reversing a long-standing policy exempting employees who refuse based on religious or moral objections.
“I’m a nurse so I can help people, not help kill, and it just doesn’t seem right to me,” said Beryl Otieno-Negoje, one of the nurses. “No health professional should be forced to choose between assisting abortion or being penalized at work.”
The University Hospital issued a statement that “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.”
“The university is in full compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and is confident its position will be vindicated when the court gives this matter a full hearing,” according to the statement.
For decades, most states, including New Jersey, have had laws protecting nurses and other health-care workers who have moral objections to participating in abortions. In addition, federal laws, such as the Church Amendment, require health-care facilities that receive taxpayer money to permit workers to refuse on ethical grounds.
On Nov. 3, U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares granted a request for a temporary restraining order barring the hospital from requiring the nurses to undergo training to care for abortion patients, pending a Dec. 5 hearing on the case, which involves 12 of the 16 nurses who work in the hospital’s same-day surgery unit.
Matt Bowman, an attorney representing the nurses, said he had received an e-mail from a lawyer for the hospital arguing that no laws had been broken, because the nurses are required to care for abortion patients only before and after the procedure.
“The pre- and post-operative care provided to these patients is the same nature as that provided to patients who have undergone other surgical procedures,” Edward B. Deutsch of McElry, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter of Morristown, N.J., wrote in the e-mail.
Bowman argued that requiring the nurses to get involved before and after an abortion violated their right to refuse based on their conscientious objections.
“Federal and state law explicitly prohibits requiring nurses to assist in abortion against their moral and religious convictions,” Bowman said. “All these nurses are asking is that they not have to assist in any part of an abortion case.”
One of the nurses, Fe Esperanza R. Vinoya, said a manager told her: “‘You just have to catch the baby’s head. Don’t worry, it’s already dead.’ ”
“Nursing is a healing profession, and the law protects our right not to provide any services related to abortion,” Vinoya said at a news conference this month. –Washington Post
<><><>*<><><>
Separating Church And Graduation
With a federal appeals court ruling that a Wisconsin school district can hold its graduation ceremonies in a church, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is demanding that the case be re-tried.
The organization is appealing the decision concerning the Elmbrook School District to the full Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping for a different answer. And according to Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver, some justices on the court would like to see the ruling reversed.
"I think it's very clear, however, from a constitutional standpoint that a public school looking at all of the criteria -- ease, comfort, cost, and location -- can easily pick a church over a secular venue if that is the better facility," he contends. "And it does not raise a First Amendment Establishment Clause case."
Americans United wants the judges to rule that because ceremonies are held in a church, it represents an endorsement of religion. The organization's appeal to the full court means the lower court decision will be wiped out as if it had never been heard.
"So now it's going back to the court of appeals, brand new," Staver explains. "Ten judges will hear it, and obviously, you're going to need six of the judges to rule in your favor to get a majority at this stage."
Meanwhile, a new field house has been built at Brookfield East High School, and the school district has moved graduation ceremonies back to the high school. –One News Now
With a federal appeals court ruling that a Wisconsin school district can hold its graduation ceremonies in a church, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is demanding that the case be re-tried.
The organization is appealing the decision concerning the Elmbrook School District to the full Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping for a different answer. And according to Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver, some justices on the court would like to see the ruling reversed.
"I think it's very clear, however, from a constitutional standpoint that a public school looking at all of the criteria -- ease, comfort, cost, and location -- can easily pick a church over a secular venue if that is the better facility," he contends. "And it does not raise a First Amendment Establishment Clause case."
Americans United wants the judges to rule that because ceremonies are held in a church, it represents an endorsement of religion. The organization's appeal to the full court means the lower court decision will be wiped out as if it had never been heard.
"So now it's going back to the court of appeals, brand new," Staver explains. "Ten judges will hear it, and obviously, you're going to need six of the judges to rule in your favor to get a majority at this stage."
Meanwhile, a new field house has been built at Brookfield East High School, and the school district has moved graduation ceremonies back to the high school. –One News Now
<><><>*<><><>
Prop. 8 Supporter: Marriage Definition Up To States
A pro-family leader says that California's marriage battle should have never been taken to a federal court, and he does not expect a favorable outcome in the Proposition 8 case.
The issue now heads back to the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, following a ruling by the state Supreme Court that allows initiative proponents the right to defend their measure in court. But Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, suggests the Ninth Circuit judges will not side with supporters of traditional marriage.
"It doesn't look very good there," he warns. "Stephen Reinhardt, he's heading up this three-judge panel, he's the ultimate judicial activist." And Thomasson is not sure about how Justices Michael Daly Hawkins and Norman Randy Smith will vote on the merits of the case.
The pro-family leader goes on to explain that if the case goes to the United States Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy would be the deciding vote in the "very closely divided court."
However, Thomasson argues that this is an issue that should have never been taken to a federal court "because marriage is a state jurisdiction."
Ultimately, he says the court must decide whether the definition of marriage is something that should be decided at the state level.
