Toothless law weakens conscience protections for health care workers
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The University of Vermont Medical Center made headlines yesterday when reports emerged that it forced a nurse to participate in an abortion over her moral objections. A Christian medical organization says such incidents aren't just happening in The Green Mountain State.
"This is a huge problem in the United States," says David Stevens, MD, MA of Christian Medical & Dental Associations . "In fact, the issue that's most concerning [to our] members is the issue of being forced to violate your conscience – and that's what blatantly happened in this case." The nurse was required to participate in the abortion in May 2018.
Stevens finds it "interesting" that the policy at the University of Vermont Medical Center changed when it got a new chair who had been a high-level leader in Planned Parenthood.
"[That's when] they began doing abortions there in the hospital – and not only doing them but forcing health care professionals to participate," Stevens continues. "This blatantly violates the Church Amendment and Weldon Amendment and other amendments, but people have been able to get away with this for years … because there's no teeth to the law."
|
"Medical professionals should never be forced to sacrifice their commitment to protecting life to serve those in need. That's why protecting the freedom to live and work consistent with one's conscience is critical: It is at the heart of what motivates many who enter the medical field, a profession full of individuals who dedicate their lives to healing and doing no harm. "Unfortunately, nurses, doctors, and other health care providers – including ADF clients like Sandra Rojas, Fe Esperanza Racpan Vinoya and Cathy DeCarlo – have faced government discrimination and have even lost their jobs because of their commitment to saving life. We commend the Trump administration and HHS's Office for Civil Rights for investigating and taking corrective action against the University of Vermont Medical Center for its flawed policies and for working to ensure the civil rights and conscience rights of all Americans are protected." Denise Burke, senior counsel Alliance Defending Freedom |
Stevens compares it to having speed limits but no police.
"That's the reason that this has become so common," he continues. "We've done a survey of Christian health care professionals and two out of five said they've been pressured to violate their conscience; and one out of four say that they've lost a promotion, a job, or an educational opportunity because of their conscience rights."
Stevens adds this has an impact on individual patients because nine out of ten of the CMDA members and others in health care professional organizations say they will quit medicine before they violate their conscience.
"If we ever needed health care professionals that shared the views of Christian patients, we need them now," he adds.
The Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Wednesday that the University of Vermont Medical Center could lose some federal funding if the two parties cannot agree within 30 days on the hospital's policies on employee participation in abortions.
The Burlington hospital says in a statement that its policies strike the balance between supporting employees' religious, ethical and cultural beliefs, and ensuring "patients are not denied access to safe and legal abortion."
"In many institutions, you are expected to leave your rights at the door, but that violates the First Amendment and one of the higher priorities in the Bill of Rights, and that was freedom of religion," says Dr. Stevens. "Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to worship – it means freedom to practice your religious beliefs; and that's throughout your life and your workplace and every arena of your life, and that's what our founding fathers expected."
According to Stevens, CMDA – when contacted by health care professionals who have had their conscience violated – puts them in touch with legal entities that share a Christian belief or refers them to the Office of Civil Rights at HHS.
"We've been advocating for years to put teeth into these laws," he continues, "and the new conscience regulations which came out in May did that. Unfortunately, 19 states have sued to stop that regulation from going into effect and have been joined by ACLU and Planned Parenthood. The Christian Medical & Dental Associations is actually an intervener in that case alongside HHS to defend this regulation."
HHS office: Never should have happened …
The director of the Office for Civil Rights at Health and Human Services says this case of a nurse being forced to assist in an abortion over her religious objections "never should have happened in this day and age in America."
Speaking on the " Washington Watch " radio program, Roger Severino at the Office for Civil Rights said the agency issued a notice of violation letter indicating the medical center broke the law by forcing the nurse to participate.
"This was a nurse who was dedicated to help saving lives, who was in fact coerced into participating in the taking of life through an abortion," said Severino. "She had registered her objections to participating in abortions, yet the University of Vermont Medical Center decided in 2017 to start doing elective abortions without informing staff – and this nurse was actually scheduled for a procedure that she thought was related to a miscarriage but was in fact told [by the doctor] when she arrived, 'Please don't hate me.' Because the doctor knew that this was going to be an abortion and that this nurse was going to be put in a horrendous position where she would face a crisis of conscience."
