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: 13
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xcathdra

well, we've had them around for decades, it's just that people were more sensible about what they were asking for accommodation for, ya know like the sabbath off, things like that. the idea that a police officer or any other emergency worker would just refuse to go on a call because of religious reasons wouldn't be protected without prior request and approval from his higher ups I don't believe.



I was a cop for 7 years. There's no such thing as refusing a call, and if you tried to cry to a supervisor about it they'd tell you to effin get over yourself.

Exactly as supervisors and the government should do to healthcare workers. If you're THAT friggin religiously bound, then find a new line of work. Your job is CARE for the PATIENT and respect THEIR personal beliefs and...well, ya know, science. Not forcing YOUR personal biases on them and everyone around you.

I was also in health care for 7 years. Between that time and my years on the streets there were plenty of people I didn't agree with, people I thought were ridiculous or just plain annoying. Plenty of people who lived their lives in ways I couldn't even fathom. Did I refuse service to any of them? Hell no. I put on my big girl pants and gave every single one of them the basic human respect that everyone deserves and carried out my duties to the best of my ability according to the rules and regulations in place.

This nurse needs to find a job in an area of healthcare that has nothing to do with her religious beliefs...ie a nursing home or dialysis center and leave this particular job to the secular folks who are able to carry out the duties involved. Health care is right up there with first responders. There's no room for this 'accommodate my personal beliefs' nonsense. Just the job and getting the job done.




posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

So, as an ex-cop you are saying to hell with the laws protecting employees, they just have to do whatever their supervisor tells them to do?



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
And the law states employers can't force employees to do something they find morally wrong... Again, no laws protecting employees then supervisors can request their employees to perform sex with them...


Ok, I've tried to wade through this thread and I can't find the answer to this question. You're obviously online right now, and I've got a hot date en route, so I don't have the time to look for it...

How did she go from being a 'pediatric nurse' to suddenly being 'forced' to counsel reproductive age women? Is the 'pediatric' part just a preference? But she was actually just a general nurse for the county? Because if she was working for the county, there is no differentiation such as 'pediatric' 'geriatric' 'oncology' etc. that only happens in a hospital setting.

If she took a job with a county health clinic she should have expected to be required to inform patients of available resources. I mean, what's next? "I don't BELIEVE in communism, so I morally can't give you the form to apply for Medicaid." Geez.

And equating this crap with laws prohibiting employers from requesting sex??? Come on. I mean...COME ON. Really?! We're going there now?

Home girl needs to work in a nursing home where all the ovaries are shriveled to dust. Problem solved.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

So, as an ex-cop you are saying to hell with the laws protecting employees, they just have to do whatever their supervisor tells them to do?


Are you still carrying on with the false equivalencies?

The cop would have to do what his/her job is. Just like the nurse does. If either doesn't, they get sacked.

Simple.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

So, as an ex-cop you are saying to hell with the laws protecting employees, they just have to do whatever their supervisor tells them to do?


I'm saying if your job is to take care of people. You take care of them.

If your job is to answer 911 calls....if your job is to answer call lights....if your job is to change adult diapers...if your job is to inform people of their legal options. Then you do your damn job and leave your personal preferences at home.

Should employees be protected from forced sex at the hands of their supervisors? Well...duh...yeah. Should things like number of hours worked be regulated? YES. I'm disabled now because my previous employer broke that one and I ended up messed up because of it.

But I was never so full of myself that I felt the need to project my personal preferences onto the lives of other people. My job was to help them. No matter how much of a hot mess I felt they were. I'm not even Christian and THAT is the Godly way to be. This nurse needs to go back and read the Bible, Jesus specifically admonished folks who flaunt their righteousness publicly.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Are you still carrying on with the false equivalencies?


Please...look who is talking, the one comparing human fetus with garbage and human refuse from McDonalds...


originally posted by: TerryDon79
The cop would have to do what his/her job is. Just like the nurse does. If either doesn't, they get sacked.

Simple.


Except in this case it isn't her job to work in women's health and the supervisor can't compel her to do something the nurse finds morally wrong...






posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Are you still carrying on with the false equivalencies?


