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

[Hvizsgyak]

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! ?

Since you don't seem to be a believer (you may but from your comments, it doesn't sound like it), you probably have no problem performing an abortion on an alive unborn child. But there are many, may doctors and medical staff who are disgusted by abortion. And they may just work more in Christian Hospitals that have the guidelines - No Abortions Performed Here. So as our good friend EssentiaSaltes poorly points out that:

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

He doesn't realize that "real" people have to perform these abortions (against their moral judgement which can be very damaging to a person's psyche). You people think killing an unborn child is nothing. You are the barbarians. We have a God who despises the murdering of unborn children and His followers feel the same way and they practice medicine in Christian Hospitals.

 

[essentialsaltes]

He doesn't realize that "real" people have to perform these abortions (against their moral judgement ...

We don't know anything about the moral judgments of these hospital employees who are trained physicians.
We only know about the illegal hospital policy.

 

[comana]

Since you don't seem to be a believer (you may but from your comments, it doesn't sound like it), you probably have no problem performing an abortion on an alive unborn child. But there are many, may doctors and medical staff who are disgusted by abortion. And they may just work more in Christian Hospitals that have the guidelines - No Abortions Performed Here. So as our good friend EssentiaSaltes poorly points out that:



He doesn't realize that "real" people have to perform these abortions (against their moral judgement which can be very damaging to a person's psyche). You people think killing an unborn child is nothing. You are the barbarians. We have a God who despises the murdering of unborn children and His followers feel the same way and they practice medicine in Christian Hospitals.

You don’t Ned to be a pro life Christian to work in these Catholic hospitals. I’m sure at least one of their OB doctors has no issue with abortion ending an unviable pregnancy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You don’t Ned to be a pro life Christian to work in these Catholic hospitals. I’m sure at least one of their OB doctors has no issue with abortion ending an unviable pregnancy.

In threads about the Texas abortion ban, and some tragic situations that resulted from it, some posters were swearing up and down that in this situation it isn't an abortion, and that it was the doctors who were wrong or willfully misunderstanding the law to make the law look bad (at the cost of their patient's lives).

 

[MarkSB]

With much hesitation I get involved in this thread...

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.

Focusing on just the last sentence in this statement: Christians (TM) like to throw around the pro-life catch phrase like it makes them better and more holy than everyone else. In other words, if you are against abortion no matter what the circumstances, that is the mark of a true Christian.

I am very strongly pro-life (even stronger than you in my actions, I imagine) - but the notion that denying life saving medical care in circumstances such as these is good and holy is utter nonsense. Instead of viewing the situation for what it is and approaching it with humility and understanding, you approach it with (apparent) haughtiness, apathy, and indifference. Proclaiming a Catholic hospital to be a "pro-life sanctuary" when such a case is presented is a perfect example of that.

I'm very much in favor of protecting unborn life. But when you approach it with legalism and an obvious desire for moral superiority, it ceases to be the holy and righteous thing which you are proclaiming it to be.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

So here is the situation, as I stated to one of the other posters, I feel bad for the lady who went through the whole ordeal the first time. Unfortunately, she ends up doing the same thing (going to the same hospital that denied her the treatment the first time) a second time. Again, I feel bad for the lady but I would have made the decision to go to another (non-Christian hospital) the next time.

But again, this isn't my problem with the whole posting. My problem with this posting is it being placed here on a Christian Forum. What's the point? To let us know how bad Christians Hospitals are for denying to abort a living child in the womb because the hospital doesn't perform abortions (even if the mother's life is in danger)? We know bad things like this happen in real life. We don't need them shoved in our faces implying heavily, "See, this is why we can't ban abortions in the US". If the poster was someone who didn't continue to throw stones at Christians for every little thing they do wrong, I wouldn't have reacted the way I did. But they send post after post after post of story that smack Christians in the face.

 

[MarkSB]

So here is the situation, as I stated to one of the other posters, I feel bad for the lady who went through the whole ordeal the first time. Unfortunately, she ends up doing the same thing (going to the same hospital that denied her the treatment the first time) a second time. Again, I feel bad for the lady but I would have made the decision to go to another (non-Christian hospital) the next time.

Her health insurance only covered hospitals in the Dignity Health Network - which (from the sound of it) are all Catholic hospitals. Perhaps she is a sister in Christ who works for a Christian business, and that is why her insurance only provides access to Catholic hospitals? I don't know. Regardless, I think the suggestion that she should have just gone to a non-Catholic hospital is just another example of Christians failing to hold the body of Christ accountable - which the bible very clearly calls us to do.

Christians who claim to be "pro-life" are very fond of pointing out the Hippocratic oath. (I have done this myself, in the past). In this case, it sounds like the pregnancy is no longer viable. So refusing to terminate the pregnancy because there is still a fetal heartbeat does absolutely nothing to save the child, and only puts the mother at risk. How is that pro-life? Is that who Christ has called us to be, and what he has called us to do in such a situation? I'm not going to claim to know the answer here, but (if you will permit me to use some "Christianese") I think it is a question to be "wrestled" with. I don't think it is as simple as saying that terminating a pregnancy is the wrong path in any and all circumstances, and that leaving the woman to possibly have life threatening issues is the right path.

