Pro-life nurses sue New Jersey hospital for requiring them to assist with abortions

posted at 12:45 pm on November 8, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Until a few months ago, same-day surgery nurses at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey never had to be present at or assist with abortion procedures. But in September, the hospital implemented a new policy that allegedly requires nurses to aid abortions — or potentially lose their jobs.

Now, a group of 12 nurses have filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying the policy violates federal and state laws that make it illegal for the management of publicly-funded facilities to require employees to perform or participate in any way in abortion procedures.

The nurses also say the hospital’s new requirements force them to act against their religious convictions:

They told CBS 2’s Don Dahler what the hospital is doing is against their religion, and against the law.

Fe Vinoya of West Orange has been a nurse for 10 years. She said when her employer told her she would have to start training on how to help with abortions, she decided instead to join a lawsuit.

“As a Christian, I don’t believe in abortion. I think it’s murder,” Vinoya said.

Hospital administrators maintain that they have done nothing wrong — and insist they will be vindicated in court.

The entire episode underscores the need for the House-passed Protect Life Act, which has yet to hit the Senate floor. Nancy Pelosi might say that a vote for the PLA was a vote to let women “die on the floor” sans required intervention from a health care provider — but Protect Life actually just ensures no Obamacare funding goes to abortion and, most importantly, reinstates and reinforces conscience protections for health care providers. Without it, cases like this one might crop up more frequently under Obamacare.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

God have mercy on this country.

Ward Cleaver on November 8, 2011 at 12:51 PM

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

So don’t.

NotCoach on November 8, 2011 at 12:51 PM

So, you’re comparing ham and bacon to a human life?

That’s a great example of the way in which our society holds children so cheaply and would rather pretend that abortion doesn’t kill a human being.

INC on November 8, 2011 at 12:52 PM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

So you equate an aborted child to supermarket pork…

Niiiiiiice

olesparkie on November 8, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Hospital administrators maintain that they have done nothing wrong — and insist they will be vindicated in court.

If they don’t think killing a baby is wrong, why are we surprised they don’t see anything wrong with forcing someone to do it?

BobMbx on November 8, 2011 at 12:53 PM

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Last I checked, no babies died as a result of pork products being scanned.

Incidentally, there is no Islamic prohibition on handling pork that is wrapped up in a wrapper. Just eating it is a no-no. Many Muslims own and run pig farms and slaughter the animals for sale to non-Muslims. So your argument is a straw man right on the face of it.

wearyman on November 8, 2011 at 12:54 PM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

The moral equivalency assertion here is breathtaking in its lack of humanity.

WitchDoctor on November 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Guess what? I don’t think you should have to either. It’s called reasonable accomodation. I’m putting you in produce.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM

I wish the pro-aborts would admit what they’re doing. But the great majority of them do not. They cannot come out and just say, hey, we want to kill babies because they’re inconvenient to the way we want to live our lives. They cloak their deeds with verbiage so as to obscure their evil nature. Not only that, but they want to force others to participate.

INC on November 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Since I’m in a good mood today, I’m also going to exempt the Amish and Quakers from any future compulsive military service. I’ll call them “Conscientious Objectors,” or something.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 12:57 PM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

If I told you that scanning pork products was part of the job prior to hiring you and you accepted the job, the issue is yours. Quit or get over it.

The issue here is that it was not a requirement of the job at the time these nurses began their employment. Now, they are being forced to choose between their religious beliefs and their employment at a publicly funded medical center.

If it were a private business, I’m guessing they could say, “Well, it’s part of your job now. Do it or move on.” But, since they accept public funding, they are subject to quite a few more laws.

JadeNYU on November 8, 2011 at 12:59 PM

They’re not pro-choice; they’re pro-abortion.
Thank you for keeping us up-to-date with this, Tina.

itsnotaboutme on November 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM

People, Lorien is making a point that it seems y’all aren’t seeing. He is certainly not comparing the unborn to pork. The comparison is about what respective (nurse-clerck) worker is able to cite religious convictions trumping potential work oriented tasks.

His point is valid.

anuts on November 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM

wearyman on November 8, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Muslims all over the country have refused to simply checkout pork at the supermarkets because it offends their religion. Also, muslim cab drivers have refused to give rides to blind people and their seeing eye dogs.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM

It’s unreasonable in both aspects. If you are hired to do a job; then you should be doing it. Nearly every job has aspects to it that you may find distasteful.

