Hey, there! Log in / Register

State child-welfare worker who believes her body is God's temple sues state for trying to make her get Covid-19 shots

A now former employee of the DCF office in New Bedford sued the state today because it rejected her request for a religious exemption for Gov. Baker's vaccination mandate, leaving her, she says, no choice but to quit rather than go against her religious beliefs.

In her suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, Laura Tweedy, who describes herself as a Christian, says the state's rejection of her request for a religious exemption violated her freedom of religion under the First Amendment and that the process the state used to deny her request was a sham. Also, the vaccines don't work, because vaccinated people can get infected as well, she argues.

Faced with the choice of being fired or resigning in the hope the state would one day rescind its mandate and reconsider her for a DCF job, Tweedy says she resigned, under duress, on Dec. 15.

Tweedy's complaint includes her application for an exemption, in which she states:

In the scripture, there are numerous passages that state the human body is a temple of God. I believe that I shall not destroy the temple or pollute it with this vaccine. The Holy scripture says in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's spirit Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple". Again in Corinthians 6:19 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own. That God is in you, that He is our healer." The above confirms the concept His power lies within me, and God is my healer. I believe that God made me in his likeness and image and made me (and my immune system) perfect the way I am. If I trust in the immunization process, rather than putting my trust in my Lord, I feel I will be disconnecting from my faith. 1 Corinthians 2:5 "So that your faith might not rest on human wisdom but on the power of God". God's holy word to me is clear that I will conform not to the ways of this world. My faith is not meant to be in a vaccine, but instead on my Savior. Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding". My pursuit of Jesus Christ brings me inner peace and contentment. The idea of the immunization process is causing me a great deal of anxiety and emotional hardship. As a follower of Christ, I am on a quest for inner peace, not eternal strife. In John 16:33, Jesus said "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have tribulation. But take heart, I have overcome the world". I was raised Catholic although I currently have adopted my own personal religious beliefs that come from my relationship with God. I remember a particular scripture that was repeated at each service. Jesus said in John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as this world gives do I give to you". This further supports God gives me everything I need, and I should not rely on a vaccination. Please grant me the ability to continue to work in a field I truly believe is God's work, without the undue anxiety and hardship of facing a vaccine mandate.

In rejecting her request, the Executive Office of Health and Human Services acknowledged that Tweedy demonstrated her "sincerely held religious belief" but that:

Granting your request would increase workplace safety risks and negatively impact safety planning. The accommodation would negatively impact operational factors such as staffing and workflow, and negatively impact direct care.

Judges at both the state and federal level have rejected similar arguments from state workers, saying that during a public-health emergency involving a deadly virus, the state has the right to do what it feels it must to curb transmission, including issuing vaccination mandates for employees.

Although medical experts acknowledge that even fully vaccinated people can contract Covid-19, in particular, the omicron strain, vaccinated people have dramatically lower rates of both infection and hospitalization.

During both Delta and Omicron predominance, incidence and hospitalization rates were highest among unvaccinated persons and lowest among vaccinated persons with a booster.

Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

If I trust in the immunization process, rather than putting my trust in my Lord, I feel I will be disconnecting from my faith.

What does that even mean? How does one go through life only "trusting" "my Lord"? Is literally everything made by humans out? Does she wear clothing? Drive a car? Take any medications? Does she distrust every single human being in order to maintain her connection to God?

I believe that God made me in his likeness and image and made me (and my immune system) perfect the way I am.

If you catch a cold, are you a sinner in the eyes of God because you allowed his immune system to fail?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm tired.

I was raised Catholic although I currently have adopted my own personal religious beliefs that come from my relationship with God.

This probably is also why she lost. Sorry folks you can't just make up stuff to suit your own needs. This excuse only works so far, and its obvious she just didn't want to vax and made up her own 'religious' reason. She was raised catholic and the Pope himself said vaccination was OK. So she's just making sh*t up.

Real tired of people playing this card when they don't want to do something. This is just the opening of a can of worms, people will now use this even more so now cuz its an easy thing to say and not be able to prove since its all "personal beliefs".

PS - Why is someone who is this religious working in DCF? The last time a child needs is some bible thumper making decisions for them, when they, themselves aren't religious. I'd pretty pissed if I was involved with this person, I want religion no where near a child. Lets not pollute their minds before they are able to make decisions for themselves.

