Oregon Health Department Nurse Loses Job to Pro-Life Beliefs

Oregon, USA, 2002

Introduction

The following news release and commentary from the Rutherford Institute outline the suit filed by a nurse who alleges that she was harassed and fired because she refused to promote abortion. Of interest is the fact that she was willing to refer patients for that purpose, something which not all conscientious objectors are prepared to do.

Salem, OR--January 30, 2002--Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed suit yesterday on behalf of Janice Turner, a public health nurse who lost her job with the Marion County Health Department due to her deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, charges that Turner's supervisor at the Women's Clinic harassed and retaliated against her for her pro-life views and refused to accommodate her religious objections to discussing or promoting abortion procedures with her patients.

Turner, a public health nurse with the Health Department from 1990 until July 2001, had early on in her employment expressed her religious opposition to abortion and requested accommodation from having to discuss or promote abortion procedures with her patients.

According to Turner, her initial supervisor accommodated her religious beliefs and allowed her to refer those patients wanting to receive emergency contraception, a.k.a. "the morning after pill," or information about abortion to another nurse.

As a result of Turner's personal commitment to providing quality health care to those in need, she also worked as a Maternity Case Manager, making house calls to women undergoing high-risk pregnancies and educating them on how to have a healthy pregnancy. However, in 1995, a new supervisor was appointed to the Women's Clinic who declared herself to be pro-choice and allegedly acted in a manner intolerant of other viewpoints.

According to Turner, this new supervisor stated her expectation that everyone on staff discuss emergency contraception, or "the morning after pill," with patients as "a method of contraception that will prevent a pregnancy," and discouraged the nurses from discussing it as a possible abortifacient. Turner claims that her supervisor continually reiterated her distaste for Turner's pro-life views regarding emergency contraception and repeatedly told her that she "was not a complete nurse." During Turner's final evaluation, the supervisor informed her that budget cuts would soon be forthcoming. She then warned Turner that her position could be cut in the department budget, and if Turner wanted another position in the department, she would have to be willing to dispense emergency contraception. Shortly thereafter, Turner was notified that her position was to be cut.

Among the allegations detailed in the complaint filed by Institute attorneys are charges that Turner was discriminated against for her religious beliefs, a violation of Title VII, the Hill/Burton Conscience Act and Oregon's conscience clause.

"It is unconscionable for anyone to force their beliefs on another person, especially forcing a pro-abortion message on a person who believes that life begins at conception," stated John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "What makes it even worse is that this was being done by an employer who was fully aware that she is in control of that person's livelihood."

The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Charlottesville, Virginia.
General inquiries: tristaff@rutherford.org
Press Contacts: Nisha N. Mohammed Ph: (434) 978-3888, Pager: 800-946-4646, Pin #: 1478257

No Equal Opportunities for Nurse With Pro-Life Views

The Rutherford Institute
4 February, 2002
Reproduced with permission

John W. Whitehead *

Our nation continues to wage a war on terrorism around the world to protect and defend America’s freedoms. At the same time, however, we must not forget those whose rights and freedoms are in jeopardy of being violated here at home. One of the latest casualties of an increasing intolerance for the expression of religious values and ideals is Janice Turner, a public health nurse from Marion County, Oregon.

Janice dealt with patients in need—single mothers, at-risk teenagers and others. As a result of her personal commitment to providing quality health care to those in need, she also worked as a Maternity Case Manager, making house calls to women undergoing high-risk pregnancies and educating them on how to have a healthy pregnancy.

Although it wasn’t easy, it was a job she loved. Reaching out to the high-risk women in her community with quality health care was important to Janice—a challenge that she enjoyed. It was also a way to share her knowledge, talents and faith with those most in need.

As a Christian who believes that life is precious—and begins at conception—Janice worked hard to provide expectant mothers with the best care possible, in addition to educating them about how to care for the miracle of life they had been given. And while she was willing, as part of her nursing duties, to present patients with their legal options, including abortion and emergency contraception, Janice simply did not feel comfortable referring them to abortion providers or distributing emergency contraception.

But after 10 years at the family planning clinic of the Marion County Health Department—years in which her religious views were respected and accommodated by her co-workers and supervisors—Janice Turner lost her job. Things began to change when a new supervisor—one who believed that a pro-life nurse, one who refuses to recommend or provide abortion as a means of birth control, is only doing half a job—was appointed to the Women’s Clinic in Marion County, Oregon.

Although Janice’s previous supervisor did not share her views about abortion, she did respect Janice’s right to abstain from certain practices that interfered with her religious beliefs. As Janice said, “She trusted us to be professional and make certain that the patients received complete and correct information.”

But then things took a drastic turn. According to a federal lawsuit filed by Janice, when the new supervisor—one intolerant of pro-life viewpoints—was assigned to the Women’s Clinic, Janice’s treatment on the job began to change. Indeed, not only were Janice’s religious views no longer accommodated, she was also harassed. At this time, emergency contraception, otherwise known as the “morning after pill,” was being increasingly discussed and focused upon. And Janice’s new supervisor began encouraging her staff to promote the morning after pill as “a method of contraception that will prevent a pregnancy.”

But to Janice, this was not much different than an abortion. And in her lawsuit, Janice alleges that her supervisor subjected her to harassment because of her religious beliefs and her refusal to distribute emergency contraception to patients. Her supervisor was particularly upset that Janice was educating her patients—many of whom came from a Catholic background with the belief that life begins at conception—about how emergency contraception works, namely, its “abortifacient” qualities.

In the months before Janice lost her job, her supervisor continually reiterated her distaste for Janice’s pro-life views regarding emergency contraception and repeatedly told her that she “was not a complete nurse.” During Janice’s final evaluation, the supervisor informed her that budget cuts would soon be forthcoming. She then warned Janice that her position could be cut and that if she wanted another position in the department, she would have to be willing to dispense emergency contraception. Shortly thereafter, Janice was notified that her position was being cut—and she would be laid off.

Yet at the time of the so-called “lay-off,” the family planning clinic was advertising for a position with the same job requirements as those held by Janice—the only exception being that the description now included the distribution of emergency contraception as an explicit job requirement.

So Janice Turner’s lawsuit is asking that the Marion County Health Department cease its discriminatory practices and that the department institute a policy ensuring that religious beliefs be accommodated and respected.

After all, America was founded on the concept that life is sacrosanct and religious beliefs deserve specific protection, a concept that is enshrined in our First Amendment. As such, our Constitution is intended to protect people such as Janice Turner—those who have strong beliefs and are willing to sacrifice their livelihood to protect them. Whether they work in a hospital or a homeless shelter, at a grocery store or in a schoolhouse, all Americans have a constitutional right to have their religious beliefs respected and accommodated in the workplace. Without this, there is no true equality and freedom in the workplace.

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute reached a mutually agreeable resolution in Feb. 2003 with the Marion County Health Department on behalf of Janice Turner. As part of the settlement agreement, a new policy was enacted preventing discrimination of employees based upon religious or moral beliefs regarding abortion or contraception and requiring the health department to accommodate those beliefs. [The Rutherford Institute]