Reasonable accommodation also suggests you should give muslim employees 5 times to pray each day, right? Let’s be real here.

olesparkie on November 8, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Not quite what I did, but that’s okay. Avoid the issue at hand.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM

So you equate an aborted child to supermarket pork…

Niiiiiiice

olesparkie on November 8, 2011 at 12:53 PM

No, I think she’s saying if you can’t do the job as required…get another job.

fastestslug on November 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Answering one straightforward question resolves all of this: what is the unborn? If the unborn is a human person, then everything else falls into place. If not, then abort with utter abandon.

OhioCoastie on November 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

haha! Well, don’t scan them, and suffer the consequences. The chances that this country will pass laws protecting your (tongue-in-cheek) religious beliefs is fairly low, but there is nothing stopping you and like-minded folks from pushing for one. This particular case actually has merit, since a significant portion of us see a problem with killing a baby while still in the womb. And were able to push for laws that, while still allowing abortions to happen, outlawed forcing someone to perform a procedure that they have a moral objection to under threat of reprisal.

I predict that these women will lose, unfortunately. Nothing can be allowed to impede “the right to choose” even if it means holding a gun to a doctor’s head. I also predict that the left won’t see the Irony.

Mord on November 8, 2011 at 1:02 PM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

What, your stupidity?
You think scanning a pork product is the same as taking a life? Really, that is your equation?
So running a red light is the same as raping a women in your law book? Good grief, the word discernment is no longer used.

right2bright on November 8, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Well, Lorien1973 (12:49) I get your point, but you are facing a tough angry mob here.

What about conscientious objectors objecting to military duty? Do we have to address the conundrum of freedom of conscience vs legal authority in each case separately or is there a blanket principle society should follow? Who gets to decide, and what happens to the objector when society’s choice goes against freedom of conscience?

Skandia Recluse on November 8, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Since I’m in a good mood today, I’m also going to exempt the Amish and Quakers from any future compulsive military service. I’ll call them “Conscientious Objectors,” or something.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Ha! Good one, along with any Mormon missionaries…

right2bright on November 8, 2011 at 1:04 PM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

If the pork products were little human being that were killed in the checkout process, then you would have a point.

pedestrian on November 8, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Reasonable accommodation also suggests you should give muslim employees 5 times to pray each day, right? Let’s be real here.

olesparkie on November 8, 2011 at 12:53 PM
Not quite what I did, but that’s okay. Avoid the issue at hand.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Reasonable accomodation is decided by the courts, Lorien, not you. It may be reasonable to move someone to a different department. The jury’s still out on the prayer breaks:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/muslim-workers-suspended-prayer-breaks/story?id=14691193

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM

His point is valid.

anuts on November 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Only if you think it is relative, that jay-walking is the same as robbing a bank…now how valid do you think his point is?
If they were forcing the Jews to eat pork, that would be more valid, you think they have the right to do that? Force Jews to eat pork?

right2bright on November 8, 2011 at 1:06 PM

haha! Well, don’t scan them, and suffer the consequences.

Same can be said in this situation. Right?

So running a red light is the same as raping a women in your law book?

right2bright on November 8, 2011 at 1:02 PM

No, attending an OWS rally is the equivalent to raping a woman.

But seriously. The issue is the same.

Should religion X be permitted to not do a normal workplace function of Y because it offends them?

I say they should be treated like everyone else at the workplace. What say you?

If you can’t/won’t do the job, don’t take the job. It’s not difficult.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:06 PM

…and let’s not forget this:

The lawsuit is based on federal and state laws which forbid any person working in a facility that receives public funds from being required to perform or assist in abortions. UMDNJ gets $60 million in federal funds.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:08 PM

If these nurses wore a burkha, this would have been a non issue.

seven on November 8, 2011 at 1:08 PM

If you can’t/won’t do the job, don’t take the job. It’s not difficult.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Did you even read this post at all? Or did you just skim the headline? The nurses were already working there — some for years — when the admin decided to change the rules on them.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:10 PM

lorien, it’s a NEW policy, apparently not the one in place when they hired on. So yeah, I’d bitch.

marinetbryant on November 8, 2011 at 1:10 PM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

If you worked at a car dealership I would totally agree with this statement. The folks went to work at a place (hospital) whose core purpose is to save lives. The hospital is demanding they help end it. I don’t think the two can be compared.

If you signed up as a car salesperson and management added a bacon giveaway as a gimmick you would have my sympathy.

