Category: Religion

Tough Pill Bill to Swallow

National Catholic Register
Commentary & Opinion
August 25 – 31, 2002

Reproduced with permission

Michael J.  O’Dea*

Regarding “N.Y. ‘Pill Bill’ Puts Church in Tough Spot” (July 28-Aug. 3):

Passage of New York’s Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage (EPICC) bill forces New York’s fully insured health plans to subsidize all FDA-approved contraceptive pills and devices. In addition to violating religious liberty and an individual’s right of conscience, this law undermines parents by expanding government control of American children’s sexual and reproductive health. How dare Ms. (Assemblywoman Deborah) Glick get away with her comments in this article. The bill is not about religious freedom, she says, but about individual choice and health care.

This bill is not about individual choice nor health care. It is about state and federal control of our children and what we finance in health care. This is a totalitarian agenda, proposed by Planned Parenthood and the Alan Guttmacher Institute. How does the Church get out of cooperating with a state law that interferes with parents’ right to shape the conscience of their children? The Catholic Church still does have options   of setting up self insured plans that are regulated by ERISSA, the federal law that frees self-insured health plans from state contraceptive mandates. However, if Sen. Kennedy and Congressman Bonior get their way with S 104 and HR 1111, those options will quickly vanish. President Bush could be forced to use his veto power – or every private and public health insurance plan that has prescription coverage will force employers and individuals, through taxes and insurance premiums, to confidentially fund unhealthy and morally objectionable contraceptive chemicals and devices  for children, without parental consent or knowledge.

In addition to challenging this insidious N.Y. EPICC legislation in the court and teaching the intrinsic evil of contraception, Catholics must unite to establish, administrate and control financing in their own self-insured Catholic health plan. Catholics must also unite with other faith-based organizations and defeat EPICC. If EPICC is not defeated, what will employers and individuals be forced to pay for next – euthanasia, artificial insemination, invitro-fertilization, cloning, and coverage for unmarried and same-sex partners?  America prides itself on assuring parents the opportunity to raise children without government intrusion and interference. A nation with the greatest political freedom is being undermined by a few powerful political interest groups. At this critical time, when the health and welfare of the American family, our nation’s future and our political freedom are all at stake, it is time for allChristians, particularly those in positions of leadership, to take charge of what we pay for in health care and “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is Gods.”

Project Letter to the National Post

Toronto, Ontario, Canada
23 February, 2002

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

A doctor caring for patients in four Ontario cities may be driven from the profession, or from the country,  because he refuses to practise medicine in accordance with the policies of Planned Parenthood (“MD under fire for denying birth control,” National Post, 22 February, 2002). Welcome to the world of single-issue ethics.

Professor Laura Shanner asserts her personal belief that a physician “absolutely must” help patients obtain drugs or procedures to which the physician objects for reasons of conscience. But there is no self-evident reason why her morality should be imposed upon dissenting physicians under threat of  professional excommunication. Nor do mantras like “standard of care” provide useful guidance when the morality of the ‘care’  itself is in issue. Dr. Morgantaler’s standard of care is, in some  respects, markedly different from that of Physicians for Life. The standard of care in Oregon includes assisted suicide, and in the Netherlands, euthanasia.

On the other hand, John Hof is mistaken in his suggestion that conscientious objectors may refuse to  prescribe contraceptives in order to meet the “spiritual needs” of their patients. People do not go to the doctor to  satisfy their spiritual needs, and physicians should not assume the role of spiritual director.

Conscientious objection arises from concern about one’s own moral culpability, not that of others. It is a matter of personal integrity, not an attempt to control someone else’s behaviour. The unfortunate situation in Barrie may be the result of an infelicitous explanation that failed to make this clear.

Project Letter to the Barrie Examiner

Barrie, Ontario, Canada
22 February, 2002

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Continuing attempts to suppress the freedom of conscience of health care workers like Dr. Stephen Dawson (“Doctor’s Faith Under Scrutiny,” The Barrie Examiner February 21, 2002) give the lie to the claim, oft repeated by Canadian politicians, that protection of conscience legislation is unnecessary. Perhaps their complacent attitude reflects the influence of rigid party discipline that only rarely permits them  the ‘privilege’ of voting according to conscience.

Professor J.R. Brown of the University of Toronto appears to covet the role of party whip, ready to lash or to exile recalcitrant ‘scum’ like Dr. Dawson for daring to let their beliefs affect their public behaviour.

Yet Professor Brown’s private beliefs affected his public behaviour when he asserted that people like Dr. Dawson should “find another job.” Will Professor Brown take his own advice? Or will he continue to speak, act and live in accordance with his own beliefs, even as he denies the same freedom to others who think differently – those whom he characterizes as ‘scum’?

Thoughtful readers will recognize that their relationships and their political and social activities are almost always governed, not by an analysis of empirical evidence, but by deeply held convictions about human dignity and equality, about good and evil, and other equally fundamental concepts. Some of these beliefs may be religious, others not, but all are beliefs. There is no reason, apart from anti-religious bigotry, to allow only atheists and agnostics the freedom to act on their beliefs in public life.

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