PDA

View Full Version : Deal: New Jersey Nurses Can Skip Aiding Hospital Abortions



txradioguy
12-23-2011, 05:56 AM
NEWARK, N.J. Twelve nurses who sued one of the state's largest hospitals after claiming they were forced to assist in abortions over their religious and moral objections reached a deal Thursday with their employer in federal court.

Under the agreement, 12 nurses in the same-day surgery unit of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey can remain in their current positions and not be compelled to assist in any part of an abortion procedure. The nurses must only help in a life-threatening emergency if no other non-objecting staff members are available and only until which time one can be brought in to relieve them, according to the agreement.

Fe Esperanza Racpan Vinoya, one of the plaintiffs who said she opposes abortion on religious grounds, said she was happy that the agreement meant she and her colleagues would not have to assist in any aspect of an abortion procedure. Despite the ruling specifying that the nurses wouldn't be discriminated against, Racpan Vinoya said she was still nervous they would be transferred, have their hours cut or otherwise be punished for having sued.

"I'm still scared about the part of them having four nurses brought in and we might become the surpluses," Racpan Vinoya said, referring to the hospital hiring four nurses who do not object to assisting with the procedure.

Matt Bowman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a coalition of Christian lawyers and organizations that represented the nurses, said they were satisfied with the agreement.

An attorney representing the hospital, Edward Deutsch, said his client was pleased the case was resolved.

"I think it's an appropriate resolution, and the hospital has been very accommodating," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/22/judge-rules-new-jersey-nurses-can-skip-aiding-hospital-abortions/?test=latestnews#ixzz1hLmSF7bc

Novaheart
12-23-2011, 10:34 AM
I should think it all comes down to the conditions under which you were hired.

If you go to work in a ob-gyn unit and then have a religious change of heart, I see that as your problem.

I think it's important to consider the context of the situation as well. As popularly mentioned, there is always the law of unintended consequences aggravated by the fact that a lot of people are dishonest and self serving.

FMLA is a good idea and a good program. When it was designed, it never occurred to the crafters that anyone would try to use FMLA for five minute spurts or to avoid certain aspects of their job that they didn't like. They expected it to protect the worker who has to call in sick because he or a family member is quite ill. And yet, it was a nurse to decided to exploit FMLA in a way no one had imagined. She was an ER nurse and claimed FMLA for periods of time as short as five minutes to avoid being the attending nurse or gruesome ER intakes like gunshot and bad accidents. In other words, she should have been fired if she didn't want to do her job. FMLA was not intended to protect her act.

I wonder if "any aspect of an abortion" means that these women don't have to help take care of women who have had abortions as well. If that's the case, then this is a can of worms in hospital staff can now decide which patients they will take care of based on how they feel about what the patient has done.

mike128
12-24-2011, 12:56 AM
If you go to work in a ob-gyn unit and then have a religious change of heart, I see that as your problem.
I strongly disagree. If an employee who works in an ob-gyn unit, who has previously participated in abortion-related procedures, decides that he/she no longer wants to assist in putting children to death in the womb as part of their job, that employee should be able to do so without fear of losing his/her job. There are many other procedures done in an ob-gyn unit besides abortion.

If the ob-gyn unit either sanctions or fires that employee who no longer wishes to participate in abortions, he/she should be able to sue the ob-gyn unit for damages.

Deciding not to kill people before they're born should not result in the loss of that person's job.

Any doctor who performs abortions for profit should be locked up in jail for a very long time, BTW.

Novaheart
12-24-2011, 02:02 AM
I strongly disagree. If an employee who works in an ob-gyn unit, who has previously participated in abortion-related procedures, decides that he/she no longer wants to assist in putting children to death in the womb as part of their job, that employee should be able to do so without fear of losing his/her job. There are many other procedures done in an ob-gyn unit besides abortion.

If the ob-gyn unit either sanctions or fires that employee who no longer wishes to participate in abortions, he/she should be able to sue the ob-gyn unit for damages.

Deciding not to kill people before they're born should not result in the loss of that person's job.

Any doctor who performs abortions for profit should be locked up in jail for a very long time, BTW.

And employer is expected to make a "reasonable accommodation" to the employee's religious or physical handicaps. If indeed there is sufficient need in the practice for a nurse who does not assist in abortion services, and if that position pays the same as a fully engaged nurse employee, then the employee can be retained.