Dawnsblood on November 8, 2011 at 1:10 PM

They cloak their deeds with verbiage so as to obscure their evil nature. Not only that, but they want to force others to participate.

INC on November 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Besides the fact that we are dealing here with the liberal’s
favorite friend -that Satan fellow, to whom Saul Alinsky -their mentor of choice – dedicated his famous book: Rule For Radicals,

We really need to understand that no evil has ever been done until it has been cleansed with the deception of goodness,as in, Abortion,it’s for the children!

The liberals have inverted all that is bad and evil into a faux good: abortion, envy, sloth, social justice, even language itself, while inverting all that is good into a bad: marriage, children, life, science, information, God, loyalty, personal responsibility and committment, character etc.

We are -no matter how they phrase it-dealing with pure evil.

Don L on November 8, 2011 at 1:11 PM

So, can we expect daily proganda pieces from Tina now? It was bad enough with the Perry stumping.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Bingo. Do your job or find a new one.

mythicknight on November 8, 2011 at 1:12 PM

If they were forcing the Jews to eat pork, that would be more valid, you think they have the right to do that?

In my example, muslims don’t want to handle pork at all.

I’m finding it hard to believe that people are saying that, “Yes, a supermarket should hire a second cashier for that position just in case someone buys pork.”

That’s incredibly stupid. Dump the person who won’t do their job and hire someone who will. 9% unemployment. It won’t be difficult. And don’t think nurses aren’t looking for jobs, too.

Muslim cabbies don’t want to give cab rides to blind people and their dogs. This is a good idea to commenters here. Really? Really?

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:12 PM

The nurses were already working there — some for years — when the admin decided to change the rules on them.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Businesses add new services all the time. I understand it’s a new service. It doesn’t matter. Job functions change all the time. You either move with the position or you move on.

If these people don’t want to be employed in the new atmosphere; it may be time for them to move on.

Businesses also dump services all the time. If employee X doesn’t want to learn a new position in the company; he’s terminated. How is this any different?

Back away from abortion and look at the big picture here. You are given a job to do. Do it or quit.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:15 PM

So, can we expect daily proganda pieces from Tina now? It was bad enough with the Perry stumping.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM
Bingo. Do your job or find a new one.

mythicknight on November 8, 2011 at 1:12 PM

And I would say to you, if you’re not interested in a post, find a new one. You don’t see me complaining about all the sports open threads, do you? BTW: the vast majority of Republicans — let alone Conservatives are adamantly pro-life. I’m talking north of 70% here.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:15 PM

just wait….

OBAMACARE

A built-in AMERICAN DEATH PANEL for infants.

PappyD61 on November 8, 2011 at 1:16 PM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Lol. Nice job, Lorien. It’s been fun watching your post sail over so many heads. What’s happened to this place?

joejm65 on November 8, 2011 at 1:17 PM

If you signed up as a car salesperson and management added a bacon giveaway as a gimmick you would have my sympathy.

Dawnsblood on November 8, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Strawman.

A better analogy would be a car dealership who only sells electric cars. Decides to start selling gas cars as well. And salesman doesn’t want offer customers cars that sell gas cuz it offends Gaia.

Fire him or keep him?

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Only if you think it is relative, that jay-walking is the same as robbing a bank…now how valid do you think his point is?
If they were forcing the Jews to eat pork, that would be more valid, you think they have the right to do that? Force Jews to eat pork?

right2bright on November 8, 2011 at 1:06 PM

I took it as if they (they being the employer powers that be) will accommodate for one (Muslims/pork) then there certainly seems to be reasonable precedence to accommodate for the other (nurses’ religion/abortion).

It would be a valid and relative point for the nurses’ attorneys to bring the former case into argument for their own case. I believe this argumentation would likely have more sympathetic ears from their intended target audience that the abortion/life route of which I am certainly sided on with the nurses.

anuts on November 8, 2011 at 1:18 PM

mythicknight on November 8, 2011 at 1:12 PM

You fear debate and discussion of this issue?

NotCoach on November 8, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Back away from abortion and look at the big picture here. You are given a job to do. Do it or quit.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:15 PM

The fact that abortion is no big thing to you is a real handicap in your ability to be objective. You’re the one who needs some perspective. The fact is that this country has a long history of accomodating religious freedoms. Just for fun, google “court” & “religious objection.” You may not agree with the decisions you read about, but that’s okay; you’re entitled to your opinion.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:19 PM

What about conscientious objectors objecting to military duty?

