Category: Morning after pill

No equal opportunities for nurse With pro-life views

Oregon, USA

 John W. Whitehead

According to a federal lawsuit filed by Janice, when the new supervisor-one intolerant of pro-life viewpoints-was assigned to the Women’s Clinic, Janice’s treatment on the job began to change. Indeed, not only were Janice’s religious views no longer accommodated, she was also harassed.  Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute reached a mutually agreeable resolution in Feb. 2003 with the Marion County Health Department on behalf of Janice Turner. As part of the settlement agreement, a new policy was enacted preventing discrimination of employees based upon religious or moral beliefs regarding abortion or contraception and requiring the health department to accommodate those beliefs. [Full text]

No Equal Opportunities for Nurse With Pro-Life Views

NEWS RELEASE

Rutherford Institute

Salem, OR–January 30, 2002–Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed suit yesterday on behalf of Janice Turner, a public health nurse who lost her job with the Marion County Health Department due to her deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, charges that Turner’s supervisor at the Women’s Clinic harassed and retaliated against her for her pro-life views and refused to accommodate her religious objections to discussing or promoting abortion procedures with her patients.

Turner, a public health nurse with the Health Department from 1990 until July 2001, had early on in her employment expressed her religious opposition to abortion and requested accommodation from having to discuss or promote abortion procedures with her patients.

According to Turner, her initial supervisor accommodated her religious beliefs and allowed her to refer those patients wanting to receive emergency contraception, a.k.a. “the morning after pill,” or information about abortion to another nurse.

As a result of Turner’s personal commitment to providing quality health care to those in need, she also worked as a Maternity Case Manager, making house calls to women undergoing high-risk pregnancies and educating them on how to have a healthy pregnancy. However, in 1995, a new supervisor was appointed to the Women’s Clinic who declared herself to be pro-choice and allegedly acted in a manner intolerant of other viewpoints.

According to Turner, this new supervisor stated her expectation that everyone on staff discuss emergency contraception, or “the morning after pill,” with patients as “a method of contraception that will prevent a pregnancy,” and discouraged the nurses from discussing it as a possible abortifacient. Turner claims that her supervisor continually reiterated her distaste for Turner’s pro-life views regarding emergency contraception and repeatedly told her that she “was not a complete nurse.” During Turner’s final evaluation, the supervisor informed her that budget cuts would soon be forthcoming. She then warned Turner that her position could be cut in the department budget, and if Turner wanted another position in the department, she would have to be willing to dispense emergency contraception. Shortly thereafter, Turner was notified that her position was to be cut.

Among the allegations detailed in the complaint filed by Institute attorneys are charges that Turner was discriminated against for her religious beliefs, a violation of Title VII, the Hill/Burton Conscience Act and Oregon’s conscience clause.

“It is unconscionable for anyone to force their beliefs on another person, especially forcing a pro-abortion message on a person who believes that life begins at conception,” stated John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “What makes it even worse is that this was being done by an employer who was fully aware that she is in control of that person’s livelihood.”

The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.
THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Charlottesville, Virginia.
General inquiries: tristaff@rutherford.org
Press Contacts: Nisha N. Mohammed Ph: (434) 978-3888, Pager: 800-946-4646, Pin #: 1478257

Do it anyway

More and more Canadian workers are being compelled to violate their own beliefs

 Terry O’Neill

Two of the most commonly heard expressions uttered in the name of modern egalitarian society are “workers’ rights” and “freedom of choice.” Let an employer order a non-Christian to put up Christmas decorations, and it will not be long before news-hungry media and human-rights enforcers show up in the employee’s defence (as happened in B.C. not long ago). However, a growing number of Canadian workers are being discriminated against on  conscience-related issues, and the institutions that should be protecting them are turning a blind eye to their plight. As is becoming increasingly apparent, the double standard seems to be entirely political. [Full text]

ACLJ files religious discrimination suit against Ca. health agency over “morning after” pill

News Release

American Center for Law and Justice

(Riverside, CA) – The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Riverside, California on behalf of a health care worker charging that she was fired from her job as a nurse for Riverside County, California after she refused to dispense medication known as a “morning-after” pill designed to end  pregnancies.

“This case centers on the rights of our  client to hold religious beliefs and have those beliefs accommodated by her  employer,” said Frank Manion, Senior Regional Counsel of the ACLJ who is representing the nurse. “Our client did not want to dispense medication that she believes places her in a position to participate in an abortion. It is our position that her deeply held religious beliefs were ignored by her employer and it is our belief that she was wrongly fired because of those beliefs.”

The ACLJ filed suit today in U.S. District Court in Riverside on behalf of Michelle Diaz, who worked as a Clinic Health Nurse at the Riverside Neighborhood Health Center. The complaint contends that in March 1999, Diaz and other health professionals expressed their concerns to management about dispensing the so-called “morning-after” pill – medication designed to end pregnancies.  The lawsuit states that Diaz told her supervisor that her deeply held religious beliefs prevented her from distributing the medication because she believed she would be participating in an abortion.

The complaint contends that the Director of Public Health for Riverside County informed her that if she did not sign a document that required her to dispense what the county called “emergency contraception” which included the “morning-after” pill and other pregnancy-ending medications, she  would no longer be able to work at the clinic. Diaz did not sign the document and wrote a letter to the Director of Public Health explaining that her religious beliefs prevented her from doing so.

According to the suit, in June 1999, Diaz was contacted by news reporters concerning the “morning-after” pill controversy and explained her position to the media. The suit contends that on June 23, 1999 – just days after speaking with the media – she was told that she was being terminated.

“This case may represent a new kind of religious discrimination in the workplace as health care professionals strive to follow their consciences as they begin dispensing new pregnancy-ending drugs like RU-486,” said Manion. “A person’s religious beliefs must be respected and accommodated in the workplace. To do anything less is simply wrong and unconstitutional.”

The lawsuit contends that the action taken against Diaz violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution along with provisions in the California Constitution. The complaint contends the County violated her constitutional rights of free speech and violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to accommodate her religious beliefs and terminating her employment.

At the same time, the suit contends that Diaz has suffered and continues to suffer financial loss from the termination and damage to her  professional reputation. The suit requests that the court find the actions of the defendants illegal and unconstitutional and requests unspecified damages. The suit also requests a trial by jury.

The suit names as defendants the County of Riverside Health Services Agency, Kenneth Cohen, the Director of the Agency, and Dr. Gary Feldman, who serves as Director of Public Health and as the Public Health Officer for Riverside County.

The ACLJ is being assisted in this case by Robert Tyler of the firm, Tyler, Dorsa & Eldridge in Temecula, CA.

The American Center for Law and Justice is an  international public interest law firm that specializes in constitutional law and focuses on pro-life, pro-family, and pro-liberty issues. The ACLJ is headquartered in Virginia Beach, VA.

 

Pharmacists threatened with discipline

The deputy registrar of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia has warned that pharmacists who refuse to dispense the ‘morning after pill’ for reasons of conscience are in breach of the College’s code of ethics. She invited anyone refused the pill to report the dissenting pharmacist to the College, presumably with a view to prosecution for a breach of what the deputy registrar called “pharmacy legislation” (The Province). The Project Administrator responded to the article with a letter to the editor.