• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus[W:465]

Well, I would agree that when they first applied to take over the hospital, the licensing should have been based on them serving everyone according to best practice medical techniques and that it should have been clear they could not apply their religious bias to the care they provide. If they were unwilling to do that, they should not have been allowed to take over the hospital.

I also would agree that IF THEY TOOK NO STATE AND FEDERAL MONEY - including medicare/medicaid -and it was all private - then they could say they can discriminate on the care they provide.

But given that they take our tax dollars, they need to follow best practice medical care. In this case, sending the woman home in her condition and refusing to do an abortion was NOT best practice medical care. We're not talking about an abortion for non-medical reasons; we're talking about saving a woman's life.

I do agree that when they got the license it should have been made clear to them the standard of care they were expected to provide; I hold the people who licensed them responsible for that. But given that they are the only hospital in the county, they need to provide proper care. If they don't want to, they should only take over hospitals in areas where there are secular alternatives. That's their choice - they chose an area with no other hospitals. They didn't have to.

You can't really have it both ways - you can't say they should have been told that there license was conditional on providing care contrary to their religious beliefs and at the same time say that no other alternatives were available in the community. If you ask me, and I'm sure you wouldn't, I'd say the community is damn lucky the Catholic Church decided to provide hospital services in a community where the state and/or a for-profit private entity refused to set up shop. In addition, I'll venture that the Catholic Church set up shop there because there is a large Catholic population in the community.

As for providing all medical care possible to all possible patients, that's a pretty high bar to set for any institution, public or private. You make the mistake of equating a constitutional right not to be barred from accessing abortion services with a constitutional right to be provided with abortion services in any and all medical facilities a person may enter. The Catholic hospital is not denying the woman the right to an abortion, just not in their facility.

As for the hospital taking "our tax dollars", I haven't seen any proof that the hospital receives grants or other money from the community or state simply for existing - they no doubt receive payment from the state for serving medicaid and medicare patients, but surely you don't suggest that no facility that doesn't provide abortion services can receive payment for any service funded by the government programs, or are you? Is your position only related to abortions? How about if a facility doesn't have MRI equipment - are they banned from receiving government program funding for other services provided? Again, it is not the Catholic hospital's fault that there is no abortion or public facility in the community and they are not responsible for providing all services possible, just to provide adequate and safe services as government by medical licensing agencies. And besides, most Catholics and most pro-life people also pay taxes and I'm sure they're pretty satisfied for the most part with the services they have in the community.

As for saving a woman's life - the woman didn't die did she? Is she suing from the grave or her family suing because of her loss? No. So, the woman was pregnant and something went wrong - she went to the hospital and was given treatment to help her save her baby - presumably, that's what she wanted or she wouldn't have left the hospital the first two times. When it became apparent the child couldn't be saved, the mother was treated and her life protected. The hospital is being blamed, apparently, for doing everything they thought they could and should to try to save the life of the child.

Perhaps, as Obama would like to do, you'd like to see Catholic charities get out of providing such services and hospitals and leave it to secular private profit entities or public government facilities. Clearly, from what we know so far, no such private or public government facility took up the task of providing this community with the services they need, according to you. Perhaps it would be better for the hospital simply to shut down, leave the 40,000 or so residents without any hospital, all so some women can get abortions on demand.
 
I have asked you to demonstrate ONE case here in the US. You ASSUME because you think American Catholic hospitals operate on the same apparent religious law as in Ireland, that there must be cases here.

Here is where you put up.

Nope. You asked for a case where a catholic hospital refused an abortion request and the woman died because of complications with the fetus. I provided. You moved the goal posts by asking for an american example of the same thing. It doesn't matter where the hospitals are. Catholic rules are catholic rules. No abortions, period.

Nun ex communicated for approving life saving abortion
 
Nope. You asked for a case where a catholic hospital refused an abortion request and the woman died because of complications with the fetus. I provided. You moved the goal posts by asking for an american example of the same thing. It doesn't matter where the hospitals are. Catholic rules are catholic rules. No abortions, period.

Nun ex communicated for approving life saving abortion

Look dude, this is an American issue I dont care what happens in Zimbabwe. I should not have to qualify that.

And your little link disputes your assertion-SHOW ME WHERE ANY AMERICAN HAS BEEN HARMED. That nun did what you are claiming they WONT do.:roll:

And huffpo isnt a real citation buddy. Stop tap dancing, get to it.
 
I read the article several times. I am not sure I understand why they said the mother's life was 'at risk'. Delivery is painful and usually pain meds are offered and administered. Why not in this case? Help me to understand what put the mother's life at risk.
 
I read the article several times. I am not sure I understand why they said the mother's life was 'at risk'. Delivery is painful and usually pain meds are offered and administered. Why not in this case? Help me to understand what put the mother's life at risk.