Skandia Recluse on November 8, 2011 at 1:03 PM

What about them? They aren’t allowed to not serve. They just have to do some kind of different service. I suspect these nurses were offered a transfer to other units where they wouldn’t have to assist in abortions. Why would they object to this? Because same day surgery is an easier job, no night shifts or holidays or Sundays, and easy duty overtime. Are they entitled to these perks? Nope.

Blake on November 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM

All the comparisons of giving rides to dogs, handling pork, blah, blah, blah do not equate to being expected to assist in what the nurse deems murder. Comparing it to those things is silly.

katiejane on November 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM

I don’t think those nurses should participate in anything that conflicts with their belief system. They should quit and be proud of it.

keep the change on November 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Unless you are the boss, you don’t get to pick and choose your job responsibilities.

Nobody cares where you go to church, either. If you can’t do the job, get out of there. Someone else will.

Moesart on November 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Fire him or keep him?

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Seriously? If you’re going to be silly, you’re going to make me feel silly for having wasted time talking to you.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Reasonable accomodation is decided by the courts, Lorien, not you. It may be reasonable to move someone to a different department. The jury’s still out on the prayer breaks:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/muslim-workers-suspended-prayer-breaks/story?id=14691193

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM

The facts of this case are not what you might think. It has nothing to do with prayer, or religion.

Hertz previously agreed to allow Muslim employees to pray as required by their religion. As long as they clocked out for their breaks, which is standard practice not a special one for them.

The case is about the Muslims not clocking out on their prayer breaks, and not the fact they take prayer breaks.

Nothing more.

BobMbx on November 8, 2011 at 1:22 PM

It reminds me of the pharmacy dolts that think they can choose what scrips to fill.

Unless you own the pharmacy, it’s not your call.

Moesart on November 8, 2011 at 1:22 PM

What about them? They aren’t allowed to not serve. They just have to do some kind of different service. I suspect these nurses were offered a transfer to other units where they wouldn’t have to assist in abortions. Why would they object to this? Because same day surgery is an easier job, no night shifts or holidays or Sundays, and easy duty overtime. Are they entitled to these perks? Nope.

Blake on November 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Riiiight.

The Amish Steering Committee was a body which was formed in 1967 in response to concerns over draft policies and the alternative service arrangement during the Vietnam War. The Steering Committee successfully lobbied for changes in Amish youth hospital service, facilitating an alternative, more favorable plan that had Amish working on farms in Amish environments to fulfill Alternative Service requirements.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:23 PM

A better analogy would be a car dealership who only sells electric cars. Decides to start selling gas cars as well. And salesman doesn’t want offer customers cars that sell gas cuz it offends Gaia.

Fire him or keep him?

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Is the car dealership a private business or does it accept public funds which subject it to additional laws?

JadeNYU on November 8, 2011 at 1:23 PM

@Lorien, the hospital does not have a separate job title of “abortion nurse.” The abortions are performed within the realm of other nursing positions, so you’re point isn’t really valid. It’s not like you can become a surgical, OB or float nurse and expect that you will not be asked to assist with the occasional abortion.

So, the problem is that fewer nurses will opt to fill those positions, which becomes a problem for hospitals and patients.

bloggless on November 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Strawman.

A better analogy would be a car dealership who only sells electric cars. Decides to start selling gas cars as well. And salesman doesn’t want offer customers cars that sell gas cuz it offends Gaia.

Fire him or keep him?

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:17 PM

I am curious as to why you continue to ignore a salient point about this story. There are laws that allow these nurses to not participate in these acts of murder and not be punished by their employers as a result. A more apt comparison would be a discussion about a law to protect Muslims in the work place that refuse to touch pork.

The first law I support. A law to protect Muslims from pork touching I would not support.

Discuss…

NotCoach on November 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM

All the comparisons of giving rides to dogs, handling pork, blah, blah, blah do not equate to being expected to assist in what the nurse deems murder. Comparing it to those things is silly.

katiejane on November 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Can the state force a physician or nurse to participate in a lethal injection? Can a physician or nurse decline to participate?

Compare, contrast, and be ready to discuss.

BobMbx on November 8, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Comparing it to those things is silly.

katiejane on November 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM

It’s not a comparison at all. Should employers be forced to accomodate for people who won’t do their job assignments?

Not can’t. But won’t.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Muslim doctor refuses to do heart surgery on a patient cuz he’s a jew and it offends his religion.

Good for the muslim. – Commenters here

Really?

