Hospital Unlawfully Forcing Three Ultrasound Technicians To Assist in Abortions in Violation of Their Faith – The ACLJ Is Fighting Back

Three ultrasound technicians who work at a hospital in New Mexico reached out to the ACLJ because they are concerned that they will soon be forced to choose between adhering to their religious beliefs or keeping their jobs.

Earlier this year, Presbyterian Hospital in New Mexico started working with an abortionist in the area and is now assisting that abortionist in performing abortions. Due to its religious roots, the hospital had never provided abortions before.

However, the hospital has been sold and bought a couple of times, and since January 2024, it has started receiving orders from a local abortionist for ultrasound technicians to assist with abortions. Since abortion is contrary to their religious beliefs, most of the ultrasound technicians working at Presbyterian Hospital have refused to assist with abortions.

The hospital responded by changing its religious accommodation policy, which previously fully exempted employees from participating in abortions against their conscience. Now the hospital is attempting to carve out exceptions from the accommodation so it can force all of its employees to assist in abortions.

Assisting with abortions goes against the employees’ conscience and is a violation of their religious freedom. Because the hospital receives federal funding, it is subject to the federal conscience laws that, in the words of the Supreme Court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (“AHA”), “allow doctors and other healthcare personnel to ‘refus[e] to perform or assist’ an abortion without punishment or discrimination from their employers.”

Further, the hospital cannot even force them to assist with abortions in emergency situations, as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) does not override federal conscience laws. In AHA, the Supreme Court said that “EMTALA does not require doctors to perform abortions or provide abortion-related medical treatment over their conscience objections because EMTALA does not impose obligations on individual doctors.” The Supreme Court also stated that hospitals “must accommodate doctors in emergency rooms no less than in other contexts” and “try to plan ahead for how to deal with a doctor’s absence due to conscience objections.” If doctors can be exempted from participating in an abortion or in an emergency room, then it can be inferred that ultrasound technicians can be exempt from assisting with abortions too.

By changing its religious accommodation policy and trying to force its ultrasound technicians to assist with abortions, Presbyterian Hospital has infringed on the ultrasound technicians’ rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that an employer must not discriminate against an employee based on the employee’s religious beliefs. The employees cannot be subjected to harassment because of their religious beliefs or practices. Title VII requires employers to grant reasonable requests for religious accommodations unless doing so would result in undue hardship to the employer.

Recently, in Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court made clear that, under Title VII, “an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” The Court emphasized that an employer cannot deny someone a religious accommodation request on the basis that the employer is hostile toward it. The Court said, “An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is ‘undue,’ and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered ‘undue.’” Even if the hospital does not understand the ultrasound technicians’ strong stance against abortion, it cannot deny the request for religious accommodation. The burden of not accommodating the employees’ religious practice would not be substantial on the hospital, but it would greatly infringe on the employees’ freedom of religion. The ultrasound technicians should not be put in a position where they must choose between losing their jobs or compromising their faith.

The freedom to practice one’s religion is one of our most cherished rights. Federal law recognizes this and protects medical personnel from being compelled to do something against their religious convictions. This is why we urge Presbyterian Hospital to revise its religious accommodation policy and stop pressuring its employees to do something they consider to be wrong.

We sent a critical legal letter explaining that the hospital’s new policy of refusing religious accommodations violates several provisions of federal law and Supreme Court precedent. If Presbyterian Hospital does not comply with the law and grant our clients a religious accommodation not to participate in an abortion in any situation, we are prepared to take aggressive legal action to defend their rights. No one should be forced to take the life of an innocent human being.