And yes, that thought makes me shudder - and I would never want to be the person facing that decision. But at the same time I think that taking the stance that terminating a pregnancy which is no longer viable is wrong, and leaving the woman in a life-threatening situation is right; and trying to claim the moral high ground while doing so is a cop-out.

But again, this isn't my problem with the whole posting. My problem with this posting is it being placed here on a Christian Forum. What's the point? To let us know how bad Christians Hospitals are for denying to abort a living child in the womb because the hospital doesn't perform abortions (even if the mother's life is in danger)? We know bad things like this happen in real life. We don't need them shoved in our faces implying heavily, "See, this is why we can't ban abortions in the US". If the poster was someone who didn't continue to throw stones at Christians for every little thing they do wrong, I wouldn't have reacted the way I did. But they send post after post after post of story that smack Christians in the face.

Personally, I think American Christians need a good proverbial smack in the face. (Undoubtedly some Christians from other countries do as well, but I can only speak to what is right in front of me). The bible calls Christians to hold the body of Christ accountable - even moreso than those outside the body of Christ. That is something that is extremely lacking in American Christianity today. Yeah, the (perceived) attacks may be vengeful/vindictive at times - but even if that is the case (which I don't know if it was here), I don't think that calls for us to deflect and make excuses for those who are claiming to be Christians. And Lord knows we've seen plenty of that as of late. Mr. Donald Trump and his most loyal supporters are a case in point.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If the poster was someone who didn't continue to throw stones at Christians for every little thing they do wrong, I wouldn't have reacted the way I did. But they send post after post after post of story that smack Christians in the face.

These documented news stories may upset you, but as someone more prestigious than I once noted, "That they are what they are, do not blame me!"

I mean, as a stone-thrower, I'm not personally in a position to deny anyone emergency medical care, but feel free to share the stories of secular hospitals doing the same based on their ethical guidelines.

 

[Pommer]

Since you don't seem to be a believer (you may but from your comments, it doesn't sound like it), you probably have no problem performing an abortion on an alive unborn child. But there are many, may doctors and medical staff who are disgusted by abortion. And they may just work more in Christian Hospitals that have the guidelines - No Abortions Performed Here. So as our good friend EssentiaSaltes poorly points out that:

Madam I am not a fit candidate to lance a boil, let alone an internal medical operation, I like lamb chops but have never cut up a lamb.

He doesn't realize that "real" people have to perform these abortions (against their moral judgement which can be very damaging to a person's psyche). You people think killing an unborn child is nothing. You are the barbarians. We have a God who despises the murdering of unborn children and His followers feel the same way and they practice medicine in Christian Hospitals.

Sectarian-hospitals thrive on public monies. So far, that has been tolerated.
Would a Jehovah’s Witnesses Hospital be within its rights to not to allow blood transfusions?
I don’t know, but I’d rather not have to worry about that happening if I knew that it was happening at a lower-level (to be sure).

 

[Valletta]

We don't know anything about the moral judgments of these hospital employees who are trained physicians.
We only know about the illegal hospital policy.

"Illegal hospital policy?" What law has been violated? This is a matter of religious freedom.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Illegal hospital policy?" What law has been violated? This is a matter of religious freedom.

I don't think the patient made any religious freedom claims, though I stand ready to be corrected.

 

[Valletta]

I don't think the patient made any religious freedom claims, though I stand ready to be corrected.

Of course the lawsuit against the hospital doesn't say they want to violate religious liberty. Religious liberty is the obvious defense. In a similar case the government tried to force The Little Sisters of the Poor to be covered by health care which was against their religious beliefs. The government argued that if they only served Catholics then they could have a religious exemption. The Little Sisters of the Poor said they were not going to check the religion of every person who came to their soup kitchen. They were endlessly pursued by secular government authorities but eventually their religious rights were upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Illegal hospital policy?" What law has been violated? This is a matter of religious freedom.

The lawsuit alleges that the denials violated California’s Emergency Services Law, which requires hospitals operating a licensed emergency room to treat patients suffering from emergency medical conditions, including previable PPROM.

 

[Valletta]

With the Little Sisters of the Poor the government said they were violating the ACA. However, this new lawsuit is a civil lawsuit.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course the lawsuit against the hospital doesn't say they want to violate religious liberty. Religious liberty is the obvious defense. In a similar case the government tried to force The Little Sisters of the Poor to be covered by health care which was against their religious beliefs. The government argued that if they only served Catholics then they could have a religious exemption. The Little Sisters of the Poor said they were not going to check the religion of every person who came to their soup kitchen. They were endlessly pursued by secular government authorities but eventually their religious rights were upheld by the Supreme Court.

Huh? The patient in question had a non-viable failed pregnancy. That is a health emergency not a religious event. Why would she make a "religious liberty" claim in the malpractice suit against the hospital that failed to treat her?