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:25 PM

The case is about the Muslims not clocking out on their prayer breaks, and not the fact they take prayer breaks.

Nothing more.

BobMbx on November 8, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Perfect. That’s even better. Thank you for telling me, I hadn’t read the cases closely.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:27 PM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Then by all means, work at a supermarket that allows you the luxury of not scanning pork products.

Here’s where your argument falls down: There are no publicly funded supermarkets. If this was a privately funded hospital, the nurses’ lawsuit should be thrown out. But, it’s government funded, and therein lies the problem, as you now have to abide by that whole Bill of Rights thing.

So, you have prevented a great argument for getting government out of health care. Not so much one against the nurse’s lawsuit.

JSchuler on November 8, 2011 at 1:28 PM

It’s not like you can become a surgical, OB or float nurse and expect that you will not be asked to assist with the occasional abortion.

bloggless on November 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Surgical – yes. OB and floats – no.

Blake on November 8, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Back away from abortion and look at the big picture here. You are given a job to do. Do it or quit.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:15 PM

I see your point, and I actually agree with it in principle. That said, is Abortion really so important that you think it is fine to exclude the large portion of the population that finds the practice abhorrent and evil from a profession that is designed to “first, do no harm”?

I’ll admit that I’m not religious and I still (although only recently) think abortion is nothing more than a murder of convenience. You can’t really “back away and look at the big picture” when it comes to taking an innocent human life intentionally. That IS the “big picture”, it isn’t solely based on religion in every case.

Pigs are Food, Babies are People. There is a huge difference. Discriminating against food is just idiocy, discriminating against life itself is Evil.

Mord on November 8, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Muslim doctor refuses to do heart surgery on a patient cuz he’s a jew and it offends his religion.

Good for the muslim. – Commenters here

Really?

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:25 PM

How about this case:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1612/legal-conflict-between-religious-beliefs-and-antidiscrimination-protections-in-health-care

What does it have in common with your hypo and what feature distinguishes them from the pro-life nurses case?

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Comparing it to those things is silly.

katiejane on November 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM

It’s both foolish and wicked.

INC on November 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Just what a woman undergoing an abortion wants & needs – a nurse who clearly displays their personal/moral objection to the procedure while staying within the letter of the law.

katiejane on November 8, 2011 at 1:34 PM

How about my standing as a HUMAN BEING prohibits me from helping you murder an innocent child?

If I am a police officer and my chief tells me to kill someone, I have a RIGHT to refuse since it is ethically wrong.

Yes I might get fired and it might be legal to do whatever I was told to do, but that doesn’t make it moral or ethical.

First rule of medicine : DO NO HARM.

DavidM on November 8, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Well, lorien, I’d love to stick around and educate you some more, but I have to go and vote. Here’s a thought: maybe you should go to law school. I have a feeling you would love it.

cynccook on November 8, 2011 at 1:34 PM

People, Lorien is making a point that it seems y’all aren’t seeing.

I see the point, but it’s an apples-oranges comparison.

If you want to make the comparison the same, you’d have to have the muslim hired for another job, say baking donuts or stocking canned goods, with the understanding that he/she would not have to handle pork products. And then the store demands the muslim handle pork or be fired.

The nurses accepted the job with the understanding they would not be performing abortions. The hospital accepted agreed to this when it hired them. They have not changed their position — the hospital has.

Personally, I can’t understand why any hospital would would be willing to fire nurses over a situation that can easily be accomodated. I thought we had a shortage of nurses. From a staffing perspective, this sounds like a dumb move on the part of the administration.

CJ on November 8, 2011 at 1:36 PM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

I think TSA should use this.

Have two lines for airport security: the pre 9–1 security line and the post 9-11 security line. You just have to eat a piece of sausage to go through the pre 9-11 line.

Muslims, Jewish 7th Day Adventists and vegetarians would opt for the higher security. The post 9-11 line would be so short that people would opt to go through that line because it would be more convenient.

You could also have a pet pot belly pig in place of the sausage. Only Muslims would object to the “Pet the Piggy” requirement.

The Rock on November 8, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Libs hate it when someone stands up for their beliefs. Unless, of course, those beliefs happen to coincide with theirs.

GarandFan on November 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Why are the nurses working for a hospital they find so offensive?

I certainly would not work for an employer that I knew was murdering babeez.

Pablo Honey on November 8, 2011 at 1:48 PM

The hospital issued the following statement on Monday: “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.”

