It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pediatric nurse sues Winnebago Co Health Dept after losing job for her beliefs

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   


ROCKFORD - On Wednesday, Rockford nurse Sandra Mendoza sued the Winnebago County Health Department for forcing her out of her long-time job as a pediatric nurse on account of her refusal to participate in abortion related services. Ms. Mendoza, a devout Catholic, had worked for the Health Department for 18 years providing pediatric care, immunizations, and screenings.

In 2015, the County’s new Public Health Administrator, Dr. Sandra Martell, merged the pediatric clinic with women’s health services and mandated that all nurses be trained to provide abortion referrals and participate in the provision of abortifacients like Plan B.


Pediatric nurse sues Winnebago Co Health Dept after losing job for her beliefs

We are being told that no one is being forced to do anything with Obama's mandates, but here is one of the many clear examples that quite the contrary is happening.

Nurses that object to doing abortions shouldn't be forced to do them.

When Ms Mendoza informed the administration of her conscientious objections she was given an ultimatum.



When Ms. Mendoza informed Dr. Martell and the administration of her conscientious objections to participating in any way in the provision of abortions, Dr. Martell gave Ms. Mendoza two weeks to either quit or accept a demotion to a temporary job as a food inspector. Mendoza refused the demotion and was forced to resign in July 2015.
...

link

It's just sad to what level the current craziness has reached under Obama's watch...

BTW, this will probably also occur in other states unfortunately.


edit on 10-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct excerpt.




posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I also just found this.


Lawmaker: ‘Big Brother’ Shouldn’t Force Americans to Participate in Abortions

Leah Jessen / @_LeahKay_ / May 06, 2016 /


Recently-introduced federal legislation would protect doctors, nurses, hospitals, and health care providers from being forced to provide abortion as part of their practice or insurance plans.

The Conscience Protection Act, House Resolution 4828, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives at the end of March by Rep. John Fleming, R-La., currently has 49 co-sponsors.

“As a family practice physician for over 30 years, I know for a fact that doctors and nurses are dedicated medical professionals uniquely qualified to assess the health and wellness needs of their patients,” Fleming said in a formal statement. “There is no room in the clinic for government discrimination, for Big Brother to force a health care provider to participate, in any way, in an abortion.”

Recently, 26 organizations signed a letter urging Congress to pass the legislation. The letter says:

For example, the state of California in 2014 began demanding that all health plans under the jurisdiction of the states Department of Managed Health Care—even those purchased by churches and other religious organizationsover elective abortions for any reason, including late-term abortions and those performed for reasons ofsex selection.

One of the groups that signed the letter, Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal aid group, has filed two lawsuits challenging the California rule that has forced churches to pay for elective abortions in their health insurance plans.

dailysignal.com...

BTW, the 49 co-sponsors of that bill are all Republican. I couldn't find a single democrat Senator being co-sponsor to this bill. Let's hope it passes.


edit on 10-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add link and correct comment.


edit on 10-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What do you mean when you say "We are being told that no one is being forced to do anything with Obama's mandates?" All people have been forced to pay for health insurance or pay a fine. I understand it in principality, but to make a person pay for just being alive doesn't make sense. And when I actually looked deep into an Obamacare plan, just for routine checkups the costs weren't too bad, but I take relatively good care of myself and am not even 30 yet so I am not concerned about that at the moment. What I am concerned about is getting hit by a car while I ride my bike or get injured fixing a few shingles and falling off my roof or something ridiculous that could happen. In order to be covered without having to pay out of pocket I would have to pay several hundred bucks a month for something that likely won't happen....but then it doesn't cover the full operation or all hospital costs and so on.

I was for universal healthcare, but when it is how it is at the moment it is a racket.

On your note, a nurse is kind of a posistion of science, so her beliefs should not prohibit her of doing her job. She chose that position and profession knowing that abortion is a major needed care for women. If she doesn't want to be in a posistion that deals with abortion then go to another side of nursing. Not all nurses deal with abortion. I can't imagine that every nurse out there is required to be on hand for an abortion when it comes up. Imagine a Scientology nurse that refuses to deal with anyone on anti-depressants because those drugs are against her religion. How long would she last? I am not saying she should go against her beliefs, but, come on, you are a nurse, there might be only be 5 nurses staffed at a time where she works I don't know, if she is called to action then she needs to do her job. Also imagine a devout Christian ambulance driver sent to a car wreck. The person hanging by threads for life is a homosexual holding a dildo in his right hand. Should that ambulance driver save that person even if he will go to hell no matter what? UHHH Ya, it's the job he signed up for.


