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

[linux.poet]

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.

I would think that said millions of believers aren't going to fund a policy that leaves a woman with a non-viable 17-week miscarriage to die of sepsis. If the only reason to change the funding is to dodge a law that's meant to save a woman's life, I can't say that I'm going to support that.

We both know that there are ways to put a marketing spin on the situation to sweep the truth under the rug, but the truth comes out eventually and the wise will know. We're not glorifying God by taking money away from other things to fund evading the law.

 

[stevevw]

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.

I don't mean actively supporting Christian organisations. But rather allow them the same rights as other groups in society who also hold worldview beliefs. Take an even hand to all groups who hold different beliefs as far as allowing them to practice their beliefs in the public square.

ie not say that because a religious groups holds to a belief that abortion or SSM is wrong and want to open up facilities accordingly. They should recieve government funding regardless of their belief. Because all beliefs are suppose to be able to practice their beliefs in the public square.

The state represents government interests foremost not religion.

This is the problem. There is no such State that is neutral when it comes to religious type beliefs. The ontological position that abortion or SSM is ok is a belief in itself.

So if the State endorces such a belief over the other beliefs that say abortion is not ok they are descriminating against the beliefs of those who say abortion is wrong. The State wins and gets to enforce this metaphysical belief that is not backed by the science or fact over others.

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.

Yes you have to play by their rules or else.

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

Can you elaborate. I am not sure whether you are jesting or not lol.

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

I am speaking about truth and justice, fairness. I am taking secular societies own norms and morals and ideology and using their own standards to hold them to account. Their own ideology claims that all beliefs are equal and allowed to be expressed in society without bias or favour.

That includes any belief that is ideological and claiming an ontological reality for society. Because the denial or relegatio of particular beliefs is itself based on a belief. A belief that all beliefs can co exist neutrally. A belief that there is no truth of belief and moral laws.

That by the very nature of humans we use beliefs as the basis for how society should be ordered and its not about equality but an ideological beliefs about whether or not there is a God or not. So when the world or State actor who stand on the worldly ideologies that are rejecting God rule they are actually enforcing their belief and not whata is just, right and fair based on truth or fact.

I am not sure you get my point. Maybe I am bad at explaining things.

More excuses.

You don't get what I am saying then. I tend to do this in speaking the third parties in first persons lol. I am not advocating one side or religious freedom that it can breach what is a fundemental truth principle even for Christians that we care for those in need when presenting as a medical emergency. Forget about ethics its a medical emergency that requires intervention fullstop.

Thats one thing. Thats the truth of the matter and fact supported by commonsense health. That pain, complications with pregnacy (water broke) red flag that intervention is required right away. As the science has already told us thats bad medical situation.

I was pointing out the bigger picture. There is obvious moral outrage and fair enough. But I was pointing out in the bigger picture that we can find examples where a belief rather than fact or truth the basis for policy and laws that are unfair and unhealthy and even dangerous to health.

This relates to the idea that all beliefs should be considered for the basis of policy and law so long as they also conform with the facts and truth of the matter. Not that is is an excuse for the specific example. But that we should be fair and consistent with matters of health as to what is best even if it goes against different ideological groups beliefs.

That is the real problem. The inconsistency and ambiguity about what is best which is distorted by ideological beliefs one way or the other.

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.

Then your misunderstanding what I say. As I said I am not disputing or excusing the specific example. Fact is fact.

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

I am sort of the same. I think art in its various forms expresses truths, experiences and realities that conventional forms of knowing cannot do.

But at the same time I am a pragmatic realist. I deal with the reality happening before me as it presents. A big part of that is the level of knowledge and experience one has and especially that which is grounded in objective reality lol.

But humans are more than this and its when we get into the higher needs such as the more transcedent realities like spirituality, morality, self fullfilment and creative ideas and beliefs.

So I understand the full hierarchy of human needs. I work by this holistic approach. I understand when pragmatically someone is presenting at a hospital with an emergency medical problem its the act place they should expect help regardless of religious belief.

But I also understand that behind this is a higher aspect or reality that is the basis for the whole religion verses secular beliefs cultural phenomena. The ultimate right way society and the world should be ordered. Which worldview you subscribe to determines how you see the higher aspects of reality.

 

[stevevw]

I would think that said millions of believers aren't going to fund a policy that leaves a woman with a non-viable 17-week miscarriage to die of sepsis. If the only reason to change the funding is to dodge a law that's meant to save a woman's life, I can't say that I'm going to support that.

We both know that there are ways to put a marketing spin on the situation to sweep the truth under the rug, but the truth comes out eventually and the wise will know. We're not glorifying God by taking money away from other things to fund evading the law.