UMDNJ insists no state or federal laws were broken, and said the hospital will be vindicated in court.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/07/nurses-against-abortion-suing-n-j-hospital-requiring-they-assist-in-the-procedures/

Blake on November 8, 2011 at 1:49 PM

No, I think she’s saying if you can’t do the job as required…get another job.

fastestslug on November 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM

So anyone who is pro-life should stay out of the medical profession? Now you sound just like the Democrats.

Ward Cleaver on November 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Back away from abortion and look at the big picture here. You are given a job to do. Do it or quit.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:15 PM

So glibly dismissed by someone who doesn’t have to do it or have it done to them.

You can’t “back away” from abortion. It is not just a “normal workplace function.” It is an elective procedure that results in the termination of a life. Abortion is a special case and that is the inescapable reality. The vast majority of medical professionals find abortion distasteful, if not abhorrent, and assiduously avoid it. That is precisely why we are seeing increasing efforts to force us to do them. Medical students are being required to take abortion classes for graduation where they had been electives only, hospitals are making participation a job requirement and “progressive” nurse practitioners are trying to expand their practice to include abortions instead of having it limited to physicians.

Fortunately, there are laws on the books in many states, including my state of Texas, that prevent discrimination in hiring and employment based on your willingness to participate, or not, in abortions. Looks like this hospital figured no one really took the laws seriously and forged ahead with their agenda. Here’s hoping they regret their decision.

inmypajamas on November 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Have two lines for airport security: the pre 9–1 security line and the post 9-11 security line. You just have to eat a piece of sausage to go through the pre 9-11 line.

Oddly, this has somewhat been my immigration policy since 9/11.

Want to be a citizen? Eat a delicious piece of bacon.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/07/nurses-against-abortion-suing-n-j-hospital-requiring-they-assist-in-the-procedures/

Blake on November 8, 2011 at 1:49 PM

They may have a policy, but it sounds like they’re ignoring it.

Ward Cleaver on November 8, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Oddly, this has somewhat been my immigration policy since 9/11.

Want to be a citizen? Eat a delicious piece of bacon.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM

haha! I agree. People over Food.

Mord on November 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Okay, I’ll discuss. Dumbest post of the day, week, month, year.

bw222 on November 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Lorien, as a matter of logic and intuition — not as a matter of law — does the term “person” include an unborn member of the species Homo sapiens? If not, why not?

OhioCoastie on November 8, 2011 at 1:58 PM

They may have a policy, but it sounds like they’re ignoring it.

Ward Cleaver on November 8, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Actually, it doesn’t. They stated that they do not force people and that they will be vindicated in court. Again, it sounds like the nurses don’t want to be transferred to a nursing job where they won’t have to participate. That’s not their call.

Blake on November 8, 2011 at 1:59 PM

The University of Medicine and Dentistry appears to be a public university, and its hospital a state organization. Therefore, the state legislature can order it to change this policy back to what it was.

The policy is concerned with hospital administration, and it not related in any way to “academic freedom.”

If a private hospital wants to implement this policy, that’s between the administration, the board, the donors, etc.

A public institution doesn’t get to make the taxpayers fund a policy of this kind. Get on the problem, NJ legislature.

J.E. Dyer on November 8, 2011 at 2:00 PM

This is the inevitable result of all of the “anti-discrimination” legislation out there.

Without getting into abortion as an issue – as a conservative my opinion is that if the job you have requires you to do something you don’t like – as long as it is not illegal – you leave that job. You don’t have the right to tell the employer what you will or won’t do without potentially losing your job.

When we started to make various things that had to be accommodated – disability, religion by private employers we begin to set up conflicts between all kinds of things. Some anti-discrimination laws make sense (i.e., you can’t not hire someone because of his race or sex and prohibition against sexual harassment), but as always, once set in motion, these things grow and get out of hand.

Do we really need to protect against “national origin discrimination” or “ethnicity discrimination”? Is that type of discrimination so wide-spread that we need laws about it? Did we really need such a broad ADA law that asthma or carpal tunnel syndrome is encompassed in it? Do we really need laws forcing employers to allow teachers (who already get 3 months off every year) to make the Haj pilgrimage for 2 weeks during the school year (meaning they have to hire a sub for that time, which also effects the quality the kids get)? Is that really necessary?

Monkeytoe on November 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM

A public institution doesn’t get to make the taxpayers fund a policy of this kind. Get on the problem, NJ legislature.

J.E. Dyer on November 8, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Now this is an accurate representation of the legal principle involved.