PPS - I recently made friends with a Jesuit in Rome. Super nice guy. Never got this vibe AT ALL from him. He plays video games and is geeky (which is how we connected). Why are the weird religious types always like the women above, and never like my Jesuit friend?

up
Voting closed 0

that aren't exactly in line with one major religion or another. In fact, I would encourage it.

But they need to be able to demonstrate that the "sincerely held religious belief" goes back more than a few months.

up
Voting closed 1

But they need to be able to demonstrate that the "sincerely held religious belief" goes back more than a few months.

Even if it does, so what? It's irrelevant. If your religious beliefs prohibit you from properly performing your job, get another job.

up
Voting closed 1

to leave her job.

up
Voting closed 0

where the conditions of employment have changed, I would argue that even though she resigned, she should be entitled to collect the normal amount of unemployment.

Not have her job back though. Keep your germy ass away from kids.

up
Voting closed 0

where the conditions of employment have changed

Had they, though? The pandemic was new, but surely there would always have been an expectation to comply with basic hygiene and not endanger others.

up
Voting closed 0

I expected a little better from you than

Why is someone who is this religious working in DCF?

She is most likely working for DCF because the essence of being a Christian is doing glory to God by helping you fellow person and by helping those who need the most help, such as children in the DCF system.

Criticize her vaccine choice all you want, but at least try to learn the tenants of the most common religion in America. And do remember that America was founded based on religious liberty, so disqualifying Christians from working for the government is just as allowed as disqualifying Jews and Muslims from the same jobs, in that it is not allowed.

up
Voting closed 0

An enormous amount of good has been done in the world by people who took their inspiration from religion, who devoted themselves to service to others because that was their understanding of the best way of serving God. A great deal of evil has been done too, under similar inspiration, from the same religions, and sometimes by the same people. I do think it's wrong, very wrong, to suggest that a person acting from religious motives will necessarily do evil. It's also wrong to assume they will do good.

Was America founded on religious liberty? Great Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries was a hotbed of religious turmoil, with various religious factions struggling for power. Those that were out of power thought they were fighting for religious liberty, but when they obtained power, they suppressed other factions. This spilled over into the colonies. The colony whose foundation myth is most strongly associated with religious liberty, Massachusetts, provided considerably less of it than England did. There was no religious liberty for Quakers or Catholics in Massachusetts. Celebration of Christmas was actually illegal there for a while. Fortunately the colonies that combined to form the United States were different enough in their religious proclivities to require protection from each other, in the form of the religious liberties written into the Constitution. This is some ways from "America was founded based on religious liberty".

up
Voting closed 1

No.

This myth can’t die soon enough.

up
Voting closed 1

Criticize her vaccine choice all you want, but at least try to learn the tenants of the most common religion in America.

1. It's "tenets".
2. It's pretty hard for anyone living in this country, where Christian culture is so dominant and so ubiquitous, to not have a pretty good idea of what Christianity's tenets are, or at least what the overwhelmingly Christian majority puts forth as Christianity's tenets, (which, let's be honest, is really the same thing, no?). It's safe to say that on the whole, non-Christians in this country are much more knowledgeable about Christianity than Christians are about any other religion.

And do remember that America was founded based on religious liberty, so disqualifying Christians from working for the government is just as allowed as disqualifying Jews and Muslims from the same jobs, in that it is not allowed.

I can never tell if you're being disingenuous or if you're actually not aware of the rather large difference between "Christians cannot work for the government" and "Christians cannot hold government positions and claim their religious beliefs as an excuse for failure to properly execute their duties."

up
Voting closed 0

The pope also makes shit up. Because she isn’t a powerful male doesn’t make her religious claims any less religious …. or any less or more full of shit.

up
Voting closed 0

Keep doing meth. It is fun watching you be angry, (looks at time) at 4:38 in the morning.

I read this in a tired Pee Wee Herman voice just to see how you were expressing it in your head.

up
Voting closed 1

Looks like this early bird has given you an ear worm. Enjoy!

up
Voting closed 0

A fairly good ska party band in Boston from 30 years ago.

I take that as a compliment.

up
Voting closed 0

it was 30 years ago. I worked with one of the band members. great times. now I feel old.

up
Voting closed 1

You seem to know a lot about meth.

up
Voting closed 1

So she just blurted something out.

