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

[Valletta]

I did 20 years of Catholicism. Not once did the practice of medicine, law, building trades, accounting, science, engineering, motor vehicle and machinery operation, management, etc., ever come up during the practice of our religion. Likewise in 40 years of employment, never have I ever seen the practice of anyone's religion be part of the work we were doing -- not in a factory, not in a field, not in a classroom, not in the lab.

Not everything a person with a religion does is the "practice of their religion" and medicine certainly falls in that category. Physicians (and nurses and pharmacists, etc.) are all licensed by the state to practice that profession. Religion isn't even relevant to it.

It doesn't sound like you worked for a Catholic run facility where abortions were involved. The Catholic Church is the leader in the pro-life movement. Catholic hospitals and other Catholic medical facilities are not allowed to perform abortions as per directives developed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Both the life of the mother and the child are considered valuable.

 

[MarkSB]

I will wait for my proverbial "smack in the face" as soon as you are done pulling the sequoia tree stuck in your eye. God bless you. I still love you.

And what sequoia tree might that be? I'll admit that I have proven to be a hypocrite on many things. (We all have, and those who say they haven't are lying). But the stance which some "pro-lifers" take on issues like these is blatantly hypocritical. And trying to act as morally superior while doing it and using diversion tactics like the victim stance being used in this thread just serves to prove that point. These behaviors seem to have become very common in large parts of Christian culture, and that ought not to be so. Personally, I think that God wants us to be smarter and more self-examining than that.

Bless you as well.

 

[MarkSB]

The defense against the accusations in both cases is freedom of religion. How convenient is it to just exclude all talk of any defense. Contrary to your assertions, I am doing just the opposite, I am honing in on the defense. In my country a defense in court is supposed to be allowed. I understand in these days statues of Madison and Jefferson are not popular, but the Bill of Rights is a reality.

Again, you're not addressing the issue. You're trying to generalize and hide behind "freedom of religion", instead of examining the principles in the case at hand. Someone being forced to buy health insurance (which is sounds like wasn't the actual case for the Little Sisters of the Poor, but I'll play along) isn't the same as sending someone away to potentially die. And what really needs to be addressed is the contingent of Christians claiming that the latter is, without question, a morally superior action. That position wreaks of self-absorbed pride, haughtiness, and hypocrisy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It doesn't sound like you worked for a Catholic run facility where abortions were involved.

Why would I have worked at a medical facility? I ain't in that field. (I've never worked at a religious institution of any kind. Shudder.)

The Catholic Church is the leader in the pro-life movement.

I thought it was more of a theological obsession, but we are talking about a church, not a business.

Catholic hospitals and other Catholic medical facilities are not allowed to perform abortions as per directives developed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Both the life of the mother and the child are considered valuable.

If the Church can't handle operating medical businesses, then they should find some other place to invest their money.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

And what sequoia tree might that be? I'll admit that I have proven to be a hypocrite on many things. (We all have, and those who say they haven't are lying). But the stance which some "pro-lifers" take on issues like these is blatantly hypocritical. And trying to act as morally superior while doing it and using diversion tactics like the victim stance being used in this thread just serves to prove that point. These behaviors seem to have become very common in large parts of Christian culture, and that ought not to be so. Personally, I think that God wants us to be smarter and more self-examining than that.

Bless you as well.

Whoops, so you read this one, huh .

 

[Belk]

The state has no authority to supersede a doctor's right to practice his religion.

Tell that to the Rastafarians.

 

[stevevw]

There are Christians and then there are Christians. For my part, I am a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie" (an Anglican) and an Anglican Priest who posts regularly here has had the validity of her faith, her denomination and her ordination openly denied. The Attorney General now has a committee of Evangelical Protestant clergy trying to find a legal way to deny the protections of the First Amendment to any but Evangleical Protestant Christians. The Democrats (many of whom are devout Christians themselves) aren't doing that.

Is the debate now going into denomination politics and theology. Not sure thats a good idea lol. Though I think the label you have made would not be the majority of Catholics. Seems more extreme end of politics and religion using that narrative.

I am getting confused now. How does the denominational beliefs relate to health care. Or any right within secular society under the constitution or human rights. Human and constitutional rights would allow different denominations to practice their beliefs. Even if you disagree.

They are doing nothing wrong as far as secular rights and freedoms when it comes to other denominations. The idea is that all religions and denominations have the right to practice and express their beliefs.