As you noted, an OB-Gyn business does more than abortions. The can of worms is still a present issue though. Can a clerk refuse to do his job if it involves billing for abortion services or handling insurance payments for abortion services? Is it up to the employee to decide if a Dilation and Curettage was actually a preemptive abortion?

Can I go to work for the American Family Association and refuse to do anything I find bigoted?

Wei Wu Wei
12-24-2011, 03:50 AM
I strongly disagree. If an employee who works in an ob-gyn unit, who has previously participated in abortion-related procedures, decides that he/she no longer wants to assist in putting children to death in the womb as part of their job, that employee should be able to do so without fear of losing his/her job. There are many other procedures done in an ob-gyn unit besides abortion.

If the ob-gyn unit either sanctions or fires that employee who no longer wishes to participate in abortions, he/she should be able to sue the ob-gyn unit for damages.

Whoa now. You are saying employers shouldn't have the right to run their businesses and manage their employees the way they see fit?

Welcome to communism comrade.

txradioguy
12-24-2011, 04:15 AM
I strongly disagree. If an employee who works in an ob-gyn unit, who has previously participated in abortion-related procedures, decides that he/she no longer wants to assist in putting children to death in the womb as part of their job, that employee should be able to do so without fear of losing his/her job. There are many other procedures done in an ob-gyn unit besides abortion.

If the ob-gyn unit either sanctions or fires that employee who no longer wishes to participate in abortions, he/she should be able to sue the ob-gyn unit for damages.

Deciding not to kill people before they're born should not result in the loss of that person's job.

Any doctor who performs abortions for profit should be locked up in jail for a very long time, BTW.

Amazing how the Libs say "tough shit" if someone disagrees with one of their pet causes.

But if someone is being wronged that supports one of their causes then the full weight of the law should be brought down upon the wrong doer to allow that person do do what they want.

Wei Wu Wei
12-24-2011, 05:04 AM
Amazing how the Libs say "tough shit" if someone disagrees with one of their pet causes.

But if someone is being wronged that supports one of their causes then the full weight of the law should be brought down upon the wrong doer to allow that person do do what they want.

Whoa I know, who would do that sort of thing?

Starbuck
12-24-2011, 05:35 AM
............Any doctor who performs abortions for profit should be locked up in jail for a very long time, BTW.....
Only people who violate laws should go to jail.
You seem to be saying that it would be OK to perform an abortion pro bono, but not if he is paid.:confused:

SaintLouieWoman
12-24-2011, 09:17 AM
There are other aspects to nurses strikes. There are problems here in Florida with nurses (in the Sarasota area) who claim the hospitals aren't staffed properly. They're raising big objections and are talking striking.

Where does this fall in the spectrum? I personally admire nurses for having the guts to come out and say what's happening (in their opinion). I was injured when I was in a facility here after my knee replacement. The surgery and the hospital did an excellent job, but the rehab facility goofed up big time and I'm still playing catch up in my rehab.

It's something that can be debated all day long. Personally, I wish the weekend staffing problem where I was at had been solved. I'd be quite a bit further along on my road to recovery.

Zeus
12-24-2011, 11:58 AM
I should think it all comes down to the conditions under which you were hired.

If you go to work in a ob-gyn unit and then have a religious change of heart, I see that as your problem.

I think it's important to consider the context of the situation as well. As popularly mentioned, there is always the law of unintended consequences aggravated by the fact that a lot of people are dishonest and self serving.

FMLA is a good idea and a good program. When it was designed, it never occurred to the crafters that anyone would try to use FMLA for five minute spurts or to avoid certain aspects of their job that they didn't like. They expected it to protect the worker who has to call in sick because he or a family member is quite ill. And yet, it was a nurse to decided to exploit FMLA in a way no one had imagined. She was an ER nurse and claimed FMLA for periods of time as short as five minutes to avoid being the attending nurse or gruesome ER intakes like gunshot and bad accidents. In other words, she should have been fired if she didn't want to do her job. FMLA was not intended to protect her act.

I wonder if "any aspect of an abortion" means that these women don't have to help take care of women who have had abortions as well. If that's the case, then this is a can of worms in hospital staff can now decide which patients they will take care of streatching based on how they feel about what the patient has done.

I think refusing to do after care, based on what a person has done, is stretching things a wee bit. I suppose some will try though. Same thing with reasonable workplace Accommodation