The simplist way would be for the Catholic hospital to adjust their polcies and procedures to ensure that situation doesn't happen again. It was an oversight that they did not consider that now needs to be adjusted.

Often when something like this happens and it exposes a weakness in the policies and procedures. So its a case of writing into the P & P's how to deal with this situation accordingly. Memo sent out to all departments.

If situations happen enough then sometimes a region wide or State wide change or adjustment is required. If its law then you have to abide by the laws and regulations and reflect them in the P & P's.

 

[MarkSB]

The simplist way would be for the Catholic hospital to adjust their polcies and procedures to ensure that situation doesn't happen again. It was an oversight that they did not consider that now needs to be adjusted.

How do you know it was an oversight that was not considered? It sounds like the response may have been thought out in advance.

 

[bèlla]

I would think that said millions of believers aren't going to fund a policy that leaves a woman with a non-viable 17-week miscarriage to die of sepsis. If the only reason to change the funding is to dodge a law that's meant to save a woman's life, I can't say that I'm going to support that.

We both know that there are ways to put a marketing spin on the situation to sweep the truth under the rug, but the truth comes out eventually and the wise will know. We're not glorifying God by taking money away from other things to fund evading the law.

My comment wasn’t in relation to the case. If they want to uphold their beliefs without interference they can’t accept federal funds. Christian health plans exist and I was thinking along those lines. Their attempt to circumvent the law while being compensated by the government is the problem.

~bella

 

[bèlla]

Can you elaborate. I am not sure whether you are jesting or not lol.

No one is impartial. When you seek someone’s funding you subject yourself to scrutiny and the government is no different. It’s no different from getting a loan. There are things a lender may overlook that another won’t.

I am speaking about truth and justice, fairness. I am taking secular societies own norms and morals and ideology and using their own standards to hold them to account. Their own ideology claims that all beliefs are equal and allowed to be expressed in society without bias or favour.

The equality you posit diminishes the moment you extend your hand. It’s an invitation for bias.

You don't get what I am saying then. I tend to do this in speaking the third parties in first persons lol. I am not advocating one side or religious freedom that it can breach what is a fundemental truth principle even for Christians that we care for those in need when presenting as a medical emergency. Forget about ethics its a medical emergency that requires intervention fullstop.

I don’t support their decision to withhold care and hope she wins the case.

But I also understand that behind this is a higher aspect or reality that is the basis for the whole religion verses secular beliefs cultural phenomena. The ultimate right way society and the world should be ordered. Which worldview you subscribe to determines how you see the higher aspects of reality.

All institutions are businesses. Whether it’s a church or non profit. My position is a reflection of that reality and seeing behind the scenes. Many want to believe morality wins out and it can until it crosses a line (they set) or compromises them financially. That’s where you learn where they stand. Few will diminish their returns to do the right thing. Christian or otherwise.

There’s power in funding your pursuits. Not merely in terms of respect but it opens doors the other won’t.

The bible tells us the borrower is servant to the lender for a reason. It’s implying the same principle I referenced when I mentioned the beggar. You’re beholden when you rely on others financially and the positions are inequitable as the scripture shows. But notice what it says elsewhere.

The LORD will make you the head (leader) and not the tail (follower); and you will be above only, and you will not be beneath, if you listen and pay attention to the commandments of the LORD your God, which I am commanding you today, to observe them carefully.

That’s the principle I follow and it’s served me well. I don’t look for loans or handouts. If I can’t devise a way to fund it the Lord shows me how. I will never be under anyone’s thumb and financial encumbrance is the gravest captivity.

~bella

 

[o_mlly]

During two separate pregnancies, Rachel Harrison’s water broke at just 17 weeks — a condition that can cause deadly complications.

Can cause! A rupture of the amniotic membrane does not always proceed to an infection and may heal allowing the pregnancy to continue. If infected, and even before signs of infection, antibiotics can be administered to prevent infection.

If the infection of the amniotic membrane does in fact occur and fulminates, Catholic hospitals bioethics do allow the administration of drugs to induce contractions of the mother's uterus in order to expel the infected membranes. Therapeutic interventions on the mother's body to save the mother's life are good. The death of the premature child is bad but tolerated under the principles of the Double Effect.

 

[stevevw]

No one is impartial. When you seek someone’s funding you subject yourself to scrutiny and the government is no different. It’s no different from getting a loan. There are things a lender may overlook that another won’t.