If the Catholics disagree that women can be preists that is their right to their conscience and belief. Its not a personal attack on protestants. Its just their belief being expressed which disagrees with protestants. Diagreeing with another denominations beliefs or practices is not a denial of rights. Its a difference of belief clashing lol.

Its the same idea as some who claim that disagreeing with trans or SSM is a denial of rights. Its not. Its a disagreement of beliefs that have to coexist. Just expressing a belief that you disagree and practicing that according to your religion is not a denial of anyones rights. That is what is called a free society that allows people their human rights to hold beliefs and views according to their conscience. .

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is the debate now going into denomination politics and theology. Not sure thats a good idea lol. Though I think the label you have made would not be the majority of Catholics. Seems more extreme end of politics and religion using that narrative.

I am getting confused now. How does the denominational beliefs relate to health care. Or any right within secular society under the constitution or human rights. Human and constitutional rights would allow different denominations to practice their beliefs. Even if you disagree. They are doing nothing wrong as far as secular rights and freedoms when it comes to other denominations.

Which they are free to do as a church. This is a hospital.

 

[linux.poet]

Every person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a servant of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for the sake of conscience.

I honestly think Catholics believe that Romans 13 is the inspired Word of God, and therefore, they should follow the State of California law in how they run their hospital. As we have established, this situation is not an abortion and therefore does not violate the numerous Scriptures against abortion or Catholic teaching against abortion. If it was an abortion, they would have the religious freedom not to perform it, but that is not the case here.

Therefore, the Catholics should be free to follow their religion, by actually following their religion. I don't see a religious freedom issue here. All I see is a medical tragedy that was handled improperly as regards the law. Neither Christianity nor the law are at issue, because California laws allows for full-on abortions and definitely wasn't scaring doctors away from the correct procedure, and Christianity says, in the absence of conflict with other Scriptural regulations, you submit to the laws of the government. The hospitals need to update their procedure to better deal with this situation in the future, minor detail.

But maybe there's some other thing in the Magisterium somewhere that complicates this. I wouldn't know it because I'm not Catholic.

What I do know is that if I have a miscarriage or other nonviable pregnancy in my womb, I want it removed without having an argument. I'm anti-abortion as they come, but I'm not up for dying of hemorrhage or sepsis because of pesky ethics dithering. I'm as anti-abortion as they come, but I think I will be going to the secular hospital until things change, as part of my religious freedom to not die of preventable medical causes.

 

[stevevw]

Which they are free to do as a church. This is a hospital.

Yes so therefore the charge is they breached State or federal laws. As far as I understand the Catholic hospital had a policy of not doing abortions. So in this case there was a ethical dilemma created as to whether this was an abortion or not.

It tuns out it was an health emergency rather than an abortion so the hospital should have provided help as this is law. As far as I can see this was not a straight out case and there was a conflict of belief. Something that has now caused the hospital to have to rethink their policy in this specific situation so as to abide by the legal requirements.

But the general idea that religious facilities have the right to say (not do abortions in the first place) or not adopt to say SSM couples if they run an adoption agency, or pray outside abortion clinics or pray and support those within the LGBTIQ+ community ect. These should be rights under the freedom of religion and following ones conscience. Which are human rights.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes so therefore the charge is they breached State or federal laws. As far as I understand the Catholic hospital had a policy of not doing abortions. So in this case there was a ethical dilemma created as to whether this was an abortion or not.

Their "morals" were tying themselves in knots. The decision wasn't hard.

It tuns out it was an health emergency rather than an abortion so the hospital should have provided help as this is law. As far as I can see this was not a straight out case and there was a conflict of belief. Something that has now caused the hospital to have to rethink their policy in this specific situation so as to abide by the legal requirements.

I think you have this mostly right, but it was a 17-week pregnancy that failed. There was no possibility of life.

But the general idea that religious facilities have the right to say (not do abortions in the first place) or not adopt to say SSM couples if they run an adoption agency, or pray outside abortion clinics or pray and support those within the LGBTIQ+ community ect. These should be rights under the freedom of religion and following ones conscience. Which are human rights.

As I've said before, they should feel free to do that on their own time. Instead they have opened their business to the general public (non-Catholics). As you said above, the need to abide by legal requirements for hospitals.

 

[stevevw]

Their "morals" were tying themselves in knots. The decision wasn't hard.