There is major info missing from that article. This is like the Trayvon martin case or that lesbian waitress a few weeks ago. We are supposed to "feel" without facts, as in the classic liberal manner.
 
There is major info missing from that article. This is like the Trayvon martin case or that lesbian waitress a few weeks ago. We are supposed to "feel" without facts, as in the classic liberal manner.

There is no information such as, was this her first pregnancy? Had she ever delivered before? I might conclude this suit was a result of the abject fear she experienced since she had no clue what level of pain she was in for, and thought she was going to die. But that is only my opinion. There had to be several other places she could have gone to to abort her child. Three trips is a bit strange.
 
You can't really have it both ways - you can't say they should have been told that there license was conditional on providing care contrary to their religious beliefs and at the same time say that no other alternatives were available in the community. If you ask me, and I'm sure you wouldn't, I'd say the community is damn lucky the Catholic Church decided to provide hospital services in a community where the state and/or a for-profit private entity refused to set up shop. In addition, I'll venture that the Catholic Church set up shop there because there is a large Catholic population in the community.

As for providing all medical care possible to all possible patients, that's a pretty high bar to set for any institution, public or private. You make the mistake of equating a constitutional right not to be barred from accessing abortion services with a constitutional right to be provided with abortion services in any and all medical facilities a person may enter. The Catholic hospital is not denying the woman the right to an abortion, just not in their facility.

As for the hospital taking "our tax dollars", I haven't seen any proof that the hospital receives grants or other money from the community or state simply for existing - they no doubt receive payment from the state for serving medicaid and medicare patients, but surely you don't suggest that no facility that doesn't provide abortion services can receive payment for any service funded by the government programs, or are you? Is your position only related to abortions? How about if a facility doesn't have MRI equipment - are they banned from receiving government program funding for other services provided? Again, it is not the Catholic hospital's fault that there is no abortion or public facility in the community and they are not responsible for providing all services possible, just to provide adequate and safe services as government by medical licensing agencies. And besides, most Catholics and most pro-life people also pay taxes and I'm sure they're pretty satisfied for the most part with the services they have in the community.

As for saving a woman's life - the woman didn't die did she? Is she suing from the grave or her family suing because of her loss? No. So, the woman was pregnant and something went wrong - she went to the hospital and was given treatment to help her save her baby - presumably, that's what she wanted or she wouldn't have left the hospital the first two times. When it became apparent the child couldn't be saved, the mother was treated and her life protected. The hospital is being blamed, apparently, for doing everything they thought they could and should to try to save the life of the child.

Perhaps, as Obama would like to do, you'd like to see Catholic charities get out of providing such services and hospitals and leave it to secular private profit entities or public government facilities. Clearly, from what we know so far, no such private or public government facility took up the task of providing this community with the services they need, according to you. Perhaps it would be better for the hospital simply to shut down, leave the 40,000 or so residents without any hospital, all so some women can get abortions on demand.

Once again, no one, including the victim, said anything about obtaining an abortion. She was miscarrying and they gave her medicine to stop the miscarriage. She came back in later with a fever. And it's not as if she could have just taken a Sunday drive to the next town for emergency medical treatment. The hospital gave her treatment based on religious beliefs instead of medical science.
 
The hospital gave her treatment based on religious beliefs instead of medical science.

Kindly show evidence of this claim you have made, happening here or in any other case here in the US.

And if this is the case, why is she not suing the obstetrician or hospital, but a council of Bishops?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, as Obama would like to do, you'd like to see Catholic charities get out of providing such services and hospitals and leave it to secular private profit entities or public government facilities. Clearly, from what we know so far, no such private or public government facility took up the task of providing this community with the services they need, according to you.

Yes, I would like to get Catholic charities out of the business of health care since they are incapable of leaving their religious beliefs out of their medical care practices.

Unfortunately, they have a lot of money and are taking over hospitals across the country.

I don't know in this particular case what happened, but usually there is a hospital there providing care; then the Catholic hospital comes in and acquires it.

I don't think religions should run hospitals anymore than I think govts should run churches.
 
I read the article several times. I am not sure I understand why they said the mother's life was 'at risk'. Delivery is painful and usually pain meds are offered and administered. Why not in this case? Help me to understand what put the mother's life at risk.

Because the hospital DIDN'T treat her. That's why her life was at risk. With treatment - inducing a miscarriage - her risk would have been lowered greatly. As it was, she was at risk for infection that could lead to death.
 
Because the hospital DIDN'T treat her. That's why her life was at risk. With treatment - inducing a miscarriage - her risk would have been lowered greatly. As it was, she was at risk for infection that could lead to death.

or even just admitting her to monitor the progression of the miscarriage. At 18 weeks all sorts of bad stuff can happen to the mother.
 
Because the hospital DIDN'T treat her. That's why her life was at risk. With treatment - inducing a miscarriage - her risk would have been lowered greatly. As it was, she was at risk for infection that could lead to death.

