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 ...
I’ve asked Santa for a “like” button. Seriously, there are some FReepers who say things so well......
And this nurse should have walked out, flat out left. Murder or job....not a hard call.
There is not a grey area here. You either go along with it or you don’t. If it is a requirement of your job then you should not be in that job. If it means welfare and losing your house, so be it. She was not forced. Inducement is not an excuse.
You and I aren’t on the same side in this story. I would have rather scragged the administrator and his family than hung around ~
I’m afraid that she would have had to specifically refuse to comply and been fired to show damages.
I think the lesson is to insist on doing the right thing, and let the chips fall where they may.
If you'd like I'd be happy to demonstrate the point with you as the person being coerced.
First, sign a release.
We are clinging to the debris that was once our Republic. It is amazing how some can rationalize this. So, she can quit instead of participating? If she was Muslim, would the same thing happen. We have been dumbed down to the point that we no longer recognize the loss of our freedoms as Americans!
I’m outraged that she assisted.
Not to mention, she would have had a real case if she let them actually punish her for not participating. She participated at will. There’s no case.
I believe she said she was told it was an emergency. The Catholic Church will allow abortion in the case of risk to the life of the mother. We do not know if the “emergency” was specified to her. However it is reasonable to think no doctor would consider calling an abortion an emergency, unless it really was. So either it was a legitimate emergency or it was not an emergency I believe she was lied to and should have standing.JMHO
THANK YOU! What a weak woman.
“There is not a grey area here. You either go along with it or you don’t. If it is a requirement of your job then you should not be in that job. If it means welfare and losing your house, so be it. She was not forced. Inducement is not an excuse.”
You are correct in that there is not a gray area here, the lady was coerced. You are also correct in saying “Inducement is not an excuse”, she was not induced however, she was coerced.
Just thank God that no one has induced or coerced you in such a decision. It is always easy to say someone else should have given up their property or livelihood for a cause. I and you have made the conscious decision to allow abortion clinics to operate unfettered by us because we will not give up our lifestyles to defend the unborn...so who are we to judge someone who would have had to give up so much? And, she is doing her best to fight abortion with her legal action, something I doubt you have and I know I have never brought against abortion.
Her life was not threatened. She was not tied up to the operating table. Her arm was not yanked up behind her back. Would you shoot your neighbor’s golden retriever because you would lose your job if you didn’t?
I have been put in a similar position before. The choice is not easy but it is a CHOICE. One can walk away from doing evil.
I have been there. There is no excuse.
>>And this nurse should have walked out, flat out left. Murder or job....not a hard call.<<
Amen.
I’d live on the streets before I would be assisting in an abortion.
Let alone a Late Term one.
They deserve the death penalty (in any just society). I'd be happy to throw the switch on them.
How about you? Think these people should be able to just walk away from this like that?
Look, I have not compromised with these people and have no intention of doing so. At the same time they have all the guns and as demonstrated in the Paul Hill case they intend to use them (or the equivalents thereof). They are a brutal bunch and until we can outnumber them we are kind of stuck with them ~ but their day is coming to an end.
This is not true. The Church opposes all direct abortions, whatever the rationalization. However, loss of an unborn child as a "secondary effect" is not condemned. Such an case would be death of the baby as a consequence of surgery on the mother. One example I've read is removal of fallopian tube while an embryo is implanted in an ectopic pregnancy. Further reading.
Without more detail of the "emergency" claim, it's hard to say how this case would be weighed morally.
We have to put up with them but we don’t have to kill for them.
She was a coward. It’s like blaming the SS for forcing you to shoot Jews.
Looking further at various causes, as a lay person, I didn't find late term surgical abortion, rather than delivery, as a listed treatment.
Before this case the nurse was only involved in cases where the fetus had died in utero and miscarriages. Her views were known to the hospital.
From my understanding of the case, I believe the courts are wrong and the onus was on the hospital to have another nurse available for this live baby abortion.
It's difficult to know without the full case record but it appears to have been an instance of discrimination and concerted effort compelling her to compromise her religious views. I wouldn't be surprised if pro-aborts conspired at her workplace to break her. It's a sad case for the killed baby, the nurse, medical and business ethics.
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.