Ok so if say an organisation believes in non abortion and offers say counselling to hep women avoid abortions. Does this organisation get as much support and access to funding as say an organisation that offers abortion. Does the government view both organisations evently and the same that they won't descriminate or insist that either conform to the opposite of their beliefs.

The example was also given of the Christian adoption agency whose policy is only adopting to heterosexual couples in marriage. If the government descriminated against such an agency on funding because of their belief is that fair. If they insist say that the Christian organisation must also be open to adopt to SSM couples to get funding.

The equality you posit diminishes the moment you extend your hand. It’s an invitation for bias.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying by nature it is impossible to be neutral about equality. That once you say uplift one group and their beliefs you automatically invite bias against others.

I don’t support their decision to withhold care and hope she wins the case.

Sorry I am not sure of the detail. Is the hospital withholding further care until she wins the case. Why is the same women who was turned away wanting to go back and get further care from a hospital that denied her care in the first place. Is this because its in her jurisdiction and she has no choice.

All institutions are businesses. Whether it’s a church or non profit. My position is a reflection of that reality and seeing behind the scenes. Many want to believe morality wins out and it can until it crosses a line (they set) or compromises them financially. That’s where you learn where they stand. Few will diminish their returns to do the right thing. Christian or otherwise.

Not sure if all organisations treat the services they may setup to help others as businesses for profit. Some actually don't make profits and more or less run on some charges to clients and the rest is charity. Thats what a non profit is.

I think from my experience is that in the past we had lots of charity run social supports that were not expected to conform to State regulations. You could setup a support for say homeless or for marriage counselling and not have to be regulated by the State that much. But over time the States regulations and also legal ramifications have caused all organisations to have to conform.

This is important. But at the same time this has deterred many from bothering to setup such supports as its a mindfiled of litergations, regulations and costs. But it was these unregulated and spontaneous movements that rose up from the people to help others. All this does is bring everything under one centralised power of the Welfare State controlling eveyone.

There’s power in funding your pursuits. Not merely in terms of respect but it opens doors the other won’t.

Yeah but sometimes its not about money. The very nature of Christianity love and charity is to do it for nothing. If it becomes about profits then its no longer about caring for others but making profits. Perhaps thats the fundemental problem in the first place.

The bible tells us the borrower is servant to the lender for a reason. It’s implying the same principle I referenced when I mentioned the beggar. You’re beholden when you rely on others financially and the positions are inequitable as the scripture shows. But notice what it says elsewhere.

But the bible also says that we are to help the Good Samaritan and even give them the shirt off our own backs. Thus actually giving for no return in helping others. Just doing it out of love. I think when it comes to health business is not a good model.

Though I understand the practical reality of runiing a hospital requires financial accountability. But theres a difference between profit driven and peoples driven. Its easy to put profits before people.

The LORD will make you the head (leader) and not the tail (follower); and you will be above only, and you will not be beneath, if you listen and pay attention to the commandments of the LORD your God, which I am commanding you today, to observe them carefully.

That’s the principle I follow and it’s served me well. I don’t look for loans or handouts. If I can’t devise a way to fund it the Lord shows me how. I will never be under anyone’s thumb and financial encumbrance is the gravest captivity.

~bella

The whole idea of handoutts and paying back and all that is an oppressive system of the world that people are forced to abide by. Christians are called to live beyond such a system though we may have to be in that system sometimes.

But ultimately its not how Christians are to live. We are to store up riches in heaven and help others even if that means not making money and suffering as a result as to what this world would consider unreal.

 

[stevevw]

How do you know it was an oversight that was not considered? It sounds like the response may have been thought out in advance.

It may have been. Their beliefs may have caused them to be blind to that particular situation because it was a grey area they were not fully willing to investigate. I think this is common. A bit like groupthink and it happens to any group and not just religious organisations. We are all humans.

I don't think they would set out to deny someone with a medical emergency. They just did not fully think through their policy position in that situation which caused an ethical dilemma they could not deal with. Their policy was too black and white perhaps and did not consider these situations. It has exposed a weakness they need to address.

The point is now they are made aware and have to adjust accordingly to be able to continue to offer their services/ If its a legal requirement. If the requirement is that anyone presenting to a medical emergency department with a life threatening emergency should be helped.

 

[bèlla]

Ok so if say an organisation believes in non abortion and offers say counselling to hep women avoid abortions. Does this organisation get as much support and access to funding as say an organisation that offers abortion. Does the government view both organisations evently and the same that they won't descriminate or insist that either conform to the opposite of their beliefs.

Are you hoping that’s the case? I think their position is largely influenced by their overseers. The invisible hands behind the monolith. I’ve never believed politicians were running the show. Including the president.

