Emergency abortion denials by Catholic hospitals put woman in danger, after her water broke at 17 weeks, lawsuit claims

[comana]

If she had trouble getting the hospital to perform an abortion the first time, you'd think she would go to another hospital that would handle the situation. Once again, a poster is trying to unsuccessfully show that a religious person or institute is some kind of hypocrite. Practically everybody knows that most Catholic (and Protestant) hospitals do not perform abortions so why test one's fate? Yes, the hospital looks like a piece of trash to most of you for not doing the abortion but sorry, they don't do abortions. And hopefully, they will drop California as a place to practice because of all the hostility the California government puts on people who are anti-abortion/pro-life. And you can twist the words all you want - the hospital is still a Pro-Life Sanctuary.

She shouldn’t have to go to another hospital when correct treatment is an abortion. Aside from that, she obviously needed her insurance to pay and that required going to this in network hospital. Also, CA law requires that emergent care for a life threatening miscarriage be given. The care is an abortion. The hospital is would not be saving a life by refusing to the abortion but in fact could end up causing the loss of the mother.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

She might know she's aloud to go to a different hospital. I kept taking my dad to the same hospital. Because his doctor's office only had two hospitals to go to.

But seriously though, if she thought the same thing was going to happen again (and she knew the hospital didn't perform abortions) why go there? I know I should be more sympathetic for her but in today's atmosphere, there are so many people trying to pull "gotcha" things to force others to do unthinkable stuff and it ticks me off. And then a good place like the hospital has to shut down when all they wanted to do is help care for people. Their policy is their policy - honor it. Sorry, I'll try to be more sympathetic.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

She shouldn’t have to go to another hospital when correct treatment is an abortion. Aside from that, she obviously needed her insurance to pay and that required going to this in network hospital. Also, CA law requires that emergent care for a life threatening miscarriage be given. The care is an abortion. The hospital is would not be saving a life by refusing to the abortion but in fact could end up causing the loss of the mother.

Sorry, but I don't buy that insurance stuff. Nobody I know, when confronted with an emergency, sits and figures out what hospital to go to for help. You go to the closest one. And if she was turned away when one of her other pregnancies went wrong, don't go back if you think the same thing is going to happen again. See my response to Crazy_Cat_Woman for further commenting on the topic.

So, your view would be to shut the hospital down if they don't comply with California's abortion rule. What a waste, shutting down a place that generously helps people because they won't perform an abortion.

 

[comana]

Sorry, but I don't buy that insurance stuff. Nobody I know, when confronted with an emergency, sits and figures out what hospital to go to for help. You go to the closest one. And if she was turned away when one of her other pregnancies went wrong, don't go back if you think the same thing is going to happen again. See my response to Crazy_Cat_Woman for further commenting on the topic.

So, your view would be to shut the hospital down if they don't comply with California's abortion rule. What a waste, shutting down a place that generously helps people because they won't perform an abortion.

A woman in need of medical care came to that hospital for help but they refused. How is that generously helping? This is a medically necessary abortion.

What if this is the closest hospital? Do you really think while grasping the fact that she was losing another pregnancy she decided to go back to the hospital her insurance required her to go to just so she could file a lawsuit when they wouldn’t help her?

The hospital should close their OB department if they can’t meet the medical needs women facing dangerous miscarriages because of religious beliefs.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If she had trouble getting the hospital to perform an abortion the first time, you'd think she would go to another hospital that would handle the situation.

She did go to another hospital. Alas, it was in the same Catholic network, which was the only one available to her with her insurance.

Her insurance only covers OB/GYN care within the Dignity Health network, so she went to Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento.

 

[ralliann]

From the article, it sounds like she is suing only after the second time she was not offered appropriate medical care which resulted in sepsis. What aren’t you buying? She had two dangerous miscarriages and could not get the necessary care required by law.

“Harrison and her partner are seeking an order requiring Dignity Health hospitals to provide emergency abortions in a manner compliant with state law, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.”

It is the third time! I am not buying we have all the information on this issue. Nobody on the other side say can say a thing, it is a health issue. We have seen these things posted before, and they were not as they were reported.

 

[RileyG]

If she had trouble getting the hospital to perform an abortion the first time, you'd think she would go to another hospital that would handle the situation. Once again, a poster is trying to unsuccessfully show that a religious person or institute is some kind of hypocrite. Practically everybody knows that most Catholic (and Protestant) hospitals do not perform abortions so why test one's fate? Yes, the hospital looks like a piece of trash to most of you for not doing the abortion but sorry, they don't do abortions. And hopefully, they will drop California as a place to practice because of all the hostility the California government puts on people who are anti-abortion/pro-life. And you can twist the words all you want - the hospital is still a Pro-Life Sanctuary.

Well said, sir!

 

[Hvizsgyak]

She did go to another hospital. Alas, it was in the same Catholic network, which was the only one available to her with her insurance.

Her insurance only covers OB/GYN care within the Dignity Health network, so she went to Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento.