Go back under the porch and count the leaves from last fall still there. The rest of us are adulting.

up
Voting closed 0

Internet tough guy is at the keyboard again!

Reread your comment - the one that I replied to - and we'll talk about "nothing constructive to say" and "blurting things out" and "adulting" as it applies to your text, below.

Keep doing meth. It is fun watching you be angry, (looks at time) at 4:38 in the morning. I read this in a tired Pee Wee Herman voice just to see how you were expressing it in your head.

This is just so very constructive, adult-level mature, and non-blurting, right? It just screams "I contribute to thoughtful discourse on this forum!"

up
Voting closed 1

I recently made friends with a Jesuit in Rome. Super nice guy... He plays video games and is geeky.

Is it Father Robert Ballecer?

up
Voting closed 1

As someone who is frequently hired by DCF to do evaluations and hired by attorneys and the courts to do evaluations and expert witnessing on DCF cases, I can definitely tell you that "I do what I want without regard for research or best practices" is pretty typical over there.

I'm not even going to say that all or most of the problem is fundies though, because I see plenty of workers who identify as progressive who do this same thing. One of my specialty areas is LGBTQ youth and parents, and the problem there is usually not a worker who says "god says this is a sin" but one who says "my nephew's neighbor is trans and he went to a gender specialist, so this other trans kid who didn't feel the need is fake-trans and the parents have Munchausen's." I also regularly see shit in writing like that letting a child drink soda or taking Cheetos to school is abuse, letting a 10-year-old walk to school is unsafe, being in an extracurricular that the kid doesn't love is manipulation and brainwashing, no autistic kid would ever be capable of staying home alone, drinking any amount of alcohol with children present is failure to supervise, and so forth. The whole system is set up so that decisions aren't based on science or research, but rather on what one worker thinks. The workers are generally young, extremely few are independently licensed, and most don't have kids.

So hey, I applaud this step in the right direction of letting people who want to work there know that, hey, you in fact can't just do what you want.

up
Voting closed 0

How is that relevant?

up
Voting closed 0

Why is it relevant whether someone assessing surgical techniques has ever performed surgery? Why is it relevant whether someone assessing piloting skills has ever flown a plane?

up
Voting closed 0

… an expert in childcare or assessment of childcare.
You don’t even need a license or training to have children.

I should think your work would make you aware of that.

up
Voting closed 0

and ample bodies of research make me well aware that people who hold an experience are the experts on that experience.

When the courts hire experts to assess parenting, they pick folks who are long-time fully licensed clinicians, almost all of whom have extensive experience parenting.

When DCF wishes to assess parenting, they hire people with a bachelor’s degree in any field and generally no experience parenting.

You really think they’ve made the more informed choice?

And are you really telling me that none of your ideas about what constitutes great or good or adequate parenting changed once you had parenting experience? Mine sure did. Most parents express the same in terms of really coming to understand priorities.

up
Voting closed 0

If having children made parents experts in childcare we wouldn’t need a DCF in the first place.

up
Voting closed 1

This is elementary logic, Lee. All squares are rhombuses, but not all rhombuses are squares.

up
Voting closed 0

The research shows that children would statistically be safer and have better outcomes if the system were just abolished immediately.

But to your "point," most of the cases I see involve perfectly adequate parents with caseworkers who decide it's better for children to be traumatized by interrogations/threats/removals than to endure perfectly normal experiences that are permissible in wealthier families.

up
Voting closed 0

they're different.

and there's a reason why they were expelled from Spanish America waaay back in the 1700s and why the Catholic Church hierarchy has never welcomed their embrace of liberation theology.

up
Voting closed 0

to go. She is not capable of assessing child safety.

up
Voting closed 0

Having read the full complaint and accompanying exemption request available on the court database this woman has absolutely no business working with vulnerable individuals, especially vulnerable children.

up
Voting closed 0

Here's what we should look at and care about. How are her cases doing? Is she a good case worker? Do the individuals who meet with her like her? Does she care and follow up with them?

up
Voting closed 0

Is she unnecessarily putting people at risk of contracting a disease that has killed, as of today, 6 million people?

up
Voting closed 1

The basis is simpler than that. She’s going into people’s homes in a state where it’s cold enough to keep the windows closed for half the year. The families she’s visiting have the right to know that the person trying to help them can’t simultaneously hurt them at the same time because of a preventable, contagious virus they might bring into their living quarters. Same issue with first responders.

up
Voting closed 1

If they did that, they would have to do that for the other 100,000+ families they encounter each year. And they'd have to actually listen and assess objectively and not have this "contempt of cop" mentality.