Thats what happens when an organisation has to navigate a system that conflicts with their beliefs in the first place. The decision is made hard in that they had to operate in a secular system that does not descriminate regarding abortion in the first place. If there was no morals about the abortion issue then yes its an easy decision because its not even a consideration.

But as these organisations have to navigate the secular system while trying to incoporate their beliefs they will get things wrong. You say its easy from your belief. But its not always easy for those with different beliefs.

I think you have this mostly right, but it was a 17-week pregnancy that failed. There was no possibility of life.

Yes and thats the defining issue in this specific situation that has happened that the hospital probably did not think through or contemplate until it happened. The issue seemed to be about a heart beat and to the Catholics this was life so tyo their conscience this is murder.

Though in reality as you say there was no chance of the baby surviving as it was too early. It was a tragic accident that her waters broke early. Once that happened there was no choice but to abort.

As I've said before, they should feel free to do that on their own time. Instead they have opened their business to the general public (non-Catholics). As you said above, the need to abide by legal requirements for hospitals.

I think they have a right to open to the public. It is usually up to the public is they choose to use such a hospital. But in doing so they also have to adjust as needed where specific issues which may cross the line like this one. Which are going to be the exception and not the rule as far as their service being anti abortion and performing no abortions but rather supporting women who want to have their baby or feel unsure.

 

[MarkSB]

Whoops, so you read this one, huh .

?????

Ok, let's try a reset. Instead of calling each other hypocrites (which I assume is what your post is alluding to), lets look at this case based purely on its merits.

Is it your contention that in the case of a non-viable pregnancy / miscarriage, where the mother's life is at risk, that physicians must check for a heartbeat, and if there is a heartbeat the mother must be sent away? And that such actions are what God wants?

 

[MarkSB]

I think they have a right to open to the public. It is usually up to the public is they choose to use such a hospital. But in doing so they also have to adjust as needed where specific issues which may cross the line like this one. Which are going to be the exception and not the rule as far as their service being anti abortion and performing no abortions but rather supporting women who want to have their baby or feel unsure.

I appreciate the charitable tone of your posts. Regarding the first sentence in the above paragraph: The problem is that like most hospitals, government funding (such as Medicare and Medicaid) likely accounts for a sizeable portion of their revenue. They are supported by the public and they must serve the public, not one particular religious denomination or set of religious beliefs.

It seems like you are in agreement that they should have handled this situation differently. Personally, I believe they should have a right to not perform elective abortions - but that is not what this was. Again - it seems like you're in agreement on this... so just reiterating the points which you have made.

 

[stevevw]

I appreciate the charitable tone of your posts. Regarding the first sentence in the above paragraph: The problem is that like most hospitals, government funding (such as Medicare and Medicaid) likely accounts for a sizeable portion of their revenue. They are supported by the public and they must serve the public, not one particular religious denomination or set of religious beliefs.

It seems like you are in agreement that they should have handled this situation differently. Personally, I believe they should have a right to not perform elective abortions - but that is not what this was. Again - it seems like you're in agreement on this... so just reiterating the points which you have made.

The problem is when any organisation or religion want to provide support in this world based on their beliefs and they conflict with secular ideology they are going to be in a hard situations to begin with.

This would not happen in secular hospitals that allow abortions as there is no determinations to be made in tricky and unusual situations. Everyone is sutomatically referred no matter what. The ethics of abortion has already been decided in favor of abortion. So its never going to come up and create ethical dilemmas.

Thats no excuse but it is a setback for religious organisations that have to navigate when the exceptional situations come up. They obviously did not think about such a situation happening and what best to do. It took such a situation to highlight the gap in their policies and proceedures.

The idea of public funding and the right to practice a religious belief depends on belief itself I think. Though there are obvious situations such as emergency health care which is a matter of life and death and the ethics should be to save life full stop if a person is in a medical emergency. Politics and beliefs are irrelevant.

But the fundemental idea that a religious organisation must conform to government regulations and laws is not necesarily a clear cut determination. Sometimes the State pushed their own ideological beliefs through laws like trans ideology in schools and DEI in workplace policy.

Or even the policy of allowing abortion can be seen itself as a bad law and policy that causes more harm than good. So the determination of what should be allowed in secular society is not always the best thing even if its codified.

