UPDATE: Nurses Say Hospital Gave Them Choice: Assist Abortions or Lose Job

  1. 2
    "Lorna Jose Mendoza has been given a choice. She can either assist in an abortion this week at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, or she could refuse and risk losing her job.
    Mendoza is one of a dozen nurses who filed suit today against the hospital – accusing them of violating federal and state law by forcing them to assist in abortions against their religious and moral objections...."





    http://radio.foxnews.com//toddstarne...-lose-job.html
    CNA1991 and abdosh like this.
  2. Get the Hottest Nursing Topics Straight to Your Inbox!

  3. 12,668 Views
    Find Similar Topics
  4. 100 Comments so far...

  5. 6
    I've always had the choice to opt out of a procedure if I had an ethical opposition. It was something HR informed us of in every orientation. At every hospital I've ever worked at.

    I am surprised this is even an issue, especially at a University affiliated hospital.
    Not_A_Hat_Person, Otessa, CNA1991, and 3 others like this.
  6. 14
    I'm pro-choice - that means I support everyone's choice not to participate. I've never heard of a workplace being able to compel someone to participate against their will... amazing! (In a bad way)
    Magen1021, Libitina, SnowShoeRN, and 11 others like this.
  7. 16
    I hope this doesn't deteriorate into an abortion/anti abortion thread.
    It's probably inevitable.
    If a hospital provides pork free and kosher diets to pt's of certain religions, why can't they honor their employees' religious objections?
    I know the above is apples and oranges. I know it's a simple analogy. Food vs surgical procedure. Employee vs paying customer. But at the root it's the same. Religious objections and whether they should be honored.
  8. 6
    Why would the hospital not allow the nurse to opt out and switch her with a nurse who didn't? It's not rocket science. I was told in school you ALWAYS have the right to opt out of participating in something you religiously object to. We allow patients that right so why not ourselves? Although personally it wouldn't bother me in the least, I can see why some people would not want to assist.
  9. 8
    Sad. I always thought that staff should have a choice in participating in this type of procedure. And as a totally pro-choice person, I have always tried to protect the rights of the health-care workers when they do not want to assist in these procedures. The question that arose was usually in post-op care.

    I really resent it when the rules are changed while the game is in play. If they want to insist that new hires take part, that is one option. But not fair to those who are already on board.

    It seems like another way to get rid of long-term, higher paid employees.
    Last edit by merlee on Nov 1, '11 : Reason: add info
    GooeyRN, LockportRN, amarilla, and 5 others like this.
  10. 6
    Quote from jesskidding
    "Lorna Jose Mendoza has been given a choice. She can either assist in an abortion this week at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, or she could refuse and risk losing her job.
    Mendoza is one of a dozen nurses who filed suit today against the hospital – accusing them of violating federal and state law by forcing them to assist in abortions against their religious and moral objections...."


    http://radio.foxnews.com//toddstarne...-lose-job.html
    The hospital is in violation of United states (federal) law.
    U. S. Code TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 6A > SUBCHAPTER VIII > § 300a–7 states:
    Prohibition of public officials and public authorities from imposition of certain requirements contrary to religious beliefs or moral convictions


    The receipt of any grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act [42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.] by any individual or entity does not authorize any court or any public official or other public authority to require—
    (1) such individual to perform or assist in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if his performance or assistance in the performance of such procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions; …

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42...0---a007-.html
    Hospitals have repeatedly lost lawsuits regarding this. - http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fir...t-in-abortion/
    Lucubrator, amarilla, lamazeteacher, and 3 others like this.
  11. 39
    The "story" is from the Faux News website, and the attorney representing the nurse(s) who is quoted in the article is from a right-wing legal organization -- I'm sure there's more to the story than what is in the article.
    Nurse Leigh, Viviana, tarheelsu, and 36 others like this.
  12. 22
    I am pretty sure the law that protected these workers was overturned with the new administration.

    Aside from that, i have been told by my facility that I have the right to find another employee wi similar skills and training to trade assignments with if I object to certain types of patient care.

    The reason given was that the inherent nature of health care is to provide care to people regardless of our moral objections: diabetics who refuse to lose weight, HIV patients and hep patients, contact precautions patients and drug seekers. Where does it end? What will some almighty people actually do for patients when they are superior moral beings?

    Frankly, I agree. You didn't become a healthcare worker to pick and choose your patients once you select a job and a unit. Don't like it? Go work at a catholic hospital. They dont do abortions.
    Artistyc1, Circulator, RN, Fribblet, and 19 others like this.
  13. 20
    Quote from VICEDRN
    I am pretty sure the law that protected these workers was overturned with the new administration.
    Actually, what the Obama administration overturned was some "11th hour," last minute rule changes put into place by the Bush administration that dramatically expanded the existing "conscience clause" rights to a ridiculous degree. The original law which provides that individuals cannot be forced by their employers to participate in procedures or services to which they have strong moral or religious objections, or be punished or penalized for refusing to participate, is still in place. And hospitals are well aware that that is the law -- if UMDNJ really took the position which is described in the article and the nurse(s) involved took them to court, the hospital would lose big and UMDNJ knows this -- which is why I am somewhat suspicious of the article and suspect that there is more to the story.
    Viviana, kfactor, heron, and 17 others like this.


Top