|
Media Releases
|
|
EMBARGO: Immediate Release Date: 26 June 2002
Crisis at Philadelphia Hospital
Highlights The Violation Of Women’s Rights Doctors For Life (DFL), an organisation of about 770 doctors, places the blame for the lack of staff to support women having abortions at Philadelphia hospital, squarely on the shoulders of the South African government. Before the government bulldozed the law to legalise abortion on demand through Parliament, DFL warned via numerous press releases that the infrastructure to implement the law does not exist. Firstly, there were not enough doctors and nursing staff who did not have conscientious objection against assisting with abortions. The government ignored us even when this fact was repeated in our submissions before the Select Committee on Abortion in Parliament. Secondly, the lack of sonographic equipment to determine the gestational age of the unborn baby before an abortion made a mockery of the legislation (the law allowed abortion for a certain gestational age for different reasons). The biggest survey ever done amongst doctors showed that more than 80% of South African doctors are against abortion on demand. The government was fully aware of this attitude when they forced the members of the ANC to vote against their consciences in support of "Termination of Pregnancy". They should therefore not be surprised when only 5 of the 27 hospitals in Mpumalanga have staff who are willing to take part in abortions. In what appears to be a hypocritical move, the government seems concerned when women in the Carte Blanche programme had to deliver their own aborted babies, while the Department of Health is busy introducing the abortion pill (RU486) which will have the same result of causing women to abort at home. DFL also had special meetings with the Health Professionals Council of South Africa where we explained the dilemma of pro-life health professionals. We mentioned that it strikes us as unethical that some health professionals are prescribing abortifacients and then tell the patient to go to a hospital, manned by pro-life staff, to have the abortion completed. This appeared like a strategy to force unwilling, ethically sound health professionals to take part in killing one patient (the unborn child) at the request of another (the mother). It boiled down to a doctor starting the procedure and then referring the patient for the "mopping up" of the procedure to pro-life staff. It is a well-known fact amongst nursing staff that doctors list abortions as sterilisation procedures on theatre lists. Once the staff is in the theatre, scrubbed and half way through the procedure, they discover that the doctor is doing an abortion. DFL therefore calls upon the government to accept responsibility for the dilemma women find themselves in. Something should be done about the pressure on health workers to take part in the abortion procedure. The public should be well informed if a certain clinic/hospital is unwilling to perform abortions. Once a hospital is identified as an abortion provider, the Department of Health must make sure that there are enough pro-abortion staff to render a 24 hour service, 7 days a week. It must, however, be stated once again that health professionals do have the constitutional right NOT to participate in ANY part of the abortion procedure. Enquiries: Dr Jay Mannie(Dep. CEO)
|
|
NEWS RELEASE
IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MAY 28, 2002
ACLJ WINS RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION CASE (Riverside, CA) – The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, announced today that a federal jury in California has found that Riverside County violated the constitutional rights of a nurse who was fired from her job after she refused to dispense medication known as a “morning-after” pill designed to end pregnancies. “This is a tremendous victory for our client and for all health care professionals who want to do their jobs without violating their consciences and religious beliefs,” said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, which represented the nurse. “This verdict sends a very clear message that conscience rights of employees must be respected by employers everywhere.” A U.S. District Court jury in Riverside has found that Riverside County violated the constitutional rights of former nurse Michelle Diaz. Following a four-day trial in federal court that ended May 24th, the jury found the county was liable on all three counts presented: violated her First Amendment rights of free speech; violated her rights of freedom of religion; and, failed to reasonably accommodate her religious beliefs. The jury also awarded damages totaling more than $47,000 – including $19,000 in damages for back pay, and more than $28,000 in damages for emotional distress. The case began in December 2000 when the ACLJ filed suit in U.S. District Court in Riverside, California against the Riverside Neighborhood Health Center on behalf of Diaz, who worked as a Clinic Health Nurse at the center. The suit contended that Diaz was fired after she told her supervisor that her deeply held religious beliefs prevented her from distributing medication designed to end pregnancies because she believed she would be participating in an abortion. The suit contended that she was fired from her job in June 1999 shortly after she talked to the news media about the “morning-after” pill controversy and explained her position. Manion said the verdict is an important victory for free speech and religious freedom. “This is an important victory in what’s become the new frontier of religious discrimination – employers who force employees to violate their consciences and religious beliefs by requiring them to dispense pregnancy ending drugs.” The ACLJ was assisted in the trial by attorney Robert Tyler of the firm, Tyler & Dorsa in Temecula, CA. The American Center for Law and Justice is an international public interest law firm that specializes in constitutional law and pro-life issues. The ACLJ is headquartered in Virginia and its web site address is www.aclj.org. -- End -- |
![]() |
Protection
of Conscience Project www.consciencelaws.org NEWS RELEASE |
|
|
|
ADVISORY BOARD Dr. Shahid Athar, MD J. Budziszewski, PhD Dr. John Fleming, Dr. Henk Jochemsen, PhD David Novak, AB, MHL, PhD Lynn D. Wardle, JD ____________ PROJECT TEAM Michael Markwick
|
22 April, 2002 For Immediate Release Stonewalling Leads to Call for New Freedom of Information Law An Albertan writes to a professional organization with concerns about its policies on civil rights and public health issues. She gets no response. Registered professionals in Alberta, worried about policies that could cost them their jobs, send letters to their licensing authority. Their letters are ignored. What can these people do in the face of bureaucratic stonewalling? At the moment, not much. That will change if an Alberta legislative committee agrees with a submission by the Protection of Conscience Project. The Project wants the province’s Freedom of Information Act regulations amended so that the Act will apply to self-governing professions like the Alberta College of Pharmacists. "Stonewalling by the Alberta College of Pharmacists led to the submission," said Administrator Sean Murphy. "I couldn’t get even the courtesy of an acknowledgement, despite repeated requests. I heard from a private citizen and some pharmacists who had the same problem." "I had successfully used British Columbia’s Freedom of Information Act to get information from the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia in similar circumstances, so I sent an access request to the Alberta College. It was rejected, because self-governing professions in Alberta aren’t subject to the province’s freedom of information law. The Project submission argues that it’s time to change the law." People who want Alberta’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act updated can send letters and submissions to the legislative committee in Edmonton until 10 May, 2002. See the Protection of Conscience Project brief online -30-
|
|
|
Media |
July-Dec 2002 |
Jan-March 2002 |