Woman Jailed on Felony Warrant After Reporting Rape

[5stringJeff]

And, given your beliefs, I accept that you feel that way and I understand the arguments. I just feel that if someone has that belief, they're entitled to it, but shouldn't be allowed to work with people in this situation.

For me, that depends on whether the person is a government employee or not. If the person is working at a private medical clinic or charity and refuses to give the morning after pill, that's their right. If one is working at a state-run medical clinic and refuses to give the morning after pill based on personal beliefs, that's quite different.

[5stringJeff]

That 17 year old boy in GA? Remember him? While he's not in jail for 'rape', it CERTAINLY illustrates how the (quoty fingers) Rape can be MORE traumatic for the (quoty fingers) rapist.

That particular issue was statuatory rape, not 'actual' rape. The "victim" was a willing participant. I'm talking about rape, where the victim is an unwilling participant, which seems to be the case here.

[Mr. P]

That 17 year old boy in GA? Remember him? While he's not in jail for 'rape', it CERTAINLY illustrates how the (quoty fingers) Rape can be MORE traumatic for the (quoty fingers) rapist.

Not relevant to the thread, is it? Two different things.

[Mr. P]

For me, that depends on whether the person is a government employee or not. If the person is working at a private medical clinic or charity and refuses to give the morning after pill, that's their right. If one is working at a state-run medical clinic and refuses to give the morning after pill based on personal beliefs, that's quite different.

Yeah but, a charity or medical clinic is not going to 'forcibly' refuse you meds already prescribed that have in your possession, unless they're idiots.

I agree that private companies have the right to supply or not supply any drugs they may feel are wrong.

[Bubbalicious]

Click here to send the following letter to your state governor.


Subject: Ensure Access to Emergency Contraception

Recently the media reported that a rape survivor in Tampa Florida was forbidden from taking the required second dose of emergency contraception by a jail worker. This is not the first time a rape survivor has been treated so outrageously, but we must ensure that it doesn't happen to women in our state.

Please create a clear policy forbidding workers in government facilities from denying women access to emergency contraception.

[Nienna]

The jail worker that refused to give her a second dose of the med. should be fired.
That individual is NOT (unless it was the jail nurse) a medical professional and has only set the local government up for a liability. Even if it was the jail nurse it goes against medical protocol. I see a BIG law suite coming on this one, bigger if she becomes pregnant.

As far as the arrest goes for an outstanding warrant..no problem.

Reasonable accommodations have to be made for employees' religious beliefs. If this is the only aspect of the job that the employee did not perform, I don't think this person deserved to be fired. If I were in the position, I would not have administered the drug, but would have tried to get the woman someone who would administer it. I think this would be a reasonable accommodation.

As long as medical/psychological care was given first, she should have been arrested for an outstanding warrant.

[Mr. P]

Reasonable accommodations have to be made for employees' religious beliefs. ....

Oh HELL NO THEY DON'T!!

[Nienna]

Oh HELL NO THEY DON'T!!

http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom..._workplace.asp

[Bubbalicious]

Reasonable accommodations have to be made for employees' religious beliefs. If this is the only aspect of the job that the employee did not perform, I don't think this person deserved to be fired. If I were in the position, I would not have administered the drug, but would have tried to get the woman someone who would administer it. I think this would be a reasonable accommodation.

As long as medical/psychological care was given first, she should have been arrested for an outstanding warrant.

You really think it's reasonable to throw a woman in jail who'd just been raped only about an hour prior? For a 4 year old juvenile offense? She needs to go to jail that very instant? Really?

[The ClayTaurus]

Reasonable accommodations have to be made for employees' religious beliefs. If this is the only aspect of the job that the employee did not perform, I don't think this person deserved to be fired. If I were in the position, I would not have administered the drug, but would have tried to get the woman someone who would administer it. I think this would be a reasonable accommodation.

As long as medical/psychological care was given first, she should have been arrested for an outstanding warrant.

How is administering the drug any different from finding someone to do it instead? Aren't both enabling? It seems like if you have convictions against performing that duty, you should find another job.

[Mr. P]

http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom..._workplace.asp

This is easy, Nienna..If my employee will not "agree" to do their job they're outta here.
Their private life and beliefs are just that, and I don't want them dictating how "MY" business is run.

[Nienna]

How is administering the drug any different from finding someone to do it instead? Aren't both enabling? It seems like if you have convictions against performing that duty, you should find another job.

If the sole duty of the position was to hand out morning-after pills... yeah, it would be unreasonable for them to have that job. But, seems to me this is only a marginal duty of the job.

My convictions would be satisfied. My job is to witness, not coerce. In refusing to administer the drug, my objections would be made known. Up to the recipient to decide whether or not she wants to take the drug(s).

[jillian]

If the sole duty of the position was to hand out morning-after pills... yeah, it would be unreasonable for them to have that job. But, seems to me this is only a marginal duty of the job.

My convictions would be satisfied. My job is to witness, not coerce. In refusing to administer the drug, my objections would be made known. Up to the recipient to decide whether or not she wants to take the drug(s).

If even part of the position involves morning after pills, the woman has no business having anything to do with that job. That person has NO BUSINESS telling their objections to a rape victim.

And just for the record, accommodating one's religion, for purposes of the anti-discrimination laws as I know them do not require an employer to leave a person in a position where they can impose their religious views on others in any form. What reasonable accommodation requires, at most, is moving her to a position where she does not have to dispense such pills.

[The ClayTaurus]

If even part of the position involves morning after pills, the woman has no business having anything to do with that job. That person has NO BUSINESS telling their objections to a rape victim.

And just for the record, accommodating one's religion, for purposes of the anti-discrimination laws as I know them do not require an employer to leave a person in a position where they can impose their religious views on others in any form. What reasonable accommodation requires, at most, is moving her to a position where she does not have to dispense such pills.

To be fair, I think someone with anti-birth control convictions is perfectly capable of refusing to administer the drugs without the victim knowing. There is a difference between "I am not going to give you the drugs you dirty sinner" and "my coworker will be in shortly to administer the pill."

[jillian]

To be fair, I think someone with anti-birth control convictions is perfectly capable of refusing to administer the drugs without the victim knowing. There is a difference between "I am not going to give you the drugs you dirty sinner" and "my coworker will be in shortly to administer the pill."

I agree. But I took "making my objections known" and then it would be up to the victim to decide if she should take them or not to imply that the objecting person would inform the victim of their position. I might be wrong that this was the implication of the statement.