Sandra Rojas is a nurse in the Illinois Winnebago County
public health system and is fighting for her job as after 18 years was fired byher new supervisor after she refused to perform abortions due to her pro-life
stance on account of her Christian faith. She is being represented by the
Alliance Defending Freedom which is fighting back against an Illinois state law
called the Health Care Right of Conscience Act that “forces pro-life medical
professionals- even those in pro-life clinics to refer patients for abortion
and counsel as to the undefined benefits of abortion.” There are many complexities
in medicine under the Hippocratic Oath in which it will be argued by Ms. Rojas
that she took a pledge to “do no harm,” and if she felt abortion was harmful,
she should not be forced to perform or help out in the procedure. There are
conflicting violations as the county will argue that she must, as a state
employee must follow the law brought down by the state but her right to free
exercise outweigh the interests of the state considering how they could get
another medical professional to do the procedure if she didn’t wish to do so.
The court will look to weigh the issues between the state and Ms. Rojas and
decide whether she was wrongfully terminated.
Being forced to provide abortions provides an undue burden
towards Ms. Rojas, and the situation of her previous experience as a nurse
should be a precedent. Her 18-year career under the law that granted abortions
was ok until a new supervisor felt it was reasonable to terminate her due to
her disagreement with the abortion law. For 18 years the county likely sent
pregnant women who decided to have abortions too, medical professionals who
were willing to do the procedure, while granting Rojas a religious exemption.
Rojas here does not seek to challenge the abortion law however she aims to
establish her rights under free exercise to personally take part in the
abortion procedure while allowing others within her profession to conduct the
operation. The judge in the case was correct in allowing the case to proceed
after shooting down claims from the county of governmental immunity in forcing
Rojas and other pro-life nurses to adhere to its new policy. The judge seems if
the case makes trial will likely award damages to Rojas for wrongful
termination and or grant her a religious exemption allowing her to go back to
work. The judge will possibly strike down Illinois recent law called Health
Care and Right of Conscience Act which now punishes Rojas and other healthcare
professionals from refusing to take part in medical procedures no matter their
beliefs. The new iteration of the law though was passed after she was fired and
required all medical professionals to provide abortions and refer patients to
abortions no matter their beliefs. Because of this Ms. Rojas and her legal team
believe they have a legitimate shot at winning this case to get damages or even
her job back.
This is a critical case to medical professionals everywhere
who are pro-life as the legal issue is what should be of most importance.
Morally I would side with the state as Ms. Rojas has a duty as an employee of
the county to follow their rules and adhere to their policies separating their
beliefs for the wellbeing of the patients. However, this on legal grounds the
county was wrong to terminate her and should have granted a religious exemption
as it would not create a significant burden to the county to merely have other
nurses assist in abortions procedures without forcing Ms. Rojas to decide
between her career or religious beliefs. Rojas has established a religious
opposition to all abortions and should be accommodated accordingly since the
county is the procedure doesn’t have immediate life or death consequences as a
nurse in the ER Trauma unit might have in which there is no time to refuse.
Winnebago County fired her under there new hospital policy during which state
law did not support them, and thus the judge should rule that termination was
unlawful considering at the point of termination she was in adherence to
Illinois law concerning the right to consciously object on religious grounds.
Ms. Rojas was denied the right to serve her entire career admirably and was
wrongfully terminated but if this case does go to trial expect to see the judge
right this wrongful firing and award Ms. Rojas the proper dignity to finish out
her career.
