Special Rights for the Godly? Re: Liberalism and Religion

Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org
Fri Jun 21 10:51:24 PDT 2002


The problem with Katha's contrast between "secular" and "religious" organizations is that it is the wrong comparison; she is comparing government-operated facilities, such as a public clinic, which are subject to the full force of First Amendment protections for employees versus private institutions, which have associational rights to exclude employees because of the same First Amendment. I actually doubt the jury award she mentions will be upheld, given the rather restricted free exercise rights the courts have been applying in recent years, but even if they were, it's a very different situation from a private institution. We like it when government-supported institutions such as public defenders win the right to defy speech mandates of the government; the flip side is that the religious may win some rights to speech as government employees as well.

-- Nathan Newman

----- Original Message ----- From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>

***** Katha Pollitt, "Special Rights for the Godly," _The Nation_ 24 June 2002: 10.

Let's say I'm a Jehovah's Witness, and I get a job in an understaffed emergency room where, following the dictates of my conscience, I refuse to assist with blood transfusions and try my best to persuade my fellow workers to do the same. How long do you think I'd last on the job? And after my inevitable firing, how seriously do you think a jury would take my claim that my rights had been violated? Five minutes and not very, right?...

..Change the subject to reproductive rights, though, and the picture gets decidedly strange. In 1999 Michelle Diaz, a born-again Christian nurse who had recently been hired by the Riverside Neighborhood Health Center, a public clinic in Southern California, decided that emergency contraception, the so-called morning after pill that acts to prevent pregnancy if taken within seventy-two hours of unprotected intercourse, was actually a method of abortion. She refused to dispense it or give referrals to other providers; the clinic offered her a position that did not involve reproductive healthcare, but when she told temporary nurses at the clinic that they too would be performing abortions by dispensing EC, Diaz, who was still on probation as a new hire, lost her job. She sued with the help of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), the religious-right law firm headed by Jay Sekulow. At the end of May a jury agreed that her rights had been violated and awarded her $47,000.

Excuse me? A nurse at a public health clinic has the right to refuse to provide patients with legally mandated services, give out misleading health information in order to proselytize her co-workers to refuse as well, and keep her job? The low-income women who come to Riverside desperately in need of EC and abortion referrals are flat out of luck if they happen to turn up when the anti-choicers are on shift? Riverside is the largest public health clinic in the county, serving 150-200 patients a day, but it operates with a staff of four nurses --- should those four people decide what services the clinic can offer? What about the patient's right to receive standard medical care? Or the clinic's responsibility to deliver the services for which they receive government funds?...

...Although secular employers are expected to make reasonable accommodations to religious employees -- or even, if the Diaz verdict is upheld, unreasonable ones -- religious employers are not required to return the favor. On the contrary, the Supreme Court, in _The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Amos_, permits them to use religious test to hire and fire personnel as far from the sacred mission as janitorial workers; if a Methodist church wants to refuse to hire a Muslim security guard, it has the blessing of the Constitution to do so. As often noted in this column, religious organizations can and do fire employees who violate religious precepts on and even off the job. A pro-choice nurse could not get a job at a Catholic hospital and declare that her conscience required her to go against policy and hand out EC to rape victims, or even tell them where to obtain it -- even though medical ethics oblige those who refuse to provide standard services for moral reasons to give referrals, and even though Catholic hospitals typically get about half of their revenue from the government.

According to the ACLJ, however, secular institutions should be sitting ducks for any fanatic who can get hired even provisionally. The Riverside clinic has asked the judge to set aside the Diaz verdict. If that bid is unsuccessful, it will appeal. I'll let you know what happens. ***** -- Yoshie

* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list