Category: United States

Testimony of pharmacist re: Wisconsin Senate Bill 21

Before the Senate Labour Committee
Wisconsin

 Yvonne Klubertanz R.Ph.

The physician was adamant that I had to fill whatever he prescribed, even though I explained my conscience would not allow me to do that. He threatened that my supervisor would find out about this, and I feared that my job could be in jeopardy. I was harassed for my beliefs, and my dignity as a person was attacked.

Thank you for being here to listen to my testimony in support of SB 21. As a pharmacist licensed in the state of WI, I have experienced first hand the fear of being fired for my religious, moral, or ethical beliefs, and realize how important this bill is for the future of pharmacy. First let me explain the current state of the pharmacy profession.

As you may know, there is a shortage of health care workers. Pharmacists, especially, are in very high demand. If pharmacists are being fired or not allowed equal opportunities because they object to dispensing medications that cause abortions or death of an individual person, we are doing society and our great State of Wisconsin an injustice. [Full text]

 

Pro-life nurse reaches settlement agreement with Oregon health department over request for religious accommodation, abortion

Rutherford Institute Attorneys, Health Department Agree on Resolution to Implement New Policies

Salem, Ore.— Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have reached a mutually agreeable resolution with the Marion County Health Department on behalf of Janice Turner, a public health nurse who lost her job with the health department due to her deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception. The settlement agreement provides for the enactment of two new policies.  The first policy guarantees that all clients who receive emergency contraception, a.k.a. “the morning after pill,” will be informed in easily understandable terms that it functions by preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum if conception has already occurred. The second policy, a general statement of employees’ rights to religious belief and expression within the workplace, prevents discrimination based upon religious or moral beliefs regarding abortion or contraception and requires the health department to accommodate those beliefs.  Patterned after existing Conscience Clause legislation, this policy ensures that employees who refuse to accept job duties that contradict their religious or moral beliefs regarding abortion or contraception can do so without fear of being fired, demoted, transferred or disciplined.

Turner, who worked for 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 or information about abortion to another nurse. 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 with patients as “a method of contraception that will prevent a pregnancy” and discouraged the nurses from referencing 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 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. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed a complaint in Janice Turner’s behalf last year in U.S. District Court.

“This is a timely issue which brings to light the importance of protecting health care workers’ rights, especially those who have sincerely held religious beliefs regarding abortion,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.  “It is also heartening to see that women, some of whom may have religious beliefs against taking an abortifacient, will be given complete information regarding the effect of the morning-after pill on a possibly fertilized ovum and its medical implications.”

The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.

Nisha N. Mohammed Ph: (434) 978-3888, ext. 604;
Pager: 800-946-4646, Pin #: 1478257
Email: Nisha N. Mohammed

Louisiana Health Dept. Reverses Itself In “Morning-After” Pill Case

State Agrees To Provide Religious Accommodation For Nurse After Discrimination Complaint Filed With EEOC

News Release

American Center for Law and Justice

(New Orleans, LA) – The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm committed to protecting life, announced today that the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals has reversed itself and has now agreed to stop discriminating against a public health nurse from New Orleans who was threatened with termination for refusing to dispense pregnancy-ending medication – a job requirement that violates her deeply held religious beliefs.

The move comes less than one week after the ACLJ filed formal complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Louisiana Commission on Human Rights contending that Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals is discriminating against the nurse because of her religious beliefs.

“We’re delighted that the religious beliefs of our client will now be accommodated in the workplace,” said Stuart J. Roth, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, which is representing the nurse. “From the beginning, our client just wanted to do her job without violating her conscience and her religious beliefs. Unfortunately, it took formal action on our behalf and publicity about the case before the state agreed to do what it should have done all along – stop threatening and criticizing our client and permit her to work without violating her religious beliefs.

