Sunday, November 13, 2011
Abortion and Free Exercise
Danquah v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
Two weeks ago, a group of nurses filed lawsuit against the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) claiming the hospital was requiring them to undergo training that involved assisting in the procedure of abortion. These nurses claimed that this requirement violated their free exercise rights. The nurses stated that refusal to take part in the procedure would lead to their termination. Attorneys for the hospital notified a federal judge in Newark on Thursday that the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey will not require the nurses to participate in the training if they object on religious grounds before a November 18th court hearing.
I believe that there was no violation of the free exercise clause here. UMDNJ requires all students to undergo a complete training process that is not specifically tailored to one’s religious affiliation. Most training programs are set up in a way that if not all the areas are completed or passed, the individuals are unlikely to be hired or considered for employment. If there is a profound objection to participating in the actual abortion procedure itself due to a religious belief, the University should perhaps develop a means of communicating this requirement to students and employees more effectively before they enroll into the school.
I believe UMDNJ could have and should have handled this situation better and not threatened termination of nurses if they refused the practice. However, these individuals are expected and held to the standards of being fully trained in all areas (including abortion procedures). The University is responsible for training their students, and it would be a slippery slope to start making exemptions to the training process based on people’s religious beliefs. We would then all be stuck with doctors and nurses who are unequally trained in different areas limiting the effectiveness of the system. If there is such a profound objection to participating in the training of abortions alone, in addition to the actual procedure, then these individuals should reconsider the field in which they are pursuing. There are other medical positions they may take up that do not require participation in abortion procedures. In the actual instance of an abortion procedure, if the nurse on staff refuses to take part in the process then the hospital will be inadequately able to provide public assistance. This is a scenario likely to exist if doctors and nurses have the opportunity to choose who and what they provide help for.
Hospitals are public institutions, many of which receive state funding. Allowing doctors and nurses to opt out of procedures based on religious beliefs would be entangling itself within the separation of church and state. In this situation, I am going to need to support a strict separationist attitude and say that any exemptions made on a religious basis would be unconstitutional. I could see the policies of this hospital being ridiculed for threatening the termination of employees based on their religion; however, I do not see this case falling in full support of the nurses because it would be unconstitutional and go directly against the separation of church and state. What do you think? Do you feel that UMDNJ has violated the free exercise clause by threatening the termination of employees who refuse to take a part in the abortion procedure?
Tags:
0 Responses to “Abortion and Free Exercise”
Post a Comment