Catherine DeCarlo claims she was forced by a New York hospital to participate in an abortion.
Posted on 11/23/2010 4:44:02 PM PST by Pyro7480
Today the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Catholic nurse who was forced by a New York hospital to participate in an abortion does not have the right to sue her employer.
Administrators at Mt. Sinai Hospital had threatened Catherine DeCarlo with disciplinary measures in May 2009 if she did not honor a last-minute summons to assist in a scheduled late-term abortion. The hospital insisted on her participation in the procedure on the grounds that it was an “emergency.”
Lawyers for DeCarlo, however, have pointed out that the procedure was not classified by the hospital as an emergency, and the patient was apparently not in crisis at the time of the surgery.
DeCarlo claims that her participation in the abortion led to serious emotional trauma. She also claims that hospital administrators later attempted to coerce her into signing an agreement to participate in abortions in the future.
The hospital had reportedly known of the Catholic nurse’s religious objections to abortion since 2004.
Alliance Defence Fund (ADF) attorneys had filed two suits in the case – one federal, filed in July 2009, and another state, filed earlier this year. The federal suit claimed that Mt. Sinai ignored federal laws prohibiting coercion while receiving hundred of millions of dollars in federal funding.
In January the case was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, at which point it was appealed to the Second Circuit....
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Catherine DeCarlo claims she was forced by a New York hospital to participate in an abortion.
Catholic ping!
I would have said, no. Period. They could fire me, I wouldn’t care.
“threatened Catherine DeCarlo with disciplinary measures”
That is not forced. Pressured, yes. But this is short of force.
bump to read later
bump to read later
She was no forced. They did not physically force her to participate. She was given an implied or explicit choice. She could have given up her job. If she believes strongly enough to sue then she should have sacrificed her job rather than be part of taking a life.
>>That is not forced. Pressured, yes. But this is short of force.<<
Ya got that right.
This woman chose to participate in murdering a baby to save her job.
Wonder how that 30 pieces of silver feel.
When laws are no longer Just we have no Justice. When laws are no longer moral, we have an illegitimate government and are being ruled over by despots.
If this court had argued in one of those cases that the discrimination could happen without any remedy to the aggrieved they would be labeled racists and hounded out of the courts, or at least prevented from rising any higher.
“She was no forced. They did not physically force her to participate. She was given an implied or explicit choice. She could have given up her job. If she believes strongly enough to sue then she should have sacrificed her job rather than be part of taking a life.”
Economic coercion can be as forceful as physical coercion. Her choice would have been the equivalent of saying you can keep both your hands and do the abortion or lose one. She probably would not have lost just her job but her career as well. That is pretty rough.
>>She probably would not have lost just her job but her career as well. That is pretty rough.<<
Rough?
Wonder how the baby felt?
So...do I understand this right...?
The court pointed out that just because it’s against the law for the hospital to discriminate, that doesn’t mean the law says she can get cash for it? But that it also said she has the right to pursue state discrimination claims, etc...?
IANAL...are there any around who can put this into context? Is this common reasoning of the federal judiciary?
You are right and it is criminal that she was put in this position. I do not understand how any court could rule that she had no standing. Her religious stance was well known, if the hospital had a problem with it they should have told her so long ago. She was ambushed, pure and simple.
Ever thought they told her to do this during a particularly weak moment for her, a she regrets what she has done, and now is calling this hospital out in the courts to protect medical workers’ religious beliefs?
(And if she has been forgiven by God— if so, who are we to keep throwing stones at her?)
I’m praying God will turn this court case into something good—to help save babies’ lives and keep good nurses-— if anyone can, He can do it.
You said it all for me! I’m getting too used to the “like” button on facebook
This is nothing short of a violation of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. It is coercing one to abandon one’s faith. This arrogance of the Gov’t will be its ultimate undoing.
The US is an anti-God nation no longer bound by the precepts the Founders affirmed. As such it probably isn’t a moral union anyway having dissolved the foundational principles that originally bound the real parties to the Constitution - the sovereign States. Particularly repugnant are the liberal hell-holes known as the Northeast and the West Coast (western CA, Ore, Wash).
Long live Texas and, if it pleases God, may it successfully survive the ultimate self-destruction of the US.
Me too!
We need a Like button here.
But if she were a Muslim forced to work in the presence of pork products, she’d own the place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.