Nurses Don't Have To Assist In Abortions, Hospital Agrees

By David Giambusso
Religion News Service

A teaching hospital will hire additional staff to help perform abortions after a group of nurses claimed they were forced to participate in the procedures despite religious objections.

"No nurse is compelled to have direct involvement in a procedure to which she or he objects based on his/her cultural values, ethics and/or religious beliefs," Jeffrey Tolvin, a spokesman for the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey said in a statement on Friday (Dec. 2).

"At the same time, we needed to find a solution that is in the best interest of the patients we serve. We are therefore hiring additional staff who will provide care to our full complement of patients."

In November, 12 nurses at UMDNJ filed suit, saying the hospital was forcing them to assist in the operations despite declared religious objections.

Aside from aiding doctors in the procedures, the nurses argued that post-operative patient care and administrative duties surrounding the procedures constituted involvement.

If upheld in court, the nurses' claims could mean UMDNJ violated federal law, which bars institutions receiving federal dollars from forcing their staff members to assist in abortions.

"The university is in full compliance with all applicable state and federal laws," the school said when the nurses brought suit. "Its position will be vindicated when the court gives this matter a full hearing."

A hearing in federal district court was scheduled for Monday (Dec. 5). The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the nurses, said only a court-approved agreement would mean the school "might finally be interested in following the law."

David Giambusso writes for The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J.

Comments

[Dern88]

03:27 AM on 12/08/2011

As a nurse this argument pisses me off every time it comes up. If these so-called nurses object to taking care of a patient because it goes against their religious beliefs they need to seek out a new profession! I care for patients that I disagree with daily but it does not keep me from doing my job. I don't particularly enjoy caring for child molestors, thieves, wife beaters, or quite frankly, Republicans, but it's my job. If you aren't professional enough to put your personal views aside you shouldn't be providing care for ANY patient, period.

[Sammie55]

02:50 PM on 12/07/2011

Work in a dermatologist office.. work for a podiatrist... an orthopedist.

But in a hospital, you don't get to pick and choose what you want to do and what you don't.

[carnivaluv]

02:13 PM on 12/07/2011

These nurses need to find a different job. If you can't perform your job, I'd find somebody that could.

[spartanladkenny]

02:13 AM on 12/07/2011

As long as your employer isn't asking you to do something illegal and falls within the scope of your work, you should be doing your job. You have a right to exercise your religious freedom but you can't impose it on others. If a janitor makes a claim that cleaning a portion of the building which belong to another religion and is against his religious beliefs, is the employer required to find someone else in addition to the said janitor to clean up the portion that he doesn't want to touch? Where does it stop then? Its a slippery slope which we shouldn't tread on.

[tolerance2]

12:22 AM on 12/07/2011

I agree with a post that pointed out that freedom of religion is part of the basic bedrock of the US. Freedom to follow one's conscience is why a great many of our forebears came to this Country. I am dumbfounded by the vitriolic intolerance of many postings by people who have (IMHO) have forgotten that. Comments that health professionals should leave their profession if they are not willing to participate in abortions are likewise arrogant. Abortion procedures constitute a tiny percentage of medical procedures. If a nurse or doctor has studied hard to perform the overwhelming majority of subject matter, why force them to do what is repugnant to them as if they were slaves ? Our government was established to serve the people, to respect the dignity of their humanity, not to command them as if thtey were robots. If a woman wants an abortion, that is her legal right. But I subscribe to the view that one's right to swing his/her arm ends where my nose begins. No one has the right to force us to violate our consciences. That is not democracy. It is totalitarianism.

[spartanladkenny]

02:19 AM on 12/07/2011

If my religious beliefs stop me from interacting with hindus, do I have a right to exercise my right at my workplace? By your logic of "tiny percentage", hindus are a tiny percentage of the population hence the impact of my belief will be negligible. Is the employer obliged to let me follow my beliefs at the work place?

You believe one can't exercise their rights which harm others. What if, in a given hospital, someone performs an abortion and after a while there are complications and due to lack of staff a nurse with anti-abortion beliefs is required to help? And if by her resistance to help in the post op procedure the patient dies, does that constitute harm via exercise of your religious rights? If your belief will stop you from performing your job in totality, you need to find another job.