Severino went on to explain that the nurse tried to raise her objections once again, and even though Severino said the nurse could have been replaced by a willing participant, the hospital refused.
"And this was on pain of potentially losing her job or being reported to licensing bodies, which would threaten her ability to practice medicine at all. And put in that horrendous situation, she gave in and it has traumatized her. This is a real, moral injury."
Severino added that regardless what one thinks about Roe v. Wade or the legality of abortion, the American public has spoken in a unified voice that people cannot be coerced to participate in abortions, pay for abortions, refer for abortions, or cover abortions against their will.
"That is precisely what happened here," Severino concluded. "And that is a quintessential violation not only of common justice but of federal law that my office … is charged with enforcing.
Tags
Who is online
296 visitors
It's called Religious Freedom.
What, the nurse was a Muslim and refused to help a Christian patient?
Yea, then it wouldn't be ok anymore.
If faux christians do not want to be put in this position then they should find a new line of work....if one goes in with eyes open and know they may be asked to do things their faux christian values don't like tough shit.....
I disagree, they shouldn't be forced out of a job because they refuse to aid a fuckin abortion!
if one goes in with eyes open and know they may be asked to do things their faux christian values don't like tough shit.....
I know, pretend they are transgender people!
What do transgenders have to do with faux christian bullshit....if an abortion is part of the job then shut up and do it or otherwise find a new profession.
Simply apply the same rights & sensitivity given to transgenders to religious people! It can be so easy!
Prove it
Apples and oranges
Please provide any evidence that this woman lost her job,
Thanks.
Please provide any evidence that I or anyone else said she did
Thanks.
So the facts are that she was made aware that the procedure was elective instead of medically necessary but she chose to participate anyway. If she wanted she could have chosen not to participate and fight any administrative punishment and likely won, but instead she chose to participate then felt bad about it later.
So let the facts out. It seems her lawyers wording (obviously) that states "this was on pain of potentially losing her job or being reported to licensing bodies" would have some evidence she was actually threatened with losing her job, but the article doesn't actually state that other than the claim of "pain".
This seems more of a case of regret and then being told of potential monetary gain than this woman actually feeling like she was forced to do something against her conscience.
You can do better than that? The nurse raised her objections twice, yet you feel that she could have refused and walked away certain in the knowledge that she wouldn't be fired?
Let this case proceed...should the University of Vermont Medical Center actually risk losing federal funding (which it should)! It will be as someone infamously said "a teaching moment."
I said nothing about her certainty. But it does not appear anyone chained her to the operating room. No one forced her to assist. She could have simply walked out if her conscience was telling her she shouldn't participate.
It seems far more likely to me she was conflicted, but ultimately chose to participate but then later had misgivings which she relayed to others in her religious community who likely immediately counseled her to sue for monetary damages which is what she appears to have done. And it appears as if the facility she worked at may lose funding if they are proved to have pressured her into violating her conscience, so the claim that the law is "toothless" is without merit.
"The Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Wednesday that the University of Vermont Medical Center could lose some federal funding if the two parties cannot agree within 30 days on the hospital's policies on employee participation in abortions."
If you have conscientious objections to sticking your finger in someone's rectum, don't work as or for a proctologist. If you don't want to perform abortions, don't work as a doctor or nurse at a facility that performs them. No one is being dragged into a doctors room and being forced to participate against their will.
But that was not established as part of her job description. That is the nature of the whole case.
Not saying you are wrong, but in most job descriptions employers put that, "other duties as determined by [the company]". It's meant to be a catchall.
I doubt she is going to get very far, she was asked to assist with a legal procedure as part of her duties as laid out by the employer.
"My personal morals" doesn't count for shit if she signed a contract with her employer.
.
Can you imagine if a Muslim hospital refused to treat Christian patients? Ho boy, the shit would hit the fan then. But a Christian says she can't do her job because of her morals and everyone is tripping over their own dicks to help her out?
Hypocrisy.
I can't, that was a bad analogy.
She could have simply walked out if her conscience was telling her she shouldn't participate.
I can't think of anybody who needed the job doing that. It stretches the limits of credulity.
It seems far more likely to me she was conflicted,
Funny how differently we see it.
If you don't want to perform abortions, don't work as a doctor or nurse at a facility that performs them.