In this case, I think Ms. Rojas has the right under the First Amendment to negate her role in abortions, due to her religious beliefs. Her establishing a role where she doesn't want to participate or help out in abortions doesn't hinder patients ability to get the abortions because they could easily get access to another medical professional who is willing to perform it. State interest in this case is not big enough to outweigh her constitutional rights, therefore she should be given a religious exemption or a wrongful termination verdict. The grounds for wrongful termination as you stated are there because I think for her to have an 18 year career and then suddenly a new supervisor fires her, could add evidence to bias on the supervisors part. She deserves to be able to keep her job, and receive compensation for the period she was fired for.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that Ms. Roja's religious beliefs should exempt her from participating in this procedure since the act of getting an abortion fundamentally violates her beliefs and performing this act would make her choose between defying her religion and keeping her job. However, I think that another nurse would have to take her place and the woman who needs the abortion should not be denied the procedure entirely just because Ms. Roja refuses to participate. While I stand by this opinion, I can see how this type of medical professional religious exemption could lead to a slippery slope in emergency situations...If a doctor must perform immediate surgery on someone but the surgery must take place on this doctor's religious holiday would he or she be obligated to choose between a patient's life and the doctor'a personal practice of religion? In this life or death scenario, I would argue a medical professional's duty to their occupation should be weighted more heavily than his or her free religious exercise. I think Ms. Roja's case is not as extreme since there are other individuals who can carry out the procedure in a timely manner.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Ms.Rojas termination is not wrongful as she is refusing to preform part of her job that she is hired to do. The clinic she works in performs abortions, if she is unwilling to perform abortions, she is considered unable to do her job, just as anyone unqualified would be and should be terminated. I agree with Katarina as she suggests that by granting Ms.Rojas an exemption this could lead to a slippery slope, but my version suggests a slippery slope of discrimination. Some people, who could very well be doctors, believe that gay marriage and members of LGBTQ communities go against their religious beliefs, does this mean that they should be denied rightful medical care as the doctor's beliefs do not align with theirs?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Justis' comment. To suggest that Ms. Rojas should be forced to perform an abortion is absurd. From my understanding after reading Harrison's post and looking up the case, she is not working at an abortion clinic, rather she is working as a pediatric nurse for the Winnebago County public health system. It would be one thing if she was working for Planned Parenthood or another abortion clinic and was refusing to perform abortions, but again she's not. Medical professionals should not be forced to give treatment or even refer treatments they feel is antithetical to their morals and religion.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the idea of a slippery slope, there is an inherent difference between refusing to perform an abortion and refusing to treat an individual because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. The main difference is here the actual abortion.
I believe that the state was justified in terminating Rojas. As a medical professional working for the state, she has a duty to perform abortions even if it goes against her personal beliefs.
ReplyDeleteA state funded medical center needs to adhere to it's own laws and accepted practices. Religious or not, an employee of the state must do her job.
It may have worked out fine for the patient in this case because there were other professionals that could help, but what about a government clinic in the middle of the bible belt? What if all of the medical professionals claimed religious exemptions from having to perform abortions? Does that just mean the woman is out of luck? No, it absolutely shouldn't.
For a private practice, I believe the issue is debatable, but for someone on a government payroll, there is a duty to represent the will of the people and practice as such.
I agree with Max's comment. Her religion should give her exemption, even if the law and supervisor change. If she worked as a pediatric nurse at the same location for 18 years, it appears she is a devoted employee and to terminate her for a belief which is an integral part of her religion and something she stood by for 18 years, it seems to fit the criteria of a wrongful termination. Sending someone for an abortion to a different nurse at that same health system or another location, that burden does not seem to be equivalent to terminating someone for a belief.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with the slippery slope comment, in many cases, I think the slippery slope concept plays a major factor, I do not believe this case to be one of them. There is a significant difference between deciding to perform an abortion and
I think that Rojas was well within her rights to refuse to perform abortions on the basis of her religious beliefs. If she believes that her religion prevents her from performing abortions, it would be an infringement on her right to free exercise to fire her for not agreeing to give abortions. I do, however, agree with Katarina's comment in particular the part about getting another nurse to perform the abortion for the patient at the time they come into the office. As long as Rojas is not trying to force a patient out of getting an abortion altogether, I do not think that she is in the wrong for refusing to perform an abortion. Forcing her to perform abortions would be an unconstitutional burden on her religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThis case is extremely interesting, and it deals with similar precedence that the Cake-shop ant T-shirt cases we talked about dealt with, in which businesses (or in this case, a duty of her profession) can decide whether or not to fulfill something they have been asked to despite it being in violation with their religious beliefs. I would say that in no situation, on moral or legal grounds, this nurse should be required to perform an abortion, not should she be terminated as a result. Forcing a citizen to decide between her profession and religious beliefs is extremely unconstitutional, in addition to leaving scarring effects of doing something morally controversial.
ReplyDelete