Now when your religion infringes on my LEGAL rights then thats when I have a problem

Your legal right is to have an abortion-period. There is NO LEGAL right that says a provider has to provide it.

What If I just wanted to start a religion like Joseph Smith and I was a policeman and in my religion it was morally wrong to assist a woman except for when no other non protesting male policeman was around. Now when I became a policeman I was aware that I took a pledge to assist people, but my own religion puts an * on that.

Its just silly.

Population of the US: 325,000,000

Math: 0.15% of the population

And we care what they think because……?

But its okay for the hospital to DISCRIMINATE against the nurses, right?

Must be more of that liberal “nuance” that I’m missing.

GarandFan on December 23, 2011 at 6:02 PM

There is no discrimination here. Nurses are not being refused employment because they morally oppose abortion.

theodore on December 23, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Here’s where you’re wrong, theo…the nurses are being told to either participate in the abortions or risk losing their jobs. That, my friend, is discrimination based on their moral/religious objection to abortion.

Red Herring

/

BINGO!

Many of us work for or have worked for employers that demand unethical and immoral actions. Most of us just quietly leave and find another job. Sometimes we are fired but at the end of the day your reputation and morals are worth way more than any job or money that arises from these actions.

it’s unfortunate that our politicians and judges have lost this message. It’s why the country is as divided as it is and the rush toward power and immoral oblivion seems to trump all else.

find it fascinating that the ACLU has now gotten to the point of Cafe Constitutionalism that they now express a Derived Right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is of greater importance than a Right Specifically Enumerated in the First Amendment of the constitution.

But then they’ve had little use for the 2nd 9th and 10th amendments as well.

jaydee_007 on December 23, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Nice analysis.

(Of course, as observed by other posters, this never should’ve got to the courts in the first place, but it’s nice that they actually did the right thing. Of course, even a blind squirell finds a nut every now and then…)

This isn’t a free market. If you read the article, the hospital in question receives Federal dollars — $60M of them, according to the article, and as the article states, under both state and federal law the nurses are permitted a freedom of conscience exemption from doing work which conflicts with their moral principles.

unclesmrgol on December 23, 2011 at 9:50 PM

So it seems as if this decision was already made by legislatures. I’d like to read the hospital’s response to the lawsuit to see why they thought they could get around this law. Was the hospital merely claiming that the nurses had to train to do abortions in case a life threatening one was needed to be performed?

I think that K-Mart has the Obligation, and all of the store employees should also be obligated to sell me a handgun.

And if K-Mart doesn’t sell handguns I should be able to sue them for violating my second ammendment Right to Keep and Bear arms.

Anyone who refuses to show me a firearm in their store should be subject to fines or termination. Owning a Gun is My Right. Therefore Others should be obligated to facilitate my Right!

[...] g staff are available to assist and only until such a time as other can be calle [...]…

But don’t allow the clusterfark of religious/conscious rights to lower the quality of care for everyone, and increase the costs, bureaucracies, legal issues, etc…

nottakingsides on December 23, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I think the 1st Amendment almost guarantees that religious considerations must color any law we pass. The Supreme Court has manufactured law which requires abortion to be freely available to any woman desiring one, but, in that making, has not defined a corresponding requirement that other private parties should provide one.

This is, of course, exactly like other rights which are indeed called out in the 1st Amendment — a right to freedom of speech — but no corresponding requirement that others listen, nor that Government should provide a megaphone — a right to freedom of the press — but no corresponding requirement that others read, nor that Government should provide a press.

No, it is up to the individual desiring to exercise their freedom of speech to procure an audience and a venue for speaking; it is up to the individual desiring to exercise their freedom of the press to procure a press and a readership. The only onus on Government is to not stand in the way of reasonable exercises of these rights.

Ditto for any putative abortion right — it must, by the very nature of a right, likewise be exercised between consenting adults. When one person must abrogate their rights as defined in the 1st Amendment for another person’s putative right which is nowhere mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, we have a situation which effectively turns said document completely upside down in terms of its meaning and its intent.

But do soldiers who decide they are in an immoral war get to walk off the battlefield because it offends their religious beliefs?

The short answer is yes. There is an approved lawful precedent for declaring yourself a conscious objector. However, It’s a bit difficult when the military is now a volunteer force…

I referred specifically to the slippery slope, and referenced NHS as an example. Do you need someone to spell this out for you still?

nottakingsides on December 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM

What, exactly, is slippery about this non-existent slope?

Are there other types of “care” that result in the murder of an innocent child?

Because that’s the only “slope” that has any relevance here.

I think the free market would have handled this just fine.

blink on December 23, 2011 at 6:53 PM

This isn’t a free market. If you read the article, the hospital in question receives Federal dollars — $60M of them, according to the article, and as the article states, under both state and federal law the nurses are permitted a freedom of conscience exemption from doing work which conflicts with their moral principles.

When there is a personal “right” established to an elective abortion, and said “right” is established in law, then a legitimate push-back is to promulgate laws protecting people who don’t want to perform abortions. That’s the quid pro quo the liberals had to accede to in balancing the scales with respect to perceived individual rights.

I guess I’m still not convinced that abortions afford any kind of “care”…

…especially for the child!

Religious_Zealot on December 23, 2011 at 7:00 PM

I referred specifically to the slippery slope, and referenced NHS as an example. Do you need someone to spell this out for you still?

A nurse may also find it morally repugnant to engage in the tasks that the person you’re quoting described. If this law is strictly concerned with preventing nurses from having to do something they feel is wrong, then there’s absolutely no valid reason for it to stop at abortion.

theodore on December 23, 2011 at 5:48 PM

The New Jersey law allows doctors, nurses, and pharmacists a right to refuse to provide health care services or advice, if saud provision interferes with their religious, moral and/or ethical convictions and beliefs. In addition, after refusing, the medical professional is not obligated to refer the customer to another professional who will do the requested service.

The right is very broad. Hence, a pharmacist is not obligated to provide contraceptives of any type, nor is he or she obligated to prescribe medications produced by methods which are, in the pharmacist’s mind, counter to their morality or ethos.

As a person that supports individual liberty i think this is a great call. However, if it is a private hospital then the private company should be able high and fire whoever they want.

For any reason whatsoever, such as I don’t care for your race?