The example was also given of the Christian adoption agency whose policy is only adopting to heterosexual couples in marriage. If the government descriminated against such an agency on funding because of their belief is that fair. If they insist say that the Christian organisation must also be open to adopt to SSM couples to get funding.

I know what you’d like me to say but I can’t. The bible provides enough examples about christian’s place in the world and our hardships. Why we exacerbate the latter is beyond me.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying by nature it is impossible to be neutral about equality. That once you say uplift one group and their beliefs you automatically invite bias against others.

When a person is making a decision they may choose to heed their bias or ignore it. They’re always with us.

Sorry I am not sure of the detail. Is the hospital withholding further care until she wins the case. Why is the same women who was turned away wanting to go back and get further care from a hospital that denied her care in the first place. Is this because its in her jurisdiction and she has no choice.

Someone suggested that was the case in a previous post.

This is important. But at the same time this has deterred many from bothering to setup such supports as its a mindfiled of litergations, regulations and costs. But it was these unregulated and spontaneous movements that rose up from the people to help others. All this does is bring everything under one centralised power of the Welfare State controlling eveyone.

There was a time when I contemplated running a charity. But I decided against it for many reasons including the above.

Yeah but sometimes its not about money. The very nature of Christianity love and charity is to do it for nothing. If it becomes about profits then its no longer about caring for others but making profits. Perhaps thats the fundemental problem in the first place.

Nothing in the world is free. Including charity. Someone must earn the means or create the resources you dispense. It doesn’t fall from the sky.

Though I understand the practical reality of runiing a hospital requires financial accountability. But theres a difference between profit driven and peoples driven. Its easy to put profits before people.

Given the level of litigation in our society and the malpractice insurance rates they pay. I’d assume there‘s profit involved even if it appears otherwise. It’s a risky business.

The whole idea of handoutts and paying back and all that is an oppressive system of the world that people are forced to abide by. Christians are called to live beyond such a system though we may have to be in that system sometimes.

But ultimately its not how Christians are to live. We are to store up riches in heaven and help others even if that means not making money and suffering as a result as to what this world would consider unreal.

How do you intend to do that? Or what have you done? I’ve noticed a pattern on the site concerning this subject. You only quote the bible and say what should occur. But I rarely hear personal tales. It’s kind of odd.

@Carl Emerson posed a question along these lines and I responded to the thread. My answer was based on something I drafted for myself concerning patronage and the direction I want us to take in our household. When the desire to give is deeply felt you do things like that. You don’t speak in platitudes or wag your finger. You put things in place and act.

I’m not suggesting you‘ve done so with your post but it’s something I’ve noticed. And I‘ve been in circles where philanthropy is the norm and joined an organization known for its generosity in my twenties. I wasn’t walking with the Lord at the time but my commitment to patronage was great.

I mentioned the value of a moral compass earlier and your comment has me weighing it once more. Many of the things I do aren’t on account of my faith. I don’t need the bible to tell me to give, live decently and so on. The desire to do so is already there. Perhaps that‘s why christians struggle so much. You’re working against your nature. It’s easier to follow the current than swim against it.

~bella

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

for what its worth, my mom was raised catholic and i know that part of herself even in her old age:


still believes mothers should die with their miscarriages. I wish i was making this up.

This is sad. I wonder if the Catholic hospital and many people on here thinks this way.

 

[o_mlly]

This is sad. I wonder if the Catholic hospital and many people on here thinks this way.

Catholic teaching does not require mothers to die in miscarriages:

https://www.usccb.org/resources/ethical-religious-directives-catholic-health-service-sixth-edition-2016-06_0.pdf

47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a​

proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when​

they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in​

the death of the unborn child.​

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Catholic teaching does not require mothers to die in miscarriages:

https://www.usccb.org/resources/ethical-religious-directives-catholic-health-service-sixth-edition-2016-06_0.pdf

47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a​

proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when​

they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in​

the death of the unborn child.​

That's good to know. But the Catholic put a woman in danger. When she should have sent to labor and delivery. They should have induced her labor. At the very least, it was dangerous not to give medical care.

 

[johansen]

This is sad. I wonder if the Catholic hospital and many people on here thinks this way.

There are a few on this forum who uphold the catholic death center (i do not call them a hospital)
Sending the hemmoraging woman away to another.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

There are a few on this forum who uphold the catholic death center (i do not call them a hospital)
Sending the hemmoraging woman away to another.

I agree. We have 2 Catholic hospital in my city. I took my dad to one of them.. I liked it. They did a good job. I like the coziness of the rooms. They have crosses all over. I would, that they would do their job. In this type a case.