President Trump meets with faith leaders inside the Oval Office on May 3, 2017. Photo by Pastor Mark Burns

Trump protecting medical providers who oppose abortion

WASHINGTON (AP) — Moving to solidify its credentials with social conservatives, the Trump administration is creating an office to protect the religious rights of medical providers, including those who oppose abortion.

The announcement Thursday (Jan. 18)  by the Department of Health and Human Services drew immediate criticism from Democrats who said it could undermine the rights of women, gays and transgender people.

The new division will be part of the HHS Office of Civil Rights, which enforces federal anti-discrimination and privacy laws. The administration said it will focus on enforcing conscience and religious protections already part of federal law. No new efforts to expand such protections were announced.

"President Trump promised the American people that his administration would vigorously uphold the rights of conscience and religious freedom," acting HHS Secretary Eric Hargan said in a statement. "That promise is being kept today."

Religious and social conservatives are a core constituency for the Trump administration. President Trump will address via satellite Friday's annual anti-abortion march in Washington.

Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington was quick to criticize the administration's decision to create the new office.

"This would be yet another attempt to let ideology dictate who is able to get the care they need," Murray said in a statement. "Any approach that would deny or delay health care to someone and jeopardize their wellbeing for ideological reasons is unacceptable."

Monday marks the 45th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

Comments

  1. Does religious freedom also including denying medical care to gay people because of the religious person’s objections to gay people?

  2. The orange traitor is trying to protect a small very noisy group of people who object to progress of any kind.
    He is protecting Christian theocrats who may not want to provide medical care to Muslims, Atheists or Jewish people. They may be “morally” opposed to treating the LGBTQ community.
    This is not targeted to help anti-choice medical providers. It is a broad carpet bombing used to protect the bigots who prop up his racist theocratic very narrow base.

  3. Good. Constitutional freedoms should be front and center.

  4. Can you give one example of a Christian physician actually refusing medical care to someone on the basis of race or religion? Or any doctor who as ever claimed moral opposition to treating LGBTQ people? Has that ever happened in the whole history of Christians in the medical profession?

  5. Google –

    Savita Halappanavar

    Jessica Mann

    Lori Boyer – Could your doctor deny you health care?

  6. There is no constitutional right to deny medical care to others in the name of your faith. There is a right of patients to have full informed consent prior to receive treatment

  7. The religious reason not to perform a funeral shouldn’t be a medical reason to cause a funeral.

  8. Lol not in the fascist theocracy that trump’s narrow bigoted base dream of. Though they will be in for a big surprise when they aren’t in the good graces of their god, you know almighty wealth. To bad they and their dear leader will be flushed down the toilet with the rest of us as soon as they outlive their usefulness.
    They are so worried about the next world the real one is going to bite them in the rear.

  9. “Do as you would be done by.” Someone said that. No one important.

    I can see it now. Jesus: sure I’d like to heal you or raise you from the dead. But, ya know, you’re not really up to my religious standards.

    “What you do into the least of these, my brothers, you do unto me.” Someone said that, no one important.

  10. Does that constitutional freedom include the right to not treat someone because you have religious objections to them?

    can a good Christian, for example, refuse to treat a Muslim because that good Christian objects to that Jesus denying Muslim?

  11. I see it this way. These hospitals are acting no differently from ultra-religious parents who withhold necessary treatment for their children in the name of their faith. They are willing to kill people for God and they rightly go to prison for it.

  12. Well that certainly isn’t being accomplished there. In fact it makes things more hazardous and increases things like maternal mortality.

  13. It would seem to include not providing a treatment to which you have conscientious objections.

    Your second sentence is, of course, a red herring.

  14. It appears to protect people who have conscientious objections to performing certain procedures such as abortion.

    All this does is provide better access to redress since Federal law already provides conscientious objectors the right to file a civil rights complaint.

  15. The first case involved a pediatrician who did not feel a proper relationship could be developed with the parents to properly care for the child. Physicians decline and/or fire patients all the time for any reason or no reason.