Research has shown that nearly all families in contact with the system are reported for reasons of poverty, and nearly everything they consider neglect could be fixed with just money. There is massive racial bias at every level (reporting, screening, investigation, removal, termination). I would love it if someone would objectively look at the families involved. Not just the ones involved with this fundie wacko.

up
Voting closed 0

:Research has shown that nearly all families in contact with the system are reported for reasons of poverty, and nearly everything they consider neglect could be fixed with just money."
Nope. Having working at that agency that is not the case. A good chunk of cases ARE neglect yes. Versus physical or sexual abuse. And some maybe could be fixed with money. But not all or even most. The biggest contributer to neglect cases was SUBSTANCE ABUSE. That isn't fixed with money. Another good chunk of cases was physical abuse many times culturally related where the family feels they have disciplined the child by "whupping" them until said child is covered in bruises and can barely walk. And day care or elementary school discovers the.bruises. Domestic violence is also many cases as DCF considered children exposed to it to be the victims of emotional.and potential accidental physical harm. I agree there are huge biases in the system and richer suburban parents and non minorities get away with a lot more abuse and neglect than do poor families in the city. But that isn't a good thing for the kids bc most of the time there does need to be intervention. Kids in the richer white surface families don't get the interventions they need. Not removing the child, as that isn't commonly done unless it's a severe case and has to be approved by the court. But providing services and relieving the abuse. Poverty related cases such as lack of food or clothing, supervision when the parent can't afford child care, homelessness, even when I worked there years ago was not an automatic removal but yes the case would be opened bc then services could be provided. Particularly free childcare. Even then the workers knew that these cases were poverty related and not the same as deliberate abuse and neglect and also in this state you could not remove a.child just bc the family was.poor.

up
Voting closed 1

The biggest contributer to neglect cases was SUBSTANCE ABUSE. That isn't fixed with money.

I'm no expert, but it strikes me that it isn't fixed without money, either. Access to treatment, funds to keep the family going while the addicted person is in treatment, employment post-treatment -- these are problems solved with money. They're not the only problems, obviously, but they do need to be solved for recovery to succeed.

up
Voting closed 0

I mean, other than your equating anecdotes with research.

"Poverty related cases such as lack of food or clothing, supervision when the parent can't afford child care, homelessness, even when I worked there years ago was not an automatic removal but yes the case would be opened bc then services could be provided."

Right, because all that's needed is money. They don't need a case open so "services" can be provided by an adversarial family policing agency, and "services" should never be coming from somewhere with this legal power. DCF's only role, should it exist at all, should be investigating abuse and neglect -- not pretending they're clinicians or pretending they're a community aid organization. Families should not be talking to DCF without an attorney present, and it's essentially extortion the way they say "admit all your personal struggles to us and we'll give you free daycare and an IEP advocate -- oh and by the way we can use the information you share to take you to court." Families who need childcare, medical advocacy, counseling, etc., should be getting it from organizations run by members of their own communities that have no legal authority and no interest in obtaining information to be using in court proceedings.

(And as long as DCF still exists, community organizations should only be filing absolutely legally required reports, i.e., when a condition exists that has or is likely to cause significant lifelong harm to a child. Most of the reports people make, which are them reporting poverty and parenting-while-brown, are unethical to be making and are in excess of reporting requirements.)

up
Voting closed 1

This explains a lot.

up
Voting closed 0

Reassignment to the Ukraine disinformation desk didn't last very long, I see.

up
Voting closed 0

I always think in these cases where folks resign their jobs over a faith based objection to specifically Covid vaccines, how will they live without the money? They don't qualify for severance. Depending on age and years served in state position, may not even be vested.
I know, working at a major hospital we also are required or fired on vax issue- that if my faith were this strong, would god just direct deposit the same amount?
If you are working at a hard job like DCF case worker and making less than 60K, you probably need the job. Are these folks delusional confident they'll win these cases, because pretty much everyone of them is losing.

up
Voting closed 0

He has to go into not so nice and nice neighborhoods and take away newborns and infants at 1 in the morning and move them to temporary foster homes to get them out of harms way from parents who might not have the Dr. Spock book on hand.