OhioCoastie on November 8, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Why are the nurses working for a hospital they find so offensive?

I certainly would not work for an employer that I knew was murdering babeez.

Pablo Honey on November 8, 2011 at 1:48 PM

They were never tasked to do anything they deem offensive until recently…several years after their initial employment from what I understand. At least one for sure per the above text and article:

Fe Vinoya of West Orange has been a nurse for 10 years. She said when her employer told her she would have to start training on how to help with abortions, she decided instead to join a lawsuit.

anuts on November 8, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Now this is an accurate representation of the legal principle involved.

OhioCoastie on November 8, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Not really since there is conflicting reports regarding what the policy is. The hospital is saying that it is not their policy. Regardless, the hospital does retain the power to transfer employees to other units if they choose to. If the nurses refuse, they do have the right to fire them.

Blake on November 8, 2011 at 2:09 PM

They were never tasked to do anything they deem offensive until recently…several years after their initial employment from what I understand. At least one for sure per the above text and article:

They were still employed by an abortion provider. If they find it so offensive they can leave. Plenty of nursing jobs out there that don’t involve murdering babeez.

Like I said If I found out my employer was murdering tiny babeez in I would not hesitate to resign.

Pablo Honey on November 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Monkeytoe on November 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM

The only problem is that this is a (partially) public-funded institution. None of the examples you cite entail the murder of a fellow human being. According to your logic, it’s fine to discriminate against an inconvenient person, as long as it isn’t on the basis of what race or sex they are.

Some anti-discrimination laws make sense (i.e., you can’t not hire someone because of his race or sex and prohibition against sexual harassment)

So as long as we kill babies regardless of their skin color or gender, it’s cool? Margaret Sanger and the Chinese government would disagree with you.

Mord on November 8, 2011 at 2:15 PM

“As a Christian, I don’t believe in abortion.”

So quit.

ernesto on November 8, 2011 at 2:16 PM

They’re not pro-choice; they’re pro-abortion death.
Thank you for keeping us up-to-date with this, Tina.

itsnotaboutme on November 8, 2011 at 1:00 PM

FIFY

Trafalgar on November 8, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Now this is an accurate representation of the legal principle involved.

OhioCoastie on November 8, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Not really since there is conflicting reports regarding what the policy is. The hospital is saying that it is not their policy. Regardless, the hospital does retain the power to transfer employees to other units if they choose to. If the nurses refuse, they do have the right to fire them.

Blake on November 8, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Actually, and with due humility, OhioCoastie has it right. If the hospital were a private institution, there would be some reason for the branches of government in New Jersey to hold back and worry about the particulars of the case. It could be that there is no valid pretext for government intervention. (My libertarian sensibility on this would admit of far fewer pretexts for intervention than the average American assumes automatically today.)

But UMDNJ is a public institution funded by the taxpayer. Therefore, the legislature doesn’t have to inquire into the details of what people in a particular instance were being required to do. Legislators can act generically on the policy issue, and make it state law that no public institution will require a nurse to assist in an abortion, nor will its policies disadvantage in any way those nurses who decline to (meaning promotion, salary increases, etc cannot depend on transfers to work that requires assisting in abortions).

It doesn’t matter what UMDNJ has or hasn’t done in this particular case. Because UMDNJ is a public institution, the legislature can clarify what rules must be adhered to, to make sure there’s never a problem, whether “again” or “at all.”

J.E. Dyer on November 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM

They were still employed by an abortion provider. If they find it so offensive they can leave. Plenty of nursing jobs out there that don’t involve murdering babeez.

Like I said If I found out my employer was murdering tiny babeez in I would not hesitate to resign.

Pablo Honey on November 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Yes, I agree ultimately.

anuts on November 8, 2011 at 2:38 PM

It doesn’t matter what UMDNJ has or hasn’t done in this particular case. Because UMDNJ is a public institution, the legislature can clarify what rules must be adhered to, to make sure there’s never a problem, whether “again” or “at all.”

J.E. Dyer on November 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM

NJ already has a law on the books that needs no clarification: No person shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion of sterilization. N.J. Stat. § 2A:65A-1

Demanding some unnecessary action by the legislature is ridiculous.

Blake on November 8, 2011 at 2:55 PM

The hospital is saying that it is not their policy to force nurses to assist. The nurses say it is. It’s a factual dispute.

