Month: October 2002

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.

Pluralism, Religion and Public Policy

Preston Manning*

An address delivered at the McGill University conference on Pluralism, Religion and Public Policy.

People of faith – and there are millions of such people in Canada – need guidelines on how to bring faith perspectives to bear on public policy in a winsome rather than an offensive way. And public policy makers in our pluralistic society – many of whom regard faith perspectives with suspicion if not outright hostility – need to learn how to incorporate such perspectives into their deliberations rather than exclude them. . . 
Full Text