He has a good, good heart and the burnout at DCF is incredible. You can see it on his face.
He soldiers on and worked like a dog through Covid.

For this person to say "Jesus Doesn't Want Me to Get Vaxxed" means this person is off their rocker and shouldn't be interacting with DCF clients. She is sullying the work that these good people do.

Have fun in the applied horticultural mechanics industry this summer honey.

up
Voting closed 2

Next up: "My firmly held religious beliefs (which demand that I raise the risk of spreading COVID to immunocompromised children that I may encounter in my work) also require that I remove any and all children from (gay parents, unmarried parents, single male parents, trans parents, parents who get their kid gender affirming treatment, "non-Christian" parents ...).

Just wait.

This is the problem with DCF workers having religious beliefs that conflict with fulfilling the dictates of their employment. It becomes a convenient pretext for all sorts of stuff that they don't want to do that is part of their job, including getting vaccinated, including dealing with varying types of family structures that their God doesn't like.

up
Voting closed 0

I would think that it would be easier to make the anti-vax argument if you were a christian scientist, but even they aren’t opposed to the Covid vaccine.

up
Voting closed 0

No one can find one. Not even the usual suspects.

up
Voting closed 1

Should government favor religious institutions over private belief? Are practitioners of major religions more sincere in their faith? I think the opposite is the case. The bigger the church, the easier it is for its members to just mail it in. Tiny sects require more loyalty. And what of believers who belong to no known religion at all? Making up your own is a lot of work, and requires the deepest devotion.

It won’t get you respect, though. This is how we categorize people who believe absurd and impossible things: if there are many of them, we call them religious. If there are few, we call them crazy.

up
Voting closed 1

Well said!

up
Voting closed 0

she does not want to poison her 'temple' with the vaccine. does she also abstain from other impurities: alcohol, caffeine, acetaminophen shellfish, pork and lobster? does she organically grow her own food so to abstain from the impurities of pest control chemical leaching? If so, she should have stated so in her complaint to DCF and the Court. Otherwise it is a load of b.s.

up
Voting closed 0

It's bad enough when they take kids from recovering drug addicts and give them to pedophiles, but they also hire anti-vax whackjobs? The DCF needs a overhaul.

up
Voting closed 1

At least DCF has a ‘quick’ relationship with the kid. BPS is full of anti-vaxxers and that’s ok, according to the union and Mayor Wu.

up
Voting closed 1

The story of Ham was used to justify the enslavement of people with dark skin. That of course was an interpretation that served the people who controlled the guns.

Then the interpretation is no longer useful and so is set aside.

Most (I wish all) agree that incest is bad, very bad. Yet Lot's daughters engage in intercourse with him. But that story is never used to justify incest. Again, formulating interpretations to justify a predetermined conclusion.

When a religious interpretation can lead directly to the suffering and even deaths of others than the religious interpretation is wrong. Therefore it is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Now that the religious freedom clause is used to justify a wide range of behaviors, actions and conducts we need to clear legal definitions. The claims of religious rights to do whatever is comparable to the woman who claimed an ostrich was her emotional support animal when she wanted to bring the ostrich on board a jet.

Doubt if the current Supreme Court will develop rational and ethical standards. Most of the Catholic members appear to be a la carte Catholics who pick and choose whatever dogma supports their personal desires of legal interpretation. But then that is using religious ideology to justify power.

Evangelicals have been misled down a path to Hell. Their leaders tell them they own the absolute truths of the universe and therefore anyone who disagrees need to go away. Fundamentalist and literalists constantly teeter on collapse because their rigidity makes them fragile and therefore they have to present the hardness of rage to maintain their beliefs against what most folks believe about The Bible. Religious extremism is dangerous. It gives way to the self-destruction factionalism that the writers of the Constitution wanted to avoid.

up
Voting closed 0

She isn't any more ridiculous in her demands than the BPD, BFD, or the unions that represent the teachers and city workers.

up
Voting closed 0