[tolerance2]

01:25 PM on 12/14/2011

The idea that any religious belief would prohibit one from interacting with Hindus is absurd, irrelevant to this issue, and therefore an irrational response to the question of freedom to practice one's religion in the U.S. We have here a conflict between two legitimate legal rights: the right of a woman to seek an abortion and the right of a health professional to refrain from violating his/her conscience. Relegating such health professionals to a different profession b/c a small fraction of women want abortions is not an acceptable solution. Our Country was founded on protecting the consciences of minorities against a totalitarian majority. Certainly no health facility would allow a woman's health to be jeopardized. That's a phony argument. Might the hospital administration be inconvenienced? Very possibly. Democracy does not guarantee that no one will ever be inconvenienced only that we will be free to follow our consciences.

[carnivaluv]

02:03 PM on 12/07/2011

"why force them to do what is repugnant to them as if they were slaves ?"

They should find a different job then. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would fulfill the job duties they were hired for.

[TJ860]

11:36 PM on 12/06/2011

I am wondering why there isn't more discussion about the Federal Law that protects ALL citizens from acting against their conscience? I see comments asking about whether atheists can refuse to treat Christians, or Muslims and Jehovah Witnesses can refuse to do that which is against their religious beliefs, yet what I don't see is the appreciation of what the Constitution of our great country, The USA was founded upon, why is that? We are a free country! When one protects the freedoms of everyone, than shouldn't we as people respect that our freedoms will be protected too?

Look at the comments, we have the freedom of speech! The freedom to debate each other, and disagree with our government, without fearing force and fatal reprisals! Why is it so hard to appreciate that we are all protected from infringements of the State on our Religious beliefs? We should try to unite, yet it sure seems it is easier to divide. Sorry, I know I am an ultraists, but someone has to be, don't they? If we protect each other's right, isn't that what makes this country great?

I may not like what others have to say at times, but I always try to appreciate the right they have to say it!

[Billy2]

12:24 AM on 12/07/2011

Which federal law protects us from acting against our conscience? My conscience tells me that I should be able to drive 50 in a 35. I'm not protected by federal law, though.

The fact is (and this IS law), there are certain reasonable accommodations that employers must provide per the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC and courts of law have interpreted what that means (look it up). If the hospital didn't want to make the outstanding accommodations that it did, in fact, make, the federal law probably wouldn't come to these nurses' rescue.

[TJ860]

06:36 PM on 12/07/2011

Billy,
I see your point, I should have been more specific in my comment. It was my error for forgetting, once again, that on these message boards their are more posters with the attack mentality than they, Oh I know what she meant conversational state of mind.

[The Corporate Champion]

11:18 PM on 12/06/2011

Lmao, weren't some clowns just celebrating the other day about how some workers decided not to evict an old lady despite given orders to? This is no different here; if one finds it morally wrong to help facilitate the killing of the unborn, or to treat someone who helped facilitate it, they shouldn't be forced to.

[carnivaluv]

02:06 PM on 12/07/2011

They should go look for a different job since they can't perform their job completely.

[Chelsie Sutherland]

11:59 PM on 01/10/2013

The nurses are also refusing to aid in any pre-op or post-op care (like medication or counseling), or aid in any paperwork of those who have elected to have an abortion. They're providing substandard care to some patients because they are morally repulsed by a legal operation the patient has had, which may result in harm to the patient from neglect. They do not have to participate in the abortion, but they are required by their job to aid in pre-op and post-op care of ALL patients, no matter what procedure those patients elected for.

[zaynah-unignorant]

09:51 PM on 12/06/2011

I understand that they dont want to take a life. It may be a mothers decision but its the nurse/doctor to carry out the execution.

[Madim]

07:56 AM on 12/07/2011

If you don't want to assist in an execution, common sense tells you NOT to get a job as a prison guard.
Same with these nurses. They can transfer to some place where their conscience doesn't stop them from doing their job, or choose another job. It's not fair to let people (women are people, right ?) suffer and/or die just because some nurses (weren't nurses supposed to care for people ?) have conscience problems. Doesn't that "conscience" urge them to do their job in pre-op or post-op, even if they can refuse to assist in the abortion itself ?