"The federal Supreme Court should say, 'Yes, states can decide,' because historically, states have been the deciders of marriage and have had different types of marriage laws," Thomasson concludes. –One News Now
A pro-family leader says that California's marriage battle should have never been taken to a federal court, and he does not expect a favorable outcome in the Proposition 8 case.
The issue now heads back to the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, following a ruling by the state Supreme Court that allows initiative proponents the right to defend their measure in court. But Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, suggests the Ninth Circuit judges will not side with supporters of traditional marriage.
"It doesn't look very good there," he warns. "Stephen Reinhardt, he's heading up this three-judge panel, he's the ultimate judicial activist." And Thomasson is not sure about how Justices Michael Daly Hawkins and Norman Randy Smith will vote on the merits of the case.
The pro-family leader goes on to explain that if the case goes to the United States Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy would be the deciding vote in the "very closely divided court."
However, Thomasson argues that this is an issue that should have never been taken to a federal court "because marriage is a state jurisdiction."
Ultimately, he says the court must decide whether the definition of marriage is something that should be decided at the state level.
"The federal Supreme Court should say, 'Yes, states can decide,' because historically, states have been the deciders of marriage and have had different types of marriage laws," Thomasson concludes. –One News Now
<><><>*<><><>
The End Of Illinois Catholic Charities
After 90 years of assisting in providing foster care for children, Catholic Charities of Illinois has been forced to cease services.
The problem began with passage of the Illinois civil unions law for same-gender pairs, which led the state to force Christian foster care and adoption organizations to consider homosexual couples, even though that is contrary to basic Christian doctrine. Catholic Charities filed suit, but the state has already begun transferring the children out.
"Unfortunately, the clock has run out on the Catholic Charities case because the state has begun the transition process for the children under the care of Catholic Charities in the foster care," reports Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society. "And so we are going to move to dismiss the appeal, unfortunately. But again, due to the action of the state of Illinois, we have now come to a point with this case where it's become moot."
He notes that any relief ordered by the appellate court would have come too late to save the foster-care ministry. "Based on the typical timetable of an appeal, even if we were to win the case, there would be no impact as the children would be gone [and] all of our staff members would have been gone," the attorney explains. "So really, any victory that we would obtain in court would be without effect." (Listen to separate audio report)
According to Breen, another form of pressure was placed on the organization. "The state delayed the payments substantially -- and so from that perspective, there was also a financial squeeze being put on the Catholic Charities," he says.
Breen laments that state officials refused to abide by the protections for religious social service agencies assured by the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. He offers this warning: "The situation in Illinois is a call to all Christians across the country: same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions may not be consistent with religious freedom, even though the laws may claim to protect religious freedom, that doesn't mean the government officials have to respect those laws."
Now the state will only be dealing with organizations that are willing to hand children over to homosexuals.
Meanwhile, an organization once known as Catholic Social Services of South Illinois has severed its ties with the diocese in order to comply with the state law. Gary Huelsmann, executive director of the agency, recently told LifeSiteNews that it "boiled down to the Catholic Church needing to stay true to its core beliefs and the agency needing to take care for all of the abused, neglected children." -One News Now
After 90 years of assisting in providing foster care for children, Catholic Charities of Illinois has been forced to cease services.
The problem began with passage of the Illinois civil unions law for same-gender pairs, which led the state to force Christian foster care and adoption organizations to consider homosexual couples, even though that is contrary to basic Christian doctrine. Catholic Charities filed suit, but the state has already begun transferring the children out.
"Unfortunately, the clock has run out on the Catholic Charities case because the state has begun the transition process for the children under the care of Catholic Charities in the foster care," reports Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society. "And so we are going to move to dismiss the appeal, unfortunately. But again, due to the action of the state of Illinois, we have now come to a point with this case where it's become moot."
He notes that any relief ordered by the appellate court would have come too late to save the foster-care ministry. "Based on the typical timetable of an appeal, even if we were to win the case, there would be no impact as the children would be gone [and] all of our staff members would have been gone," the attorney explains. "So really, any victory that we would obtain in court would be without effect." (Listen to separate audio report)
According to Breen, another form of pressure was placed on the organization. "The state delayed the payments substantially -- and so from that perspective, there was also a financial squeeze being put on the Catholic Charities," he says.
Breen laments that state officials refused to abide by the protections for religious social service agencies assured by the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. He offers this warning: "The situation in Illinois is a call to all Christians across the country: same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions may not be consistent with religious freedom, even though the laws may claim to protect religious freedom, that doesn't mean the government officials have to respect those laws."
Now the state will only be dealing with organizations that are willing to hand children over to homosexuals.
Meanwhile, an organization once known as Catholic Social Services of South Illinois has severed its ties with the diocese in order to comply with the state law. Gary Huelsmann, executive director of the agency, recently told LifeSiteNews that it "boiled down to the Catholic Church needing to stay true to its core beliefs and the agency needing to take care for all of the abused, neglected children." -One News Now
No comments:
Post a Comment