Please...look who is talking, the one comparing human fetus with garbage and human refuse from McDonalds...
That's called taking my words out of context. What I actually stated was the nurses job change was the same as someone's at McDonalds.

Nice try though.



originally posted by: TerryDon79
The cop would have to do what his/her job is. Just like the nurse does. If either doesn't, they get sacked.

Simple.


Except in this case it isn't her job to work in women's health and the supervisor can't compel her to do something the nurse finds morally wrong...




But it was her job as the departments merged and her job description and roles got amended. If she finds it morally wrong then that job isn't for her.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

I'm saying if your job is to take care of people. You take care of them.
...


Her job has been in pediatrics for 18 years not women's health and the new supervisor can't by law make her/coerce her, or even demote her for not doing something that the nurse finds morally wrong and it is not even part of her job to begin with. She is a pediatric nurse.

You do know for example most women find it morally wrong having their employers demand them for sex?... What happens when you take away the laws protecting employees?


edit on 13-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse


So? That has nothing to do with her refusing to do tasks that are outlined in her contract. That act is about roles outside of normal job roles.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

So? That has nothing to do with her refusing to do tasks that are outlined in her contract. That act is about roles outside of normal job roles.


They are not outlined in her contract they were imposed and the supervisor tried to coerce the nurse by demoting her, or firing her... The law is in favor of the nurse, not the manager.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: TerryDon79

So? That has nothing to do with her refusing to do tasks that are outlined in her contract. That act is about roles outside of normal job roles.


They are not outlined in her contract they were imposed and the supervisor tried to coerce the nurse by demoting her, or firing her...
Her job roles changed. She refused to do her job. She was given 3 options, 1. do the job and carry on working, 2. accept a demotion or 3. refuse either and lose her job. She chose option 3.


The law is in favor of the nurse, not the manager.
It's not, as she refused to do the job she was currently employed to do.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I just found something interesting.

Ms. Mendoza was no longer employed, due to her not doing her job, in 2015. The act, that she's trying to sue under, came into effect on 31st May 2016.

She will lose her case as the law wasn't about when she decided not to do her job.

Game over and I'm out of this thread of rediculousness.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I think the law has been in effect since '98 but was revised recently, one of the revisions was that they couldn't duck out of providing medical care if the patient health would be adversely affected because of the time that it took to get to another place that would provide the care they needed.

but if you continue reading the bill you will find this:




(745 ILCS 70/13) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5313)
Sec. 13. Liability for refusal to provide certain health care. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as excusing any person, public or private institution, or public official from liability for refusal to permit or provide a particular form of health care service if:
(a) the person, public or private institution or public official has entered into a contract specifically to provide that particular form of health care service; or
(b) the person, public or private institution or public official has accepted federal or state funds for the sole purpose of, and specifically conditioned upon, permitting or providing that particular form of health care service.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

www.ilga.gov...



the country health dept more than likely is accepting federal funds for agreeing to provide the family planning services to the public. so, I don't think they can pick and chose what family planning services they will provide and what they won't. it's being dictated to them by the agency that is giving them the funds.
the question is weather or not by accepting a position for the country health dept, and she was more than likely aware that they were obligated to provide those family planning services... did she fall into that same agreement.
I don't think it would be unreasonable, even before the merger for them to shift nurses from one department to another in the county health clinic. so, I think it would be reasonable for a pediatrician working in a country health clinic to expect that they might be asked to go outside of their field occasionally and maybe help out in other areas if needed.
in plain simple words, weather I agree with this law or not, I still think that this little section here might be saying that the protection that this law provides doesn't apply to her because she is working in a gov't position that is accepting funds to provide the services she is objecting to.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Ah ok. I thought it was a new act to work alongside another one. My bad.

I do think you might be correct about the government funding side of things.

