Category: ChristianityNonCatholic

Committee hearing held on HHS mandate

Representatives of Judaism and Christianity appeared before the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to explain the reasons for their opposition to the Obama administration’s plan to force employers to provide insurance coverage for surgical sterilization, contraceptives, and embryocidal drugs.

Some committee members protested because only two women appeared as witnesses.  However, Dr. Laura Champion explained, “This is not about politics, this is not about contraception, and this is not about depriving women of health care. Rather, this is personal. This is about my daily life as a physician, a Christian, and a Medical Services Director.”

John H. Garvey, President of the Catholic University of America, said that the regulation “makes hypocrites of us all, in the most important lessons we teach.”  Dr. Allison Garrett of Oklahoma Christian University told the Committee that the alternative scheme proposed by the administration “does not present a workable solution. The Administration has not yet proposed anything new. . . All the Administration has offered to do is to discuss the issue further.”

The Committee heard from ten witnesses.

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

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]