The right for a religious organisation to disagree and promote an alternative approach such as traditional marriage in adoption or psycho therapy and prayer for trans or women wanting an abortion is a consititutional right. BUt today its regarded as being hateful and denying people thier rights. BUt still this is a subjective belief and not fact or relaity.

 

[MarkSB]

The problem is when any organisation or religion want to provide support in this world based on their beliefs and they conflict with secular ideology they are going to be in a hard situations to begin with.

This would not happen in secular hospitals that allow abortions as there is no determinations to be made in tricky and unusual situations. Everyone is sutomatically referred no matter what. The ethics of abortion has already been decided in favor of abortion. So its never going to come up and create ethical dilemmas.

Thats no excuse but it is a setback for religious organisations that have to navigate when the exceptional situations come up. They obviously did not think about such a situation happening and what best to do. It took such a situation to highlight the gap in their policies and proceedures.

The idea of public funding and the right to practice a religious belief depends on belief itself I think. Though there are obvious situations such as emergency health care which is a matter of life and death and the ethics should be to save life full stop if a person is in a medical emergency. Politics and beliefs are irrelevant.

But the fundemental idea that a religious organisation must conform to government regulations and laws is not necesarily a clear cut determination. Sometimes the State pushed their own ideological beliefs through laws like trans ideology in schools and DEI in workplace policy.

Or even the policy of allowing abortion can be seen itself as a bad law and policy that causes more harm than good. So the determination of what should be allowed in secular society is not always the best thing even if its codified.

The right for a religious organisation to disagree and promote an alternative approach such as traditional marriage in adoption or psycho therapy and prayer for trans or women wanting an abortion is a consititutional right. BUt today its regarded as being hateful and denying people thier rights. BUt still this is a subjective belief and not fact or relaity.

Well said. I can't say that I agree with everything that you've written, but no one agrees on everything.

What I (and I imagine many others) find particularly troublesome is the people who don't seem to care when things like this happen, or don't want to admit that it points to a flaw in the system or in their beliefs. Refusing to provide medical care when a miscarriage has occurred is not something to be held up as righteous and holy. And bringing up freedom of religion in a case such as this I would argue is only a means by which to try to maintain that "righteous and holy" / morally superior stance. It ignores the issue which is actually at hand and seeks to paint the hospital / religious institution as the victim, and to make that the central issue. Since victims are typically viewed as being innocent, reframing the issue in this way allows them to maintain their "righteous and holy" stance. This is a tactic which is often employed by narcissists. That's not to say that everyone who employs these tactics is a narcissist, but when coupled with other personality traits it can be a sign of narcissism.

There is a lot that I could dive into here, but to try to keep it short I will also say that Christian culture in America (and Evangelical Christian culture, in particular) likes to create an "us vs. them" mentality which also feeds into issues like this. Things are rubber stamped as being either "Christian" or "Non-Christian/Secular". We have "Christian" music, which of course must be inherently good and holy. We have "Christian" political parties, "Christian" authors, and the official "Christian" stance which must be taken on social and political issues such as abortion. I think that God gave us intellect for a reason, and that He wants us to use it and to think deeper than that. Rubber stamping political candidates and certain political stances as "Christian" or "Non-Christian" not only prevents us from doing actual soul-searching and from growing spiritually, but also opens us up to being deceived. Not to mention the impact which it has on our social interactions and on society at large.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

?????

Ok, let's try a reset. Instead of calling each other hypocrites (which I assume is what your post is alluding to), lets look at this case based purely on its merits.

Is it your contention that in the case of a non-viable pregnancy / miscarriage, where the mother's life is at risk, that physicians must check for a heartbeat, and if there is a heartbeat the mother must be sent away? And that such actions are what God wants?

To be honest, I truly don't know what the right decision would have been. The hospital did what it thought was the right decision. If I were put in that position, I would have sent the lady with an EMS unit to the closest hospital that could willingly accommodate her. And I would (probably reluctantly though) pay for all expenses that her insurance would not cover.

 

[bèlla]

The problem is when any organisation or religion want to provide support in this world based on their beliefs and they conflict with secular ideology they are going to be in a hard situations to begin with.

The issue is their desire for compensation from the public and government. They could operate an organization for christians or catholics and avoid these problems. But they wouldn’t get the funding.

~bella

 

[stevevw]

The issue is their desire for compensation from the public and government. They could operate an organization for christians or catholics and avoid these problems. But they wouldn’t get the funding.