    The second involved an attempt to force a privately owned facility to violate its operating rules and principles. The ACLU has trumped dozens of these cases up to try to force issues like this, and lost every single time.

    The reason why they lost this case was that it was a simple matter for Ms. Mann to find another facility and get the procedure done, which she did.

  16. The Savita Halappanavar situation arose in Ireland, not the USA, where the Coroner’s Inquest ruled she died of “medical misadventure”, specifically a failure to diagnose timely a sepsis.

  17. The miscarriage took seven days to unfold, and early in the process, when it was clear that the miscarriage was inevitable, Halappanavar requested an abortion……… the medical team did not judge that her life was in danger……

    The law in force at the time (the Offences against the Person Act 1861), states that the act of abortion, where there is no immediate physiological threat to the woman’s life to continue the pregnancy, is a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment. Following a ruling of the Supreme Court of Ireland in 1992—now known in Ireland as the X case—terminations are allowed under certain circumstances, where “a pregnant woman’s life was at risk because of pregnancy, including the risk of suicide”. However at the time of Halappanavar’s death, there was legal uncertainty regarding the precise circumstances in which this exception to preserve the life of the mother would apply in practice, as the matter had not yet been enacted in legislation. The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 was passed as a result of her death.

    The request was to identify a situation anywhere

    The law was based on the religious belief of the RCC.

    I was responding to – “Can you give one example of a Christian physician actually refusing medical care to someone on the basis of race or religion? ” – Fortunately for the possible future of the world the USA is only a smallish (and increasingly morally irrelevant) part of the world.

    Jessica Mann

    Lori Boyer – Could your doctor deny you health care?

    Outside the immediate question but very relevant –

    Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (a.k.a. St Teresa of Calcutta) refused effective analgesics to terminally ill patients in horrendous pain because “Mother Teresa believed the sick must suffer like Christ on the cross”.

  18. No medical provider should be able to withhold care that impacts life or death or real medical conditions. There are many transgendered folks for example with real life chromosomal malfunctions that need treatment. Then there are those whose condition is just a figment of their imagination. Unwanted pregnancy hardly constitutes an acute or chronic medical condition. If a mother”s life is on the line that would constitute a medical requirement for care. But no one should be forced to terminate the life of a human being just because its mother considers it unwanted.

  19. This is molded after the law in Mississippi (that Evangelicals wrote and helped pass) that allows medical workers to deny medical care, including emergency care, to anyone they don’t like, but specifically LGTB people. The only thing they can’t do is let the person die, but withholding medical care up to that point is legal in Mississippi. So, a surgeon can refuse to intervene with emergency surgery and let a gay person fall into a permanent coma. Or and ER doctor can refuse to set broken leg of a lesbian. That Evangelicals support withholding medical care from people that are sick or injured and suffering is monstrously inhumane. At long last is there no human decency left among Evangelicals?

  20. I think the President has opened up a can of worms. It’s not only abortion that might be affected, there are a lot of other things that people have conscientious beliefs for and against:
    * Providing birth control.(some Catholics)
    * Teaching about contraception (many religious people)
    * Not teaching about contraception (many others, religious or not)
    *Teaching about evolution (some Protestants and others)
    *Not teaching about evolution (most of the rest)
    *Circumcising infants (Sikhs and many others)
    *Eating pork (Muslims and Jews)
    *Eating animal products.(Many Hindus, Buddhists, Seventh Day Adventists etc.)
    *Eating onions or garlic (Jains)
    *Treating LGBTI people equally (the majority)
    *Discriminating against LGBTI people (the minority)
    In another two years we’ll need one million lawyers.
    How much can the poor country stand!

  21. But that is exactly the position they are putting themselves in to. At no point is care premised on the religious beliefs of the provider. It’s based on the needs and necessities of the patients first, foremost and only.

    Plus, refusing to treat people because they are LGBT is just a completely repugnant repudiation of any notion medical ethics.

    We already know where hospitals commit fatal malpractice when they let religious dictates take priority over patient care.

    The very concept of premising care on the arbitrary dictates of the religion of its management is morally, ethically and legally wrong on all levels.