Prove damages. Prove proximate cause. Allegations, without proof mean nothing. Anyone can be sued for anything.

The ACLU wants to go after religious based institutions, and this is a suitable vehicle for that.
 
Prove damages. Prove proximate cause. Allegations, without proof mean nothing. Anyone can be sued for anything.

The ACLU wants to go after religious based institutions, and this is a suitable vehicle for that.

Agreed. You would never have seen this suit in the press if it was a non-religious based hospital.
 
Prove damages. Prove proximate cause. Allegations, without proof mean nothing. Anyone can be sued for anything.

The ACLU wants to go after religious based institutions, and this is a suitable vehicle for that.

I don't blame the ACLU for wanting to get religion out of hospitals.
Religion doesn't belong in school's receiving tax payer money. Nor does it belong it hospitals that receive tax payer money. Nor does it belong in government.
These institutions should be secular because secularism is the only -ism fair to everyone involved.

It does not mean that adult patients must undergo procedures that are against their beliefs.
It does not mean that doctors/staff must perform procedures that are against their beliefs.

Publicly funded institutions should always be secular.
 
I don't blame the ACLU for wanting to get religion out of hospitals.
Religion doesn't belong in school's receiving tax payer money. Nor does it belong it hospitals that receive tax payer money. Nor does it belong in government.
These institutions should be secular because secularism is the only -ism fair to everyone involved.

It does not mean that adult patients must undergo procedures that are against their beliefs.
It does not mean that doctors/staff must perform procedures that are against their beliefs.

Publicly funded institutions should always be secular.

Yes, we know by the ACLU's recent actions that there is no room for religion in healthcare, charity, education, or really anywhere else that any member of the public might come into contact with them.

They want this MORE than they want to help those who benefit from religious based healthcare, charity, education, etc. :roll:

Save your little sayings, show me demonstrable proof of harm to Americans due to ANY "decree" of a group of bishops.

YOU made the claim, now kindly show evidence, save your anti religious statements because they are not relevant to the case.
 
I don't blame the ACLU for wanting to get religion out of hospitals.
Religion doesn't belong in school's receiving tax payer money. Nor does it belong it hospitals that receive tax payer money. Nor does it belong in government.
These institutions should be secular because secularism is the only -ism fair to everyone involved.

It does not mean that adult patients must undergo procedures that are against their beliefs.
It does not mean that doctors/staff must perform procedures that are against their beliefs.

Publicly funded institutions should always be secular.


First Amendment to the US Constitution:


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.":peace
 
?..

Again - From the OP - Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus that had no chance of survival' because of no abortion policy.

It was the author of the article that mentioned abortion not the lawsuit.
 
If that particular hospital didn't provide maternity services, that would be one good reason. Not all hospitals provide every service.

They have a birthing center at that hospital so I think they have maternity services.
 
First Amendment to the US Constitution:


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.":peace

The thing about this, is the left has an amazing capacity for selective logic, they will find a way to justify this, and say it does not apply.
 
The doctors have an obligation to her first and foremost. Do no harm and they almost killed her.

Doctors have an obligation to their patients, yes. That's why abortionists aren't real doctors.

Any OBGYN worth going to knows that pregnancy involves (at least) two patients, and that the principle of nonmaleficence applies equally.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'll accept this but put this to you. Why should a Catholic hospital, even if it's the only one in the county, be denied their constitutional rights simply because the county provides no other options? When did it become the responsibility of the Catholic Church to serve the medical needs of all citizens in a particular area? Seems to me, your issue is with the county and/or the State of Michigan, for not ensuring reasonable access to hospital or clinical facilities that serve the needs of those who want services contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

...

The Catholic Church is buying up secular hospitals all over the US.

The Catholic hospitals and clinics in the USA now get 1 out of every 6 patients.
There are a lot of areas in the USA such as the state of Washington where patients just don't have a choice within 100 's of miles.

The hospital the women who miscarried in the OP went to was the only one within 30 miles.
 
The Catholic Church is buying up secular hospitals all over the US.

The Catholic hospitals and clinics in the USA now get 1 out of every 6 patients.
There are a lot of areas in the USA such as the state of Washington where patients just don't have a choice within 100 's of miles.

The hospital the women who miscarried in the OP went to was the only one within 30 miles.

30 miles is a half hour drive. She went back several times, and claims she didnt know WHAT was going on, despite HAVING to sign that she did know.

Let me guess, the solution is to replace all private religious hospitals with public non religious hospitals?

Am I right?
 
30 miles is a half hour drive.

No reason why a life-threatening complication from pregnancy should have stopped her from driving around while on pain killers in order to shop for a 2nd opinion! :roll:


She went back several times, and claims she didnt know WHAT was going on, despite HAVING to sign that she did know.

No, she went there the next day where she gave birth to the child who died shortly thereafter
 
Back
Top Bottom