Does Firing a Nurse Practitioner Based on Her Religious Beliefs Concerning Abortion Violate her First Amendment right?

Paige Casey is a nurse practitioner who worked for a MinuteClinic in Alexandria, Virginia. For more than two and a half years the clinic exempted Casey from prescribing certain contraceptive drugs or devices that aid in preventing pregnancy to honor her Catholic beliefs. Specifically, the lawsuit cited Plan B and Ella which are commonly known as the morning-after pills. After writing a request to the company, which stated her specific Catholic beliefs, Casey was granted an accommodation. There were no incidents or complaints that were a result of this accommodation. The lawsuit claims that in April of 2021, this all changed, and the Clinic abruptly fired Casey solely for refusing to prescribe "abortion-causing" drugs. The Rhode Island-based company announced that its employees could no longer avoid prescribing abortion-inducing drugs along with other forms of birth control. It is important to note that Plan B and Ella are the only drugs that were specifically named in the lawsuit. According to the Food and Drug Administration, Plan B and Ella are both drugs classified as "emergency contraception" and the Administration states that neither drug has the ability to terminate an already existing pregnancy. In accordance with Catholic teachings, however, life begins at conception when a sperm fertilizes an egg. This lawsuit aims to remedy the injuries that Ms. Casey suffered to her conscience rights and the related costly harms.   

Casey, who primarily worked at a MinuteClinic in Alexandria since 2018, again asked for an accommodation for her religious beliefs in December. In January and March, the company reiterated that they would no longer accommodate her request. Effective April 1st CVS fired Casey.       

This case introduces the question of whether or not Ms. Casey's First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion was violated by CVS Health because of her refusal on religious grounds to sell and dispense certain contraceptive drugs. This brings to light the Constitutional issue of Ms. Casey's ability to express her own religious beliefs while also working for the clinic.  

When looking at Casey's lawsuit it is important to reflect on Obergefell v. Hodges. This is a case where in which a group of same-sex couples sued their state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or the refusal to legally recognize these marriages. The plaintiffs in the case argue that the state's statutes were a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects. The Equal Protection Clause also guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry because denying this right would deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law.  

To reiterate, in Ms. Casey's lawsuit, she is asserting that she lost her job because she refused to sell contraceptive drugs because it violates her Catholic beliefs and opposition to abortion. This situation points towards a slippery slope because it permits clinic practitioners to allow their religious beliefs to impinge on the rights of clinic patients and customers. In addition, the science iterates that the two drugs cited in the lawsuit are not drugs that can abort an already existing pregnancy, but rather they are preventative measures that are taken before reaching this point. The clinic made accommodations for Casey, but there comes a time when one is simply not meeting the requirements of the job itself. The clinic is not preventing Casey specifically from practicing her own religious beliefs. The clinic is requiring that as a licensed nurse practitioner in the state of Virginia she must fulfill the requirements of the job which is in a secular business. Her refusal to dispense contraceptive medications violates basic medical practices which require practitioners to listen to their patients' needs as well as fulfilling the sale of a product that does not even require a medical prescription. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the right to marry is one of the fundamental liberties that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, which means that the states can't impose social or religious values on same-sex marriages just like Casey can't dictate what treatments the patients who come to the clinic can have based on her own values and beliefs.