+11 more 
posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

She lost her job because she didn't want to carry out certain responsibilities in her job description. No controversy there.

That's like a Jew or Muslim working on a farm. If you refuse to feed the pigs, then you are refusing to fulfill your duties in that position. So why put yourself in such a position.

The sad thing is the Bible teaches that soul-life begins out of the womb (in Hebrew mibbeten and Greek ek koilias), never at conception.

Christians don't even know their own Bible these days....really, not since Constantine.


edit on 10-6-2016 by BELIEVERpriest because: added point


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

It's just sad to what level the current craziness has reached under Obama's watch...



Someone being fired for refusing to do her job?! The outrage! The travesty!



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

She lost her job because she didn't want to carry out certain responsibilities in her job description. No controversy there.



from the article," In 2015, the County’s new Public Health Administrator, Dr. Sandra Martell, merged the pediatric clinic with women’s health services and mandated that all nurses be trained to provide abortion referrals and participate in the provision of abortifacients like Plan B."

From what I read in the article, Ms. Mendoza originally didn't sign up for Women's health services and has worked many years as a pediatric nurse. It was until 2015 when the Public Health Administrator merged the 2 departments together that it became a conflict of her beliefs. When she was originally hired, assisting in abortions was not in her original job description when she applied.

edit on 11-6-2016 by Alchemst7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Alchemst7

Well, sadly for Ms. Mendoza, she does not run the clinic and has no say over the new policy.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I suppose you support Muslim cab drivers not picking up people who are carrying a bottle of wine.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

I see... So, let's see... There are "progressive doctors" who are calling for the ability of parents to murder even their newborn babies, even those that are not disabled...


By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent

1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

So these "progressive doctors/experts" state that parents should be able to kill their newborns even if they are completely healthy...


...
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded thatwhat we callafter-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
...

link

This premise is not new, for many years, and decades several moral philosophers and even doctors and scientists have stated this claim that newborn babies do not deserve to live since they have not personhood.

It goes even beyond that, there are many philosophers, doctors and scientists who claim babies have no personhood, hence they can be killed/murdered.
In fact, such people even claim that newborn babies have less rights than dogs, pigs, or other animals...


The case against Peter Singer
Analysis
By Stella Young

Updated 14 Aug 2012, 7:53pm

Singer, who is arguably better known for his views on animal rights, has views about disability that have been discussed far less here in Australia than they have in the US where he lives and works. I am open about not being a fan of Singer's work, a statement that's often met with confusion among friends and colleagues. "But he does such great things for animal liberation!" they exclaim.

While that may be true, animal liberation is not the only subject of Singer's work. He also believes that parents should be given the choice to have their disabled babies killed after they are born. His argument is not about the right to terminate pregnancy based on the presence of a disabled foetus, although he does believe this as well, but the active killing of babies born with particular disabilities.

I was once one of these babies.
...

www.abc.net.au...

People like Singer even believe that newborn babies, even those who are healthy, are subject to the parents' will to kill them up to a certain age when they are able to demonstrate that they are "a human being"...

www.utilitarian.net...


...
If killing babies that hog respirators is perfectly fine, why stop there? Let's not do anything to protect the lives of healthy newborns either, like feeding them.

In his famous book, Practical Ethics, he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons;” therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” Not only is the life of a disabled baby perhaps more costly to maintain than others, but all newborn babies are, in fact, not even persons. Our parents wasted all that time feeding us when we were newborns when they could have been raising pigs the spare bedroom. What a waste!
...

www.personhood.com...

Other philosophers and doctors have held similar ideas, including Michael Tooley, Jeffrey Reiman, etc. There are too many to mention, just do a search.

Even politicians like Hillary Clinton have stated that "babies have no human rights"...


