What is your job like as a nurse?

What are your thoughts on the case of a nurse who refused to prescribe birth control, was not hired for a job, and then sued said job? (Details in description)

• Sara Hellwege is a nurse in Tampa, Florida, who opposes the use of some of the most effective and female-controlled forms of contraception, such as the birth control pill. Despite that position, Hellwege applied for a job with the Tampa Family Health Centers. When asked by the human resources director about her affiliation with an anti-contraception group called the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Hellwege admitted she would refuse to prescribe the birth control pill to anyone who wanted it. She was summarily told that prescribing the birth control pill was part of the job and was not hired. Now, Hellwege is suing, http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/?CID=78491. [...] The lawsuit argues that Hellwege is a victim of religious discrimination and deserves to be hired by a family planning clinic despite “her religious beliefs and association with the pro-life group AAPLOG.” Of course, the Supreme Court in Burwell v Hobby Lobby said http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEV0_Jw7JTfGsAwEJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0aTRxYjk3BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ2NF8x, with no need for pseudoscience garble conflating ovulation suppression with abortion necessary, suggesting that the liberal use of the word “abortion” in this case is more about the continued right wing campaign to demonize contraception than anything else. From http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/07/21/sara_hellwege_sues_tampa_family_health_centers_pro_life_nurse_says_her_religious.html Is this actually a consequence of the Hobby Lobby decision as Slate says? or unrelated?

• Answer:

  I don't see how the lawsuit could have merit - it misstates or misinterprets in its very first paragraph the facts stated further down in the same lawsuit. If the lawsuit is not even internally consistent, this to me is a very bad sign. I would think internal consistency is the very least, most basic (though obviously far from sufficient) requirement for a lawsuit. She was not told she could not apply. She did apply and was explicitly told her resume has been submitted [into the system]. She did not proceed to the next stage (interview) of the application process. This is very different from being told not to apply for a position. She did not proceed further in the application process because she could not meet the basic job requirements of the position she was applying for (this is implicit but clear by the reasoning and references to Title X used in the email exchange). Why she could not meet the requirements is a separate issue. Presumably, the employer had other applicants who could satisfy all job requirements. She was not discriminated against as she was not "required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions" (this is the clause from 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(d) the lawsuit references for the discrimination claim). Source: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/HellwegeComplaint.pdf