Hospital defends abortionist who pressured pro-life nurse

By Guy Page

The University of Vermont Medical Center continues to defend an abortion provider who forced a pro-life nurse to participate in an abortion in 2018.

In a press release Wednesday, UVMMC said federal civil rights officials sent correspondence Dec. 11 and Dec. 14 “threatening with federal enforcement” the hospital’s failure to protect the nurse’s civil rights. UVMMC insists it was “in compliance” with federal non-discrimination regs when the incident happened, and has since strengthened an opt-out clause for conscience-stricken health care  providers. It refuses to act further, saying “we have an obligation to provide access to safe and legal reproductive health care.”

University of Vermont Medical Center

UVM Medical Center

An Aug. 28, 2019 report by the federal Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services finds the hospital broke civil rights law by “by forcing a nurse to assist in an elective abortion procedure over the nurse’s conscience-based objections.” OCR “also found that UVMMC has discriminatory policies that assign or require employees to assist abortion procedures even after they have recorded their religious or moral objections to assisting in the performance of such abortions.”

Neither hospital document describes what actually transpired that day. Here is the blow-by-blow, reprinted verbatim from the Aug. 28, 2019 complaint:

“UVMMC forced the nurse complainant to assist in an abortion against the nurse’s religious or moral objection. The nurse had expressed an objection for many years and was included in a list of objectors, but UVMMC knowingly assigned the nurse to an abortion procedure. The nurse was not told the procedure was an abortion until the nurse walked into the room, when the doctor — knowing the nurse objected to assisting in abortions — told the nurse, “Don’t hate me.” The nurse again objected, and other staff were present who could have taken the nurse’s place, but the nurse was required to assist with the abortion anyway. If the nurse had not done so, the nurse reasonably feared UVMMC would fire or report the nurse to licensing authorities.”

In summary:

  1. UVMMC knew the nurse was on a “list of objectors” but assigned her anyway.
  2. The nurse wasn’t told it was an abortion until she walked into the operating room.
  3. By saying “don’t hate me,” the doctor knew of the conscientious objection.
  4. The nurse was required to proceed even though others present could have assisted.

Neither today’s UVM press release nor an employee letter from President Steven Leffler explain how abruptly forcing a nurse known to regard abortion as murder to choose between assisting with an abortion or risk losing her job is “in compliance.”

Despite UVMMC today calling such discrimination “exceedingly rare,” this was not an isolated incident.

As reported in the Aug. 29 Vermont State House Headliners, four other nurses came forward to say they, too, had been subject to similar infringement of their civil rights: “Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) said … on the Fox & Friends segment: ‘This is not the only case. We now have four other nurses who are filing similar complaints with HHS.’”

In all likelihood, federal proceedings against UVMMC will end if/when the Biden administration takes over. If so, pro-life health providers at UVMMC must hope the hospital’s improved opt-out policies work as advertised.

Read more of Guy Page’s reports. Vermont Daily is sponsored by True North Media.

Image courtesy of University of Vermont Medical Center

6 thoughts on “Hospital defends abortionist who pressured pro-life nurse

  1. Here is something the Vermont 112,704 could get behind.

    Writing polite letters, having those who represent the Vermont 112,704 call into the hospital write letter.

    Can you imagine what this nurse had to experience?

    There are so many others that would support and call out this terrible thing. There are so many that want to do something, but they know not what they can do. We’re all busy, we’re working, we’re under lock down.

    We could do drive by’s of support
    We could do drive by’s of non- support

    One would be peacefully waving hi, not sure about the other, perhaps just driving by would be best.

  2. Abortion is not “reproductive health care.” I heard Joe Biden say he has changed his views on abortion because he now realizes it is about “health care” and not the Right to Life.

  3. UVMMC has lost its morals for money, what a pathetic display !!

    And any worker that is forced to participate in this grotesque procedure
    for whatever reason, should get a lawyer and sue the barbarians …..

    UVMMC the New PPH …….Money over Morals………

  4. It’s truly incredible to look at the timeline of what has happened to uvmmc since they decided to become the new planned parenthood. That was fall 2017. Since- we have had nurses strike, which fractured staff and the organization quite significantly, significant financial issues d/T epic upgrades etc , Fanny Allen issuesx3 again causing great loss of revenue (and now closed ), an ED doc making national headlines with his bathroom cameras, coronavirus financial issues, and of course the cyberattack which put them back around 63mil. I am leaving out a few more situations that have come, but the point being – perhaps when a hospital – who’s job is to promote health and life- makes the conscious decision to do the exact opposite – there are repercussions. Uvmmc may want to reconsider. Just as elections have consequences, so does sin.

Comments are closed.