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

Valletta · 2025-10-08T18:17:31-0500

Hans Blaster said:
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 · 2025-10-08T19:06:27-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
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 · 2025-10-08T19:20:27-0500

Valletta said:
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 · 2025-10-08T19:40:04-0500

Valletta said:
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.)

Valletta said:
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.

Valletta said:
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 · 2025-10-08T21:24:06-0500

MarkSB said:
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 :angel:

.

Belk · 2025-10-08T21:49:27-0500

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

Tell that to the Rastafarians.

stevevw · 2025-10-09T01:29:22-0500

BCP1928 said:
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 · 2025-10-09T01:34:48-0500

stevevw said:
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 · 2025-10-09T03:28:48-0500

Romans 13:1-5 said:
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 · 2025-10-09T08:36:32-0500

Hans Blaster said:
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 · 2025-10-09T10:06:23-0500

stevevw said:
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.

stevevw said:
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.

stevevw said:
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 · 2025-10-09T11:18:28-0500

Hans Blaster said:
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.

Hans Blaster said:
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.

Hans Blaster said:
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.

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

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Beardo

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

inquisitive

Beardo

act from love, not fear

inquisitive

Beardo

inquisitive

Similar threads