Thing is though, no matter how anyone tries to twist it, the nurse wasn't ever "forced" to do anything and was fired for not doing her job, not because of a belief.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

what's next???

all the staff that were family planning deciding they believe that giving vaccines to kids cause autism and refusing to give the vaccinations?
personally, if this crap keeps up much longer I might decide to let my grass grow and when the county comes complaining about it, I am gonna refuse to mow it or allow them to because I believe it's causing the poor little blades of grass too much pain. let's see how far that one flies!


edit on 13-6-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

ya, I know, most of us are expected to just go out and start looking for another job if the terms of our employment changes and we can't accept it. heck in some of the threads on these boards some seem to think it's the easiest thing to do. don't like the idea that you company is refusing to cover birth control, well if it's so danged important to you, find another job!!

and, I still haven't got any response about the poor doctors working in catholic hospitals some of whom have their own moral issues when they are told that they can't mention the word abortion, or refer the patient to someplace that will, even when they have a tubal pregnancy or other life threatening problems. shouldn't their beliefs be at least as important as this nurses?



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TerryDon79

ya, I know, most of us are expected to just go out and start looking for another job if the terms of our employment changes and we can't accept it. heck in some of the threads on these boards some seem to think it's the easiest thing to do. don't like the idea that you company is refusing to cover birth control, well if it's so danged important to you, find another job!!
I know the job market is pretty bad all over at the moment, but if she really didn't want to do the job, she could have easily looked at the private sector. I think this is more of an attention thing, than a legal thing.


and, I still haven't got any response about the poor doctors working in catholic hospitals some of whom have their own moral issues when they are told that they can't mention the word abortion, or refer the patient to someplace that will, even when they have a tubal pregnancy or other life threatening problems. shouldn't their beliefs be at least as important as this nurses?
I doubt you'll get a real response. The ones who are agreeing with this absurdity are very selective on what they answer. That's one reason I tend to break down posts (like I have to this) so I can try and respond to each point. "I don't know" IS still an answer. Some people seem to forget that.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yes they can.

She either complies with the updates as required by her employer or she can find new employment elsewhere.

ETA - let me clarify. As soon as the Illinois Governor signs SB 1564 she wont have a choice. The legislation has been sent to the Governor for his signature or veto.

IL Bill 1564 -

Amends the Health Care Right of Conscience Act. Makes changes in the Section concerning findings and policy. Defines "access to care and information protocols" and "material information". Provides that notwithstanding any other law, a health care facility, or any physician or health care personnel working in the facility, may refuse to permit, perform, assist in, counsel about, suggest, recommend, refer for, or participate in health care services because of a conscience-based objection only if the refusal occurs in accordance with written access to care and information protocols designed to ensure that (1) the patient receives material information in a timely fashion; and (2) the refusal will not impair the patient's health by causing delay of or inability to access the refused health care service. Provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to prevent a health care facility from requiring that physicians or health care personnel working in the facility comply with access to care and information protocols. Makes other changes in Sections concerning: (i) discrimination by employers or institutions; and (ii) liability.


Questions?

Under the law they can refuse to provide abortions and staff can refuse to participate however ALL medical personnel will be required to provide ALL information to the patient, including information on abortions and facilities that can accommodate. Refusal is only acceptable under the law if they provide the info. If they dont they are in violation of the law and can look for new jobs.
edit on 13-6-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

See....COUNTY health clinic. I'm still trying to figure out how she claims to be a 'pediatric' nurse. Specialties like that only exist in hospital and private practice settings. If she's an employee of the COUNTY then she can expect her job to include providing information and referrals for all kinds of stuff. Trust me, I've sought 'help' from government agencies...that's all they do, refer you to someone else.

I would also bet $$$ that this woman has- at some point in her life- taken birth control and/or engaged in pre-marital sex or any other manner of 'sinful' activity. People like this are always hypocrites. Kim Davis (refused to issue gay marriage licenses) was married four times and gave birth out of wedlock to twins that were not biologically her most recent ex-husband. SMH these folks need to get over themselves with their sanctimonious BS.

If you so morally object to stuff...get a job in a Catholic book store or something. Somewhere you have absolutely no chance of encountering dealing with anyone with beliefs different than your own. The real world is a melting pot, accept that and move on.


Trying to force employers and patients and everyone else to bow to YOUR beliefs is NOT religious freedom, it's Special Snowflake Syndrome.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join