Sorry, but the Constitution provides for her freedoms. If the hospital wants federal funding it must respect her RIGHTS!
I want to say this before everyone jumps on me, but I am very much pro choice, and that means allowing those who don't believe in abortions from having them or doing them. And religious rights are in the constitution. Her job is to be a nurse and unless she was hired knowing that this is was going to be part of her job description, she should be allowed to bow out.
Apparently that seems to be the case:
Yes, it is fairly straightforward isn't it?
BTW, good article. There's been a few changes at HHS in the past year and a half.
So I am a paramedic and it's against my religion to touch people of a different religion, it's my constitutional right to not help a victim and watch them die? Or lets say I don't believe in doing CPR on people with gray hair....same thing? "Fuck'em"? My constitutional rights, yea?
Much easier for her to just find another job than go through all the "ruckus" and creating problems. Problem is? I would be shocked if she will ever be hired in healthcare again.
It's a new day at HHS. You may want to check the link above in post #6.1
Another Cabinet position run by a hack "Acting Secretary".
And just as this Administration is hell bent on taking us backwards in time,
mostly by revoking any and all of the previous two Administration's regulations by erasing or diminishing them,
somehow, some year, we hopefully will reach a point of what is best for the most vulnerable among us
and recognize everyone's rights without the restrictions of one religious group's beliefs over another's.
Hopefully it won't take a thousand years/s
/
HHS and USCIS are becoming more and more reminiscent
of that country in Europe that lost WWII that we are not allowed to make comparisons to.
No asylum at the border.
No life saving medical deferments.
No medical assistance by conscientious objectors.
That's a real conundrum isn't it?
You can be nurse conscientious objector to an abortion,
but you cannot be a conscientious objector to serving in the military in an armed conflict?
Seems like a societal problem on a massive scale...
They are the hacks? Not the fuckin ideologues that Obama appointed? Got it.
And just as this Administration is hell bent on taking us backwards in time,
Backwards must mean anywhere but left field.
mostly by revoking any and all of the previous two Administration's regulations by erasing or diminishing them,
Yes, every fuckin bit
and recognize everyone's rights
RIGHTS!
Hopefully it won't take a thousand years/s
Hopefully it's just a beginning and progressive ideology will be completely eradicated
/
The safety and security of the American people. A secure border
A prosperous economy for all Americans
Trade agreements that are fair to America
The restoration of respect for police officers
Religious freedom
A military that is trained to defend the nation and not a social experiment
Journalism restored to the old standards of being fair & honest.
We are witnessing a historic change taking place....greater than the revolution of the late 60's!
1) You cannot legislate morals.
2) If she cannot do the job she needs to resign immediately.
3) This reeks of the Kim Davis mess.
faux christians hiding behind religion to get out of their job duties. Screw um
She can suck it up or get a different job.
She had the choice, lose her job or do her job...now she wants to play the persecuted faux christian...can't perform your job duties then find another job.
Actually, they should not have fired her. Since she could not do the job as required, they should have found her another job that would not have been against her religion. Cleaning the bathrooms and offices after regular business hours would not be objectionable to Jesus.
It would be honest work and she would not have to worry about having to deal with people with such matters that would be against her religion or Christian values. I don't think Jesus would condemn her for doing the much needful work.
However, if she didn't want to take that position, and none others were open, she could quit. Then it would have been on her, not the employer.
This, however insignificant to everyone else, is the statement that stood out for me.
Having been involved in this many times, the hospital, which is the "target" of many possible/potential liabilities due to requirements to keep a certified number of staff on duty for all possible procedures, made a decision that THIS nurse, scheduled for THIS procedure, was the only certified person allowable by either law or the hospitals own standards of who could professionally do the job without additional risk of legal exposure to the hospital.
So in other words, the "certified" nurse comes in and decides on religious grounds that she will not participate in the procedure
with the patient in actual life threatening distress
and someone else volunteers to take his/her place.
From a legal standpoint the hospital would be nutz to allow the uncertified person to participate.
If it is not a scheduled outpatient procedure that can be rescheduled,
the nurse is obligated to the patient to provide the best possible care under the circumstances which by all descriptions sound emergent.
I welcome any information that proves otherwise.
SP