So, what are you hoping the outcome of the lawsuit is? What happens when the next person comes to that hospital for similar reasons and they turn the person away? This is just a disgusting situation when a person or institution cannot practice their faith and are forced to do the evils of the secular world. Yes, I feel terrible for the lady too that she had to go through the whole ordeal. Satan just loves to trip up the faithful person.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, what are you hoping the outcome of the lawsuit is?

Like in the earlier suit, an agreement that the hospital will provide emergency treatment required by law. Since this case is brought by the couple, I expect damages to be awarded as well.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Like in the earlier suit, an agreement that the hospital will provide emergency treatment required by law. Since this case is brought by the couple, I expect damages to be awarded as well.

How does it make you feel that a Pro-Life Christian institute was forced to go against their moral beliefs?

 

[essentialsaltes]

How does it make you feel that a Pro-Life Christian institute was forced to go against their moral beliefs?

The hospital doesn't have any feelings. It's only a legal person, not a real person.

If the hospital wants to be a church, it should go become a church.

If it wants to be a hospital, particularly if it wants accreditation, it has to obey the laws relating to medical practices. Specifically, to provide emergency services for women who have non-viable fetuses inside them.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

The hospital doesn't have any feelings. It's only a legal person, not a real person.

If the hospital wants to be a church, it should go become a church.

If it wants to be a hospital, particularly if it wants accreditation, it has to obey the laws relating to medical practices. Specifically, to provide emergency services for women who have non-viable fetuses inside them.

It sounds like alot of you here who revel in the fact that the lady is suing the hospital have an air of superiority. It reminds me of the Roman rulers some 1900 years ago who gave their ultimatums to the Christians: sacrifice to our gods or face the wild beasts in the arena. Christians are not just a religion, we are a way of life which permeates all parts of life including hospitals and we have beliefs that should be respected by others - it's called Freedom of Religion in the Constitution.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Christians are not just a religion, we are a way of life which permeates all parts of life including hospitals and we have beliefs that should be respected by others - it's called Freedom of Religion in the Constitution.

Well, too bad the First Amendment doesn't provide Freedom of a Way of Life which Permeates All Parts of Life Including Hospitals.

All we all get is 'just' Freedom of Religion.

 

[comana]

It sounds like alot of you here who revel in the fact that the lady is suing the hospital have an air of superiority. It reminds me of the Roman rulers some 1900 years ago who gave their ultimatums to the Christians: sacrifice to our gods or face the wild beasts in the arena. Christians are not just a religion, we are a way of life which permeates all parts of life including hospitals and we have beliefs that should be respected by others - it's called Freedom of Religion in the Constitution.

Who is reveling in it. Having a hospital open to the public will require that hospital to follow state laws. The laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs but rather exist to ensure necessary care is offered that meets the accepted standards for the diagnosis.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Christians are not just a religion, we are a way of life which permeates all parts of life including hospitals and we have beliefs that should be respected by others - it's called Freedom of Religion in the Constitution.

If they run a business (a hospital) it isn't a religion. If they want to be completely independent, make it completely closed, only open to their own members and funded entirely by their members, then they can do whatever they want.

 

[Pommer]

It sounds like alot of you here who revel in the fact that the lady is suing the hospital have an air of superiority. It reminds me of the Roman rulers some 1900 years ago who gave their ultimatums to the Christians: sacrifice to our gods or face the wild beasts in the arena. Christians are not just a religion, we are a way of life which permeates all parts of life including hospitals and we have beliefs that should be respected by others - it's called Freedom of Religion in the Constitution.

Women face death because they cannot be certain of getting the medical care that they need, but your take-away was Christians are the real victims! ?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Women face death because they cannot be certain of getting the medical care that they need, but your take-away was Christians are the real victims! ?

A few women may have to die to uphold the pro-life position.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

But seriously though, if she thought the same thing was going to happen again (and she knew the hospital didn't perform abortions) why go there? I know I should be more sympathetic for her but in today's atmosphere, there are so many people trying to pull "gotcha" things to force others to do unthinkable stuff and it ticks me off. And then a good place like the hospital has to shut down when all they wanted to do is help care for people. Their policy is their policy - honor it. Sorry, I'll try to be more sympathetic.

This was a medical emergency. That should have been taken care of. It's not a typical abortion. This hospital should have done their job. But they didn't.

 

[Valletta]

I wish these hospitals would use more common sense. Even if they don't believe in pro choice abortion. There's nothing pro life about putting a child or a woman in danger . When the pregnancy isn't going to make it.

The hospitals have stated policies that have been out there for many years. Additionally, the doctors there did not recommend abortion.

 

[Valletta]

Like in the earlier suit, an agreement that the hospital will provide emergency treatment required by law. Since this case is brought by the couple, I expect damages to be awarded as well.

It's not a rare event to send an ER patient to another facility. To me this is a case of the state trying to impose their secular values on others. In my country we have the right to freedom of religion.