Blake on November 8, 2011 at 2:58 PM

ernesto, fastestslug, Pablo Honey, mythicknight and any other pro-abortionist that posts your hypocrisy here. You all comment on Hot Air like you’re ready to fall on your swords for any issue that comes up concerning providing reasonable accommodations in employment consideration, non-hostile workplace environments and such for any matter concerning persons of alternate lifestyles.

But here are people who in earnest have a moral opposition to killing human babies and it’s “Too bad, so sad, hit the road”? WTF is wrong with you people? The utter lack of compassion of the people on your side appalls me. You are sick and you are sad and you are to be pitied by all of us who sit and wonder how in God’s name you’re able to achieve the moral sanctimony you shove down our throats for every other living being; save those that have a few layers of skin that still separates them from their Constitutional right to life.

These children feel intense pain as they’re being killed. Does it not even bother you that no consideration is given to anesthetize them? Does it not bother you at all?

If this hospital is going to make them do it or make them leave, they need to be compensated. They have every right to sue.

hawkdriver on November 8, 2011 at 5:14 PM

This thread reminded me when people yesterday kept claiming it was Obama’s Axlerod’s firm involved with Cain’s accuser. No one would listen.

This case will come down to the fact whether they were treated fairly. It doesn’t matter that some of you think they should simply quit. Simple ain’t so simple. Laws that apply fairness don’t apply only to those you favor.

hawkdriver on November 8, 2011 at 5:14 PM

That bunch you listed by name is a sick twisted bunch. Half of them will change their minds when the gay gene is found. You can count on that.

CW on November 8, 2011 at 9:25 PM

That bunch you listed by name is a sick twisted bunch. Half of them will change their minds when the gay gene is found. You can count on that.

If there are no gay babeez there will be noone left for you to bully with your toughguy act.

Pablo Honey on November 8, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Why would they choose to work for an employer who does things they find morally repugnant? If you don’t like the jobs your employer makes you do, just quit.

What would you say to a homosexual who was required to teach Leviticus in a religious education class? Just quit.

What would you say to a Muslim who was required to prepare ham sandwiches at the deli? Just quit.

What would you say to a Jehovah’s Witness nurse who doesn’t believe in blood transfusions? Just quit.

It’s really simple. You’re all thrown for a loop because your objection to abortion is so strong. Take a step back and think about how at-will employment should work in a free society. Think of a society where employees could refuse to do anything because of a religious conviction, and the employer wouldn’t be allowed to fire them. It’s absurd.

Mark Jaquith on November 9, 2011 at 1:18 AM

As a muslim, I don’t feel like I should scan pork products at the supermarket.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on November 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

-
This statement explains so much about you… but I still have to ask… Did your mommy not kiss your boo-boos enough? Did she love ham, but keep trying to leave you behind in the shopping cart?
-

RalphyBoy on November 9, 2011 at 2:36 AM

The purpose of this thread has been hijacked, so let’s get back to the main message.

Under Obamacare hospitals will have no choice in the decision whether to offer abortion services, they will be required by law. Nurses such as these will be required under penalty to perform these procedures to terminate life. Catholic hospitals, who operate the largest free care system in the world, are making the choice to close if required to perform this service.

http://christianvoteralliance.org/184/more-catholic-hospitals-close-due-to-obamacare/

The question is: does the federal government have the right to force these places to perform what for them is murder?

This is the question, and the purpose behind the new bill.

itsspideyman on November 9, 2011 at 3:52 AM

Pablo, you’re a coward. What is so hard about saying you don’t care that it causes great pain? You support the procedure, support the ramifications. Embrace it and tell me off.

hawkdriver on November 9, 2011 at 6:02 AM

Mark Jaquith on November 9, 2011 at 1:18 AM

Great comment except for the fact you missed the point that conditions changed from the time at which they were first employed. Let them “just quit” and move to another nursing position. They should be compensated for their trouble.

hawkdriver on November 9, 2011 at 6:07 AM

Let me see if I can get this straight….

Telling a woman she’s about as tall as your wife, then making a gesture about her height, creates a hostile work environment that requires societal intervention….

Telling a nurse, who does what she does because she loves helping people, that she is now required to kill people because their moms don’t want to be pregnant is good policy….

I don’t know about y’all, but if someone suddenly told me I was required to kill a baby in order to fulfill my job duties I would think that workplace had become somewhat hostile (at least toward the baby, can we agree on that?). Aren’t we supposed to stamp out hostile workplaces? You asked for consistency, please deliver it.

runawayyyy on November 9, 2011 at 2:47 PM