Last week, the ACLJ filed complaints with the EEOC and the Louisiana Commission on Human Rights on behalf of Cynthia Day of Marrero, Louisiana who is employed as a Public Health Nurse III with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Office of Public Health at a clinic in New Orleans. The complaints contend that Day repeatedly told her supervisors that she could not dispense what is known as an emergency contraception pill, also known as a “morning-after” pill – medication designed to end pregnancies. Day says she holds a sincere religious belief that human life, beginning at fertilization, is sacred and cannot be harmed in any way.

But instead of accommodating her beliefs, the complaints contend that Day was criticized for her beliefs and threatened with being fired. In fact, as the complaints were being filed last week, Day received a disciplinary letter from her employer – a letter proposing a five-day suspension without pay for insubordination.

Then, within days of filing the complaints and following publicity about the case, Day received a letter from Madeline W. McAndrew, Assistant Secretary of the Dept. of Health and Hospitals. In the letter dated October 25th, McAndrew said the Health Department “is rescinding the proposed action and will accommodate your request based on religious and moral grounds.” McAndrew told Day that she instructed officials to “immediately remove you from any duties that require you to discuss or provide the emergency contraception pill.” At the same time, McAndrew stated that a listing of “reassignment opportunities” will be made available to Day “for future permanent duty assignments to accommodate your request …”

“We plan to withdraw the complaints filed with the EEOC and with the Louisiana Commission on Human Rights when our client receives the accommodation,” said Roth. “We will continue to work with our client to ensure that her religious beliefs are accommodated and monitor the ongoing employment status very closely to make sure she is not discriminated against in the workplace.”

“This is a very important victory in one of the fastest growing areas of pro-life litigation – protecting the conscience rights of health care workers,” said Roth.

The resolution of the Louisiana case comes on the heels of a major federal court decision in California. In May 2002, the ACLJ successfully convinced a jury that Riverside County violated the constitutional rights of a former nurse who was fired from her job for refusing to dispense “morning-after” medication. A federal court jury found that the county violated her First Amendment rights of free speech, freedom of religion, and failed to reasonably accommodate her religious beliefs. Damages in that case – including a jury award and attorney’s fees – totaled $100,000.

The American Center for Law and Justice is an international public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law and protecting human life. The ACLJ is headquartered in Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.

No More Pro-Choice Movement

US Conference of Catholic Bishops
11 October, 2002

Reproduced with permission

Richard M.  Doerflinger*

Once there were basically two sides to the abortion debate.

One side said that, whatever the moral status of unborn life may be, a woman and her physician must be free to make a choice about abortion. The other side said that, whatever value the struggle for greater freedom may have in other contexts, responsible freedom for women and physicians must stop short     of destroying the life of an innocent child. Not surprisingly, these sides called themselves “pro-choice” and “pro-life” respectively.

Those were simpler times. For however useful these labels once were, it’s becoming ridiculous to refer to abortion advocacy groups as “pro-choice.”

This was already clear to anyone following the debate on U.S. funding of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) a few months ago. President Bush ultimately decided not to give this group any funds this year, because it helps the Chinese government implement a population program that uses coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization. His decision was greeted by howls of protest from pro-abortion groups, who ditched their commitment to women’s “reproductive freedom” to defend their allies in the population control movement.

More recently the coerced-abortion agenda has come home to guide domestic policy. When the House of Representatives debated a modest measure called the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA) last month, the idea that each individual should have “freedom to choose” whether to be involved in abortion was denounced as heresy by “pro-choice” groups.

ANDA builds on a law that Congress passed in 1996 to protect medical residency programs from being forced by government bodies to provide abortions or abortion training. It clarifies and extends that law to make sure that this protection covers the full range of health care providers, so everyone can make his or her own conscientious decision whether to  participate in abortions. But to hear pro-abortion spokespersons talk, you would have thought that abortion was about to be declared a capital crime.     If  women can only get abortions from those actually willing to provide them,  they seemed to say, there will be almost no abortions  – an interesting comment on how widely accepted abortion is in the medical profession!