  22. Again, not in the United States, not a result of a Catholic hospital per se, but a result of medical misadventure (failure to detect sepsis timely) under laws in another country.

    That also renders the dubious “The law was based on the religious belief of the RCC.” irrelevant, since the discussion deals with the USA and a particular executive action.

    The request to identify a situation did not include the modifier “anywhere” in the world.

    The accusation about painkillers has its ultimate source as one Christopher Hitchens – an extremely militant atheist who hates religions, especially Christianity. It seems to have no basis in reality except that Mother Teresa took dying people off the streets who otherwise would have died in their own filth uncared for, and since she relied on charity for supplies, not every patient got care equivalent to Walter Reed Hospital.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1996/09/19/in-defense-of-mother-teresa/

    Hitchens’ book has no references at all.

    https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/04/mother-teresa-and-her-critics

  23. Wrong. The MS “religious freedom health law” provides precisely for what Ben mentioned. This is the model for Trump’s proposed policy. Either you are misinformed or dishonest.

    A hospital has no individual beliefs. An objection by a doctor does not mean one can cut off rightful access to information or treatment to patients entirely.

    What you call “conscientious objection” is an attack on patient rights of informed consent and the right to access available treatment. It’s an invitation to harming patients. In many cases such medical providers encourage harmful malpractice on such grounds.

  24. They failed to diagnose sepsis because they refused to consider a medically necessary abortion. It is a perfect example of how religious based dictates encourage malpractice.

  25. Two questions:
    1. can you direct to specific evidence that the law would allow a medical care provide to refuse to set a broken leg of a homosexual person?
    2. can you provide any examples of such an activity?

    I suspect what is being discussed here is two things:
    1. requiring a medical provider to terminate the life of an unborn child because it is unwanted
    2. requiring a medical provider to provide gender changing medical therapies (hormone and surgical) that are not warranted by physical condition (such as genetic chromosomal disorder) but are wanted because of psychological/emotional dysfunction.

    I have heard nothing about “emergency surgery”, or the setting of broken legs.

    Sounds a lot like people running around yelling the sky is falling because we can’t make people kill babies or change biology that may not need changed.

  26. It appears to deny services to people based on arbitrary motives and endorse attacks on patients’ rights to informed consent.

  27. See the recent MS law. It endorses exactly what ‘Til Tuesday described.

  28. The motives are not arbitrary, they are conscientious objections. The objectors can put them in writing or cite a particular denomination’s teaching.

    There is no “patients’ rights to informed consent” involved.

    Informed consent is a process for obtaining permission before conducting a healthcare intervention or for disclosing personal information. Guidelines are provided under law and from the fields of medical ethics and research ethics.

    Informed consent is given based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and consequences of an action.

  29. No, they refused to consider an abortion because they had failed to properly diagnose the sepsis.

    The Coroner’s Inquest in on-line.

    In any case it’s irrelevant since the discussion is about the USA and American law.

  30. You are both misinformed and dishonest.

    The beliefs of the sponsoring denomination and the hospital are not distinguishable.

  31. “The beliefs of the sponsoring denomination and the hospital are not distinguishable.”

    Meaning in plainer terms, religious concerns take precedence over patient care, medical necessity, and informed consent.

  32. They refused to consider an abortion because they were more afraid of prosecution for violating the anti-abortion law than of a civil suit. They failed to diagnose the sepsis because they refused to consider a medically necessary abortion.

  33. The motives have nothing to do with patient care, they have nothing to do with giving patients the proper level of information for consent. They are not rational motives, hence the reliance on calling it religious belief.

    “There is no “patients’ rights to informed consent” involved.”

    Of course there is. The medical providers are refusing to provide all available information and treatment for a given condition based on criteria having nothing to do with medical criteria. Religious dogma is dictating patient treatment, not the discretion and medical expertise of the providers. One cannot have informed consent if one is deliberately avoiding providing certain information and treatments.

  34. My system thinks at least one of your links is spam – it is, however, very cautious – it queries .gov.uk every time as well (though maybe it knows something I don’t).

