Should medical personnel be forced to participate in abortions?

Then the nurses should be permitted to quit the job. HEY!!! They are. They can quit any time they like. It should go on the record that they quit because they objected to assisting with abortions. That way, no abortion clinic would hire them, and perhaps they'd have an advantage when applying for a job at a hospital that refuses to do abortions.

This is a very good analog to the Mennonite dairy farmer I worked for. The cows had to be milked, so he and his family did chores every day, but no other work.

Orthodox Jews tend to be very hard-line about the sabbath, but Jesus was quite explicit that it is permitted to save a life on the sabbath. So a Christian should be willing to work on the sabbath if the work is necessary.

OTOH, Christians don't even respect the sabbath. They take Sunday off. What's up with that???

 

Exactly.

People on the Right Want Government Out Of Our Lives BUT Than They Also Want Government In Our Bed Rooms. Seems they have trouble Making a "Choice" .

 

With few exceptions, conservatives want only less of the government that supports legislation and programs with which they disagree.

 

I really don't see how they can be unaware... It's a medical facility, abortion is a medical procedure. If I were to apply at a hospital, I would assume they perform abortions along with every other valid, legal medical procedure, unless they specifically told me otherwise.

Also, companies are free to change their policies at any time... If they decide to start offering new services that I disagree with, I'm free to leave and find other employment - just as they are free to assign you to whatever legal services they want. Currently at work, I'm "on loan" to a different group than I normally work in, doing a completely different job that I strongly dislike (although there is no possible moral objection to what I'm doing). I had no say in this... Should I sue the company? No. That would be ridiculous. So why should we treat these nurses any different?

 

There exists an almost endless number of examples of religious beliefs interfering with job opportunities. Would a Muslim woman work as a bikini model? Would an Amish person drive a bus? Could a Jehovah's Witness be a birthday clown? None of these people are forced to do these jobs. If their employer suddenly decides that this is their new line of work, they are free to quit. Unless they have a contract stating otherwise, or there is a violation of labor laws, it is unfortunate for them, but their only options are to quit or compromise their beliefs.

Tom

 

You cannot be forced to participate in abortions, or any other kind of work. But you cannot expect to hold a job for which you are unwilling to do the work.

I had a friend back in North Dakota who, as a young woman was working for Honeywell. She worked on an assembly line. She asked what they were making, and was told she had no right to know that. Then one day she saw a picture on TV of a land mine. One of those small ones the U.S. was using in Vietnam that were responsible for large numbers of mutilations of children. She recognized it. She realized that's what was being made on her assembly line. With no other job prospects, she quit her job. She was not willing to do that work for one more day once she knew she was building something that was killing and mutilating children.

She did this because she had a strong moral objection to the killing and maiming of children.

Those nurses, if they believe a fetus is a child, can do the same. How is a hospital to do its work if every nurse has a list of which procedures she will or will not participate in?

 

That's the much more interesting question: the legal/ethical requirement (or lack thereof) of the one paying for the work to disclose its context (and to what scope). All kinds of snakes in that moral conundrum.

In that regard my first thought would be that the payee has an obligation to research to context to his/her own satisfaction - that it is not the employer's obligation, because the employer cannot reasonably be expected to anticipate every employee's catalogue of what matters to him/her, and that doesn't even touch on issues of security, some of which would be legitimate.

Still, I can't help but feel that the employer in the above case was on the unethical side of the fence in its non-disclosure, so it's a difficult issue to resolve.

 

They were making anti-personnel land mines that were known to maim and kill children and other innocent non-combatants. Use of such weapons violates international laws of war and the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Conduct.

That, IMO, dwarfs any issues of moral obligation to tell the workers what they were building.

Before seeing the land mine on TV, my friend could easily have imagined that she was making thermostats or other civilian electronics. Keep in mind that this was before the internet. Researching the nature of her job would probably have been futile if she had not happened to see the image on TV.

 

Then there isn't a problem. Either the nurses will not have to participate, or they will win a huge settlement. Unless, of course, the law is unconstitutional and the contract unenforceable. If that happens, we are back to the existing discussion.

Tom

 

I read you post, and I am sad to say I do not believe your source. I live in Mississippi where some group called Personhood USA lied with straight faces to Mississippians for months at a time. Can you provide ANY secular coverage of this issue at all? Local Newspaper? TV sound bite? Any source that did not start with an agenda and them mold 'fact's to fit it?

Personhood USA failed twice to con Colorado voters, they have failed to con Mississippi voters and seem ready to try Alabama voters on a constitutional amendment that will prevent saving the life of the mother during pregnancy and prevent women from using fertility measures to become pregnant.
Needless to say adding any clauses about insest or rape would not conform to their agenda. Since it also prohibits female birth control, it would have raised MS's already unenviable rank as the leading rate of teen pregnancy. (It is the bible belt, can't have little Suzie on the pill, it would send the wrong message)

Edit I found a legal site: " In Shelton v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 223 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000), a staff nurse in the Labor and Delivery section of the Hospital refused to participate in any emergency procedures that might terminate a pregnancy. The Hospital gave her the option of either transferring to the Newborn ICU department or speaking with its human resources department about other available positions. When she did not accept either offer, she was terminated. The Third Circuit found no violation of Title VII because the plaintiff was offered reasonable accommodations." http://www.introlaw.com/ed/articles/edlaw07.html

Isn't it fascinating none of your sources had the Hospital trying to relocate her to a position she could remain an employee in? (it may have been an error to identify the case well enough to get facts you were not spoonfeeding us)

 

Wanna make a 'Bagger's head pop? Suggest to him that eligibility for Medicare should begin at conception.

 

In both cases the employer is asking the employee to do legal work. In both cases the employee has moral and/or religious objections to the work. In both cases the employee has the right to quit.

Tom

 

Now I admit to being confused. Either you are trying to apply a 2008 and 2010 ruling to a 2000 case, OR

More Nurses who amazingly never heard of the 2000 case at the same hospital ALL joined the ER staff after 2000 and decided to fail to do emergency surgery at the same time? As strategy, I can see how transferring 12 unwilling employees at the same time to Infant ICU may be a burden the hospital was unable to repeat after working just fine in 2000.

I, of course, suspect they never planned to do the work they applied for. You see no strategy in 'packing' the ER, then refusing to do emergency surgery. (who cares if the mother lives after all? 'pro-life' is only unborn lives)