Pro-abortion groups opposed every aspect of this bill — including its effort to extend the conscience protection now enjoyed by doctors to cover other health professionals, such as nurses, who are mostly female. In opposing this modest step toward equal treatment, abortion advocates managed  to promote an agenda that was anti-life, “anti-choice,” and anti-woman all at the same time. Fortunately most House members ignored their tirades and approved the bill, which now goes to the Senate.

One bumper sticker produced by pro-abortion groups says: “Against abortion?     Don’t have one.” That slogan always ignored the unborn child, who has no opportunity to choose not to “have one.” But now women and doctors may join  the child in having their choice disregarded, unless pro-life legislators are vigilant.

Against abortion? If you’re in China, have one anyway. If you’re a health professional in the U.S., perform one anyway. Oddly, that is now what being  “pro-choice” is all about.

A Doctor’s Choice

The Washington Times
25 September, 2002.
Reproduced with permission

Dick Armey

Dick Armey was the Majority Leader (Republican)  in the U.S. House of Representatives when the following opinion column was written.

The vast majority of all hospitals – public and private – do not get involved in abortion. In fact, 86 percent of all hospitals did not  perform a single abortion last year.

There is a reason for that. Most  health care providers are interested in protecting and saving human life, not taking it. Government shouldn’t force them to take part in  actions – such as performing abortions – against their beliefs, morals or religion.

In 1996, Congress enacted legislation ending state and federal discrimination against health care providers that do not perform abortions.  In a series of court opinions and rulings, activist  judges are flouting the will of Congress and ordering hospitals, not to promote life, but to end it.  They are telling doctors and nurses to suspend their most strongly held beliefs and perform a practice so heinous that even progressive  hospitals have rejected.

So today, the House of Representatives will consider the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA)  and right the wrong perpetrated by liberal courts.  The bill signals Congress’ intent in one simple yet powerful message – no health care provider should ever be forced to do something that violates their moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.

While there is deep disagreement in America about whether abortion  should be legal, nearly all Americans would agree that no one should be forced to have an abortion or to perform an abortion if they don’t want to. That, however, hasn’t stopped some on the extreme fringe of this  issue from trying to force hospitals to provide abortions anyway.

Valley Hospital in Palmer, Alaska, is one such example. Located about 50  miles east of Anchorage, the hospital’s board implemented a policy in 1990 barring abortion procedures except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.  The hospital was sued, and a judge arbitrarily ruled that because Valley Hospital received some government money, it was a “quasi-government entity” and had to provide         abortions. The hospital appealed the case to the Alaska Supreme Court, citing a state law that protected its right of conscience.  The Supreme Court ruled against the hospital and, in one fell swoop, threw out the state’s conscience law.

Congress’ conscience guarantees were also overturned in New Jersey. When Rancocas Hospital in Willingboro, N.J., was purchased by Our Lady of Lourdes Healthcare Services, a new policy was instituted against  performing abortions. Our Lady of Lourdes, as the name suggests, is a Catholic agency, and the Catholic church believes abortion is wrong.  The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey sued. It argued that  if Our Lady of Lourdes didn’t want to allow abortions in its hospital, it should provide a separate building on the hospital’s campus for  that purpose. This, obviously, made no sense to the hospital. The ACLU also argued that the hospital was duty-bound to provide abortions because its original mission statement called for “comprehensive” health care services. The ACLU conveniently forgot that when the mission statement was written in 1961, abortion was a felony.

So much is at stake in this bill. Without its passage, the viability and integrity of our country’s health care system are in jeopardy. In this age of managed care and  skyrocketing health care costs, hospitals are merging in order to survive. If courts demand that pro-abortion policies be a condition of merging – as a number already have – there will be fewer of these cost-saving partnerships.

Many of these alliances involve denominational hospitals – hospitals  principally organized to serve the poor and needy. They have been and will continue to be the first victims of court-imposed abortion mandates, for in many cases they cannot practice medicine at all under these conditions.  The poor and vulnerable will be the ultimate casualties when these facilities have to close.