    You seem unable to understand that your attempt to rewrite the post to which I responded is invalid. I have not claimed those particular events took place in the US – so what? The poster did not ask for a geographically limited example.

    As to the matter of the women who sought to use suffering as a way to gain converts (she effectively admitted it) I refer you to the relevant article in Wikipedia – and the references therein.

  35. Of course the motives have nothing to do with patient care, nor must they. They have to do with moral beliefs and acting within them.

    Nor are they not rational, since whether you like them are not the individuals have arrived at their beliefs through a rational process.

    Nor is there any need to provide information on certain information and treatments, since the individuals will not be treated and therefore have nothing to consent to. Nor is religious dogma “dictating patient treatment”. Rather conscientious objections are dictating non-provision of certain treatments by certain providers.

    It is odd, indeed, that you exalt personal choice in favoring abortion, but when it comes to healthcare believe the individuals involved are mere water boys whose personal beliefs and consciences count for nothing.

  36. Meaning in plain terms for certain treatments you have to seek other providers.

    Darn that Constitution, eh?

  37. Apparently somewhere in all of this you lost the context. That context provides the “so what”.

    Indeed, Catholics consider suffering as a potential means of holiness and expiation – for themselves.

    That is NOT what you suggested.

    “Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (a.k.a. St Teresa of Calcutta) refused effective analgesics to terminally ill patients in horrendous pain because ‘Mother Teresa believed the sick must suffer like Christ on the cross’.” turned out to be fabricated propaganda.

    You also suggested it was “very relevant”, which it was not.

    Your version of the cause of Savita Halappanavar’s death was inaccurate.

    https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/newsarchive/2013archive/jun13/savitareport.html

    https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/nimtreport50278.pdf

    Lori Boyer lived in Lebanon, PA, which had three non-Catholic hospitals, equidistant from three Planned Parenthood Center: Lancaster Medical Center, Lancaster, Harrisburg Medical, Harrisburg, and Reading Medical Center in Reading.

  38. Separate but equal facilities? Where have I heard such arguments heard before?

    How about something novel? Upholding principles of medical ethics instead of lying and withholding care from patients. Can’t have that, right. You can’t force people to abide by your arbitrary prejudices that way.

  39. Once again, they were more afraid of criminal prosecution than a civil suit. The sepsis was from a fetus dying inside her, they never considered it. This only happens where abortion is criminalized or access to it made difficult.

  40. Thank you for admitting that you have no regard for medical ethics or professionalism. People’s lives and health must somehow be subordinate to your beliefs. That is truly immoral repugnant garbage.

    If your religious belies prevent you from following the professional ethical rules, you have no business in the profession. Your moral beliefs are yours. Nobody else has to suffer for them. The whole, “we can’t follow rules meant to protect others because we’re Christians” is nonsense. Ethics and morals only matter to you as something to attack others with. Not something to understand or follow.

  41. We disagree about the validity of your understanding of the context and I have grave concerns about the mental acuity of anyone who regards suffering as in any way a positive experience.- whether they or another be the sufferer.

  42. I certainly have no regard for your version of medical ethics or professionalism.

    Healthcare providers are – according to you – supposed to submerge their personal beliefs, surrender their First Amendment rights, and goose step according to the latest whims of you, your friends, and one or more judges.

    That is truly immoral repugnant garbage.

    No “professional ethical rules” require anyone to do something they find morally repugnant. That sort of thinking belongs to another type of society than our own.

    Rights, to you apparently, exist only when the possessor sees things your way.

  43. I suppose the fact that “separate but equal” dealt only with government services and facilities didn’t register when you read about it.

    We’re talking about private facilities and private persons acting in private capacities.

    Yes, you can force people to respect your rights of conscience even if they interpret them as “arbitrary prejudices”.

    This goosestepping approach to the rights of healthcare providers on one the hand, and exaltation of the rights of women to abortion on the other hand, seems to support the conclusion that you know what you like and don’t like, and nothing more.