By Bradford Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, April 3, 2016

Democratic primary front-runner Hillary Clinton ran afoul of both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the abortion debate Sunday when she said constitutional rights do not apply to an “unborn person” or “child.”

The unborn person doesnt have constitutional rights,” Mrs. Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.”

Mrs. Clinton also said “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions” on abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy.

www.washingtontimes.com...

So, let's say there is another law passed by either Obama, or HIllary, or even Sanders, in which they could state "babies have no rights, so the parents can decide to kill/murder babies until the babies can prove that they are people". If such a law is passed, in your opinion, is it logical to you that also nurses and doctors who disagree with such claims should be forced to kill these babies and they should either be forced to do so, or quit or be demoted for not following the law?...


edit on 11-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

I see... So, let's see... There are "progressive doctors" who are calling for the ability of parents to murder even their newborn babies,. .


Murder is illegal

Abortion is legal



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I was on board a certain DDG, off the coast of east Africa. Subsequently going up and down the Med.
And while performing a joint op with a seal team, we were equiped with weaponized drones... while on watch i asked one of my chiefs while at flight quarters... "who's forheads are we dropping warheads on" i asked in tongue and cheek, but perjoratively; she knew my stance on civilian casualties (hospitals, elderly, children, women etc, vice a 2-6 'possible' terrorist cell)

She replied to me : " 'EN2, go take your next [expletive] round. You signed up for this [expletive] [expletive]."
2 years later, i decided not to reenlist. I got out. No lawsuits was ever filed.
Theres a moral here.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz

2 years later, i decided not to reenlist. I got out. No lawsuits was ever filed.
Theres a moral here.


Except abortion is legal and a selective choice.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

Murder is illegal

Abortion is legal



Humm... Let me put it another way, since you seem to have trouble following my premise.

If the claim from philosophers, doctors and other researchers, scientists and politicians, that babies have no human rights hence by extension that parents should be able to kill babies, whether they are disabled or even if they are completely healthy. Is it then in your opinion okay to force doctors, and nurses to kill those babies because in the mind of some people "they have no rights because they have no personhood"?

Not only that, but it seems that you believe that if such a claim is engraved in the law, then it is perfectly acceptable that such occurrences to exist, since they are the law...

I can think of many dictators who in the past, and even right now, held/hold such views and also made it perfectly legal to kill babies whether they are disabled, or if they are totally healthy... Is that what you actually think?


edit on 11-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

Murder is illegal

Abortion is legal



Humm... Let me put it another way, since you seem to have trouble following my premise.


I don't talk to people who refer to abortion as killing.

Killing is illegal. Abortion is not.

A fetus is not a human being. It may be a potential human being, but it is not a human being.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
So she didn't do her job and she got fired?

Regardless if she had her department merged or not. Her job role changed, which happens in loads of places.

She decided what was morally right or wrong, which inhibited her from doing the job she was paid to do.

She could have left, but she waited till she got fired.

Big deal.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

I don't talk to people who refer to abortion as killing.

Killing is illegal. Abortion is not.

A fetus is not a human being. It may be a potential human being, but it is not a human being.


In this case I am not talking about the abortion of a human fetus... I am talking about newborn babies...

Hillary Clinton, and those philosophers, doctors and researchers I mentioned were talking about newborn babies and not just about a human fetus...



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why are you bringing up euthanising babies when it has zero to do with the topic of your own thread?



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Then is it your opinion that if such a claim is made into a law, the claim that newborn babies have no rights since they supposedly and according to some they have no personhood, then it should be no big deal that nurses and doctors get fired if they disagree with such a law?



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: TerryDon79

Then is it your opinion that if such a claim is made into a law, the claim that newborn babies have no rights since they supposedly and according to some they have no personhood, then it should be no big deal that nurses and doctors get fired if they disagree with such a law?


That has bugger all to do with the thread.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Why are you bringing up euthanising babies when it has zero to do with the topic of your own thread?


Many of the same people, philosophers, and doctors and scientists who say killing a human fetus is alright since it is the law are also people who believe newborn babies have no rights just like a human fetus in their mind have no rights...

What does it have to do with this thread?... Everything because it is what will come next...



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join