Fired EMT Sues After Refusing to Transport Woman for Abortion

LifeNews.com ^ | 5/11/04 | Maria Gallagher

[wagglebee]

Elmhurst, IL (LifeNews.com) -- In a case that has attracted national attention, a lawsuit has been filed against an Illinois ambulance service that fired a worker who refused to transport a woman to an abortion center.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which specializes in constitutional law cases, filed a federal suit against the Elmhurst, Illinois company, claiming that company officials violated Stephanie Adamson's rights by firing her for her religious beliefs.

"This is a case where an employer fired an employee for acting in accordance with her religious beliefs by refusing to become a participant in an abortion," said ACLJ attorney Frances J. Manion.

"Our client became an EMT (emergency medical technician) because she wanted to save lives, not take lives," Manion said.

The target of the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago, is Superior Ambulance Service, where Adamson was hired in 2003.

In August of that year, Adamson, 35, responded to a non-emergency call at Mt. Sinai Hospital. There, she was instructed to transport a woman to an abortion center near Cook County Hospital to have an abortion.

Once Adamson confirmed the nature of the assignment, she made it clear that she could not aid a woman to have an abortion because of her pro-life religious beliefs.

A second crew was called to the scene to transport the woman and Adamson was subsequently fired by a supervisor.

"Under both federal employment discrimination laws and Illinois state laws, employers cannot simply fire an employee who objects to participating in a medical procedure that is contrary to the employee's religious beliefs," the ACLJ's Manion said.

"Unfortunately, in this case the company acted in a manner that violated federal and state law and we are confident that the court will ultimately correct this injustice and move to safeguard her rights," he added.

The ambulance company claims that Adamson was fired because she jeopardized a patient's safety by refusing to transport the woman to an abortion center.

But a number of medical experts say that abortion itself can be extremely harmful to a woman's physical and psychological health, leading to possible complications which can even include death.

According to the company, the patient suffered from severe abdominal pain. Company officials claim that, as a result of the delay caused by Adamson's actions, the patient was transported to the emergency room instead of the abortion center.

However, pro-life observers note that if the patient needed medical care, it was appropriate to take her to a hospital rather than to a facility that performs abortions.

In a written statement, officials at Superior Ambulance Service said, "Emergency medical technicians must perform their duties without regard to their own or their patients’ social, political, or religious beliefs."

But Adamson's legal counsel says that the EMT did not give up her Constitutional rights when she went to work for the ambulance company.

Adamson, a resident of Odell, Illinois, first took her case to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued her a notice of right to sue in February of 2004.

According to the lawsuit, the ambulance service violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 along with the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act.

Adamson is seeking a jury trial. She is also asking for damages for loss of income and benefits, along with compensatory and punitive damages.

"The fact is that other arrangements were made to transport this patient to an abortion clinic and our client should not have been punished for exercising her sincerely-held religious beliefs," Manion said.

"Under the circumstances of this case, there was simply no reason why Stephanie Adamson had to be the one who delivered this patient to the abortion clinic," Manion added. "The law is designed to protect -- not punish -- employees who hold religious beliefs.

"We are hopeful that this suit sends a strong message to employers that they must work to accommodate employees who hold religious beliefs rather than discriminate against them," Manion added.

[wagglebee]

"This is a case where an employer fired an employee for acting in accordance with her religious beliefs by refusing to become a participant in an abortion,"

I guess freedom of religion is only valid if it condones murdering babies.

[cyborg]

This article is very strange. First of all, why did a woman need an ambulance to transport her to an abortion clinic? Second, why did a DRIVER need the personal details of someone's medical information? Very odd.

[livius]

I hope somebody else hires her ASAP. She has ethics and a conscience.

[livius]

One of my daughters was a paramedic. Among certain groups (welfare recipients) calling an ambulance is as normal as calling a taxi would be for the rest of us. The fact that transportation use for non-urgent proceedures is technically forbidden and ambulance companies do not get reimbursed by either the federal or local governments for such services doesn't matter to people who have never had to pay for a thing in their lives.

I would assume that the person in question dialed 911 and announced that she had an emergency, and then told the ambulance personnel that she "needed" to go to the hospital for an abortion.

BTW, there are usually two people on an ambulance, and one of them functions as the driver. It might be an EMT and a paramedic, or any combination thereof, depending on local requirements. But they are both professionals, and usually either one can function as the driver.

[Prime Choice]

Now if this was a Muslim refusing to transport girls to school, you just know the ACLU attorneys would be falling all over themselves to defend HIS "religious freedom"...

[Tabi Katz]

That would be a very interesting scenario indeed, pitting the ACLU directly against their good friends in NOW.

[dts32041]

Wonder if the Welfare Recipient's name was Lisa Madigian?

[ValerieUSA]

It sounds entirely possible to me that this ambulance driver saved the woman's lifde by refusing to take her to an abortion clinic when she was in pain and needed better medical treatment. The call from the hospital personnel to have an ambulance transport the woman away from their care is suspect.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

First of all, why did a woman need an ambulance to transport her to an abortion clinic?

Man, "poor" people get transported to the emergency room all the time to treat headaches and hangnails. All they have to do is dial 911 and here they come. It's illegal for 911 to refuse aid to anyone.

"Poor" people consider ambulances to be free taxis.

[massiveblob]

This is dumb, if the person that told her knew that she was just going to use it for an abortion then why did they even bother to send an ambulance. Wonder what happened to the person requesting the ambulance. What were the severe abdominal pain, and did what happened to the baby?

[massiveblob]

Thought you might be interested.

[cavan]

"our client should not have been punished for exercising her sincerely-held religious beliefs,"

Great, and if we are injured, should we have to worry that your next holier than thou client will be a Seventh Day Adventist who won't give us a transfusion?

[cyborg]

true...I forgot :(

[cyborg]

thanks for the fill-in... sheesh you know I forget myself and how people behave.

[kstewskis]

Can you ping your lists? Interesting article.

[Polycarp IV]

PING!

[Dianna]

In August of that year, Adamson, 35, responded to a non-emergency call at Mt. Sinai Hospital. There, she was instructed to transport a woman to an abortion center near Cook County Hospital to have an abortion.

It sounds like an ambulance was needed to transport the woman from one hospital to another.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

This story makes no sense. The transport was from a hospital to an abortion clinic. If it was a medical emergency the patient would have stayed at the hospital. The abdominal pain angle makes no sense. In that case, the patient would not be transferred to a lower level of care.

This sounds like patient dumping or someone in need of a taxi ride. Even disregarding religious considerations, this call should have been refused. This was an abuse of the system.

[cyborg]

thanks... hospital transfers are usually done in ambulettes,etc. I think. It's not her job to be making such judgments about a patient's condition seeing as how she is not a OB-GYN. Flame away if anyone must.