~bella

But thats the point. Their funding should not be withheld because they hold a different belief. As opposed to the worldview beliefs of the State. Or as opposed to the worldview beliefs that the State chooses to endorce or support. All groups should get the same treatment regardless.

The State is suppose to be neutral which means all worldview beliefs have equal rights to exist and be expressed without fear or favour. Catholics and Christians organisations should be able to get funding without any conditions from the State as far as their different beliefs and how they are practiced in society.

The State will give funding to other organisations who hold worldview beliefs that others disagree with without conditions as far as restricting the expression of their beliefs and even its promotion by the State in allowing that belief over other beliefs.

Is the State really a neutral actor. Or can they hold beliefs themselves and favour one worldview over the other and thus be biased or descriminatory towards certain beliefs in how they restrict certain beliefs.

For example if we turn the abortion norms that its ok to do on its head and pretend we live in an alternative reality where abortion is not allowed. The States default position was anti abortion (which has happened). Then suddenly organisations that believed abortion is ok are in the shoes of those organisations who are not allowed to express their beliefs re funding ect.

Both are worldview beliefs. Why is one favoured and not the other. Should not they both have the same rights to exist and be offered the same funding rights ect. Then the public can choose which way to go. IN that sense everyone has equal right to choose without descrimination against one worldview and not the other.

Or if we truely went with facts or reality or what is truely the best as far as health is concerned for society. Then some of the positional beliefs like pro abortion may not be the healthiest way a society can be according to the science. Yet still certain beliefs about what is best are pushed and supported by the State. Is that not a belief rather than standing with a neutral fact or reality.

I agree that when it comes to public safety there are laws that all must follow regardless of belief and in this case public safety was at risk and emergency service should have been provided.

But fundementally this highlights the whole issue about how opposing beliefs can be fairly expressed in society. In that if there is moral outrage that of a Catholic organisations rights to their beliefs in the first place. Then we can go through lots of examples where cerain worldview beliefs have been allowed and even endorced and promoted by the State or by certain groups that risk public safety.

ie you could say that a hospital who allows unchecked abortions is a risk to public health. Depending on your worldview beliefs and the science.

 

[bèlla]

But thats the point. Their funding should not be withheld because they hold a different belief. As opposed to the worldview beliefs of the State. Or as opposed to the worldview beliefs that the State chooses to endorce or support. All groups should get the same treatment regardless.

The government isn’t responsible for supporting christian causes. If they want to rest on their beliefs they need to raise the money. There’s millions of believers. They have more than enough to draw from.

The State is suppose to be neutral which means all worldview beliefs have equal rights to exist and be expressed without fear or favour. Catholics and Christians organisations should be able to get funding without any conditions from the State as far as their different beliefs and how they are practiced in society.

The state represents government interests foremost not religion. They need some tea drinking southerners to educate them on the principle. You’ve forgotten your place. You’re a beggar seeking funding like the rest. Don’t allow your religion to confound you. For a people supposedly endowed with the Holy Spirit you function a lot like sinners.

That’s what happens when you seek the devil’s kitty for funds. Where’s your followers gifted in leadership and administration? They’re going to pull the rug eventually.

The State will give funding to other organisations who hold worldview beliefs that others disagree with without conditions as far as restricting the expression of their beliefs and even its promotion by the State in allowing that belief over other beliefs.

How can you believe in Christ and post that? Stop making excuses for their laziness and omission of creativity.

Is the State really a neutral actor. Or can they hold beliefs themselves and favour one worldview over the other and thus be biased or descriminatory towards certain beliefs in how they restrict certain beliefs.

It doesn’t matter what they do. You have more than a billion followers to draw from. Why haven’t you done that?

For example if we turn the abortion law on its head and pretend we live in an alternative reality where abortion is not allowed. The States default position was anti abortion. Then suddenly organisations that believed abortion is ok are in the shoes of those organisations who are not allowed to express their beliefs re funding ect.

More excuses.

I agree that when it comes to public safety there are laws that all must follow regardless of belief and in this case public safety was at risk and emergency service should have been provided.

Your answers largely reflect the reason I will never support christian organizations. You provided a litany of excuses and finger pointing which removed the responsibility from where it belongs. They’re a disgrace to the Most High.

We’re accountable for our gifts and talents. Irrespective of the world or circumstance you’re expected to perform. I’d rather fund the arts than a bastardization of truth sorely needing a reality check.

~bella