[The Corporate Champion]

10:35 AM on 12/07/2011

Nurses are supposed to heal, not kill. An abortion isn't the only use for nurses, sport.

[darrienramp]

06:59 PM on 12/07/2011

if you dont want to have a baby, use birth control or put on a condom. Dont kill an innocent child you conceived because you wanted to get knocked up

[HarleyOpenRoad]

09:12 PM on 12/06/2011

Personally I am against abortion on moral grounds, but I would not force my morality on others.

These nurses should do their jobs or resign and find another where their principles would not be compromised.

[Beccs]

09:12 PM on 12/06/2011

This sets a very dangerous precendent. As an MD and an atheist can I then refuse to treat fundamentalist Christians who believe only in the healing power of prayer (until, conveniently, they really become sick)?

[syntax facit saltum]

02:50 AM on 12/07/2011

This is such a fail as an analogy that I can't believe you are really an MD since I expect MDs to have outstanding reasoning skills.

[Beccs]

01:03 PM on 12/07/2011

The analogy works for those who understand it. And your belief is neither required nor sought.

[Sammie55]

02:43 PM on 12/07/2011

Yes, under this precedent, you can refuse to treat fundamentalist humans.

[VegShark]

08:06 PM on 12/06/2011

I have to agree with a lot of the people here, if you are not willing to perform abortions, for whatever reason, then you should not work there.

And frankly, I have to say, assuming a lot of these pro-lifers are often against euthanasia because of the whole "slippery slope" argument, how about the slippery slope that is involved when nurses refuse to treat a patient based on their religious beliefs? What comes after abortions? Refusing to treat gay people? People of other religions? People who eat pork? The patient comes first, and if you can't handle that, then find another career.

[mflorian]

07:56 PM on 12/06/2011

This reminds me of when that pharmacist refused to dispense birth control based on religious objections. That should have been stomped on hard to discourage this kind of nonsense. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

You are not the moral arbiter of other people's decisions and if you can't handle your job because of personal convictions, find other work.

[tomonthebay]

09:33 PM on 12/06/2011

You aren't my moral arbiter, either. I will not be forced to participate in an abortion. That is one of the reasons that I practice pharmacy at a Catholic hospital. Everyone does not have that option. Re: pharmacists, a family friend is in the process of winning his lawsuit against the state of Illinois which has been trying to force him to carry Plan B in pharmacies that he owns. I look forward to the eventual settlement that the state will be forced to pay him!

[mflorian]

09:57 PM on 12/06/2011

You aren't reading the article, are you? It isn't just the abortion. They refuse to perform post-op care and even paperwork. That goes way beyond religious conviction into the realm of refusing their medical duties.

[Billy2]

12:27 AM on 12/07/2011

They have the option of not becoming a pharmacist if they are not up to the duties mandated by the state.

But, hey, thanks for leeching off the taxpayers!

[glowbug25]

07:50 PM on 12/06/2011

Those nurses need to be fired. This entire situation pisses me off. If you do not want to perform the duties required by the department, then asked to transferred to another division. UMDNJ is a teaching hospital for future nurses, physicians, medical scientists, and etc. those nurses should seek employment at an religious institution instead. It is not that difficult when you have your BSN you can work in any department and essentially be transferred at anytime. Nursing is by far one of the most flexible fields I have worked in , so there is no reason that those nurses cannot be transferred to another department.

[myopinion2]

05:53 PM on 12/06/2011

It's not an unreasonable accomodation of religious beliefs. Their opposition to abortion is not just a philosophical or moral position, but a religious one. Participating in an abortion would be a SIN FOR THEM. (sorry caps)

[mflorian]

07:54 PM on 12/06/2011

So helping with post-op care and paper work is a sin too? Did you even read the article?

[tomonthebay]

09:34 PM on 12/06/2011

I am not so sure that the hospital was only asking them to do post-op care. The hospital has been backpedaling pretty fast, which leads me to believe that the requests were more than routine post-op care.

[myopinion2]

08:50 AM on 12/07/2011

no

[SmileAndActNice]

05:44 PM on 12/06/2011

If they really had a moral objection they would refuse to subsidize abortion by doing work that frees up other nurses to assist with abortions.

Which is any work of any kind at any hospital.

[Sammie55]

02:44 PM on 12/07/2011

Excellent point.