Opinion ID: 876934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether employee must cite moral or religious beliefs at the time of refusal

Text: The fourth issue relates to the finding of the District Court that on August 22, 1977, when Marjorie Swanson informed the administrator that she would not participate in the tubal ligation, she did not cite moral or religious beliefs as controlling her at that time. Aside from the overwhelming evidence that all parties knew at the time why she was refusing to participate, the finding is irrelevant. Under former section 69-5223, she was not required to state her reasons unless requested by [the] hospital. No such request occurred here. Moreover, if requested, under the statute she could refer generally to the grounds of religious beliefs and moral convictions. She did this the only time she was asked, during the trial before the District Court. Even upon request, under the statute, she is not required to state the precise commandment, dogma, or tenet that leads to her refusal. The intent of the legislature in so providing is manifest: a person's conscience about sterilization need not be related to any particular religion, cult, or sect, but may be a part of the person's indefinable concept of the natural law, not easily explained in an A-B-C fashion. In like manner, the finding of the Court that neither party may have been aware of the existence of the statute at the time is also irrelevant. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, neither is it an escape hatch.