    Certainly it doesn’t support the conclusion you have a fully-thought-out concept of rights to use in various circumstances.

  44. I have grave concerns about the mental acuity of someone who presents for the third time “suffering as in any way a positive experience” in regards to forcing them on someone else when the source of that presentation has been demonstrated to be a fabrication.

  45. Now you are trying to defend segregation? Jeez. It was also privately run facilities as well. Why do you have to be so dishonest?

    More importantly since when is healthcare a free market? Especially given Catholic Church efforts at buying up hospitals.

  46. No, I am trying to point out that “separate but equal” is a whole other topic that has literally nothing to do with the discussion.

    What “it” “was also privately run facilities as well”?

    You do understand that forced integration only affected publicly funded public schools, right?

    Your last two sentences are clutching at straws. Give up.

  47. How convenient. Perfectly in line with a government unwilling to question it’s anti abortion laws.

  48. If you are guiding patients based on your personal beliefs and not patient need, or medical necessity, you are violating medical professional ethics. You are violating patients right to informed consent.

    It has never been moral to force others to follow your personal religious beliefs. It’s one thing to refrain from something, it’s quite another to withhold or deny it to others.

  49. You are the one suggesting patients receive equivalent equal adequate care from separate facilities if they do not like their rights as patients trampled in favor of arbitrary religious dogma. Separate, bit equal.

    Either that or you are being malicious and saying that people should always,be forced to follow the dictates of your faith.

    Privately run facilities still must abide by professional medical ethical standards.

    “You do understand that forced integration only affected publicly funded public schools, right”

    Where do you get this crap from? It affected all businesses open to the public and public facilities like hospitals. Even those privately run. Open to the public meant, couldn’t discriminate.

  50. I am the one suggesting that patients have access to facilities not affiliated with religious denominations, that patients have no rights being trampled by a refusal of a privately owned religious-affiliated healthcare provider or a provider with conscientious objections to do that which they refuse due to reasons of conscience, and that if the government determines what is and is not “arbitrary religious dogma” it is violating the First Amendment.

    Professional medical ethical standards do not require that any particular healthcare provider park his or her beliefs on a shelf.

    “Separate but equal” has very specific meaning in American law:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

    and you persist in misusing it, just as you keep misusing “informed consent”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

    Where do you get this crap from?

  51. If you say “no”, you’re not guiding patients. You’re refusing to participate.

    Your idea of “informed consent” is simply wrong and I am neither going to correct you nor provide citations to what it actually means again.

    If it is never moral to force others to follow your personal religious beliefs, then you should remove your jackboot from the necks of these healthcare providers whose religious beliefs do not agree with yours and let them live according to their beliefs.

  52. How convenient. Avoid the fact you’re wrong and change the topic to an “unwilling” government.

  53. Change the topic? It WAS the topic. That government bans on abortion guided the “official” analysis of the event.

  54. “Refusing to participate” is simply the dishonest euphemism to attack people’s rights. It doesn’t wash when one is trying to excuse discrimination, it doesn’t here either. If one is refusing to participate in something they have an obligation to do, its an attack on those on the receiving end.

    What they are refusing to do is properly treat patients and keep them informed.

    There is nothing moral about attacking others in service of your faith. If your religious beliefs are so overwhelming that they prevent the normal professional and ethical obligations of your profession, you are in the wrong profession. An act of conscience is to refrain from a benefit for yourself for your faith. It is not to force others to do so in service of it. Nobody’s care has to be premised by the religious beliefs of the provider.

    “your jackboot from the necks of these healthcare providers whose religious beliefs do not agree with yours”

    You mistake the relationship here. The healthcare providers are the ones with the jackboots on the patients. Forcing them to abide by the arbitrary religious dictates of the provider notwithstanding any notions of medical professional ethics. Frankly they do not deserve malpractice insurance if they are going to play so fast and loose with patients lives.

    Your view promotes malpractice as regular policy
    https://www.malpracticeteam.com/blog/2016/february/a-doctors-refusal-to-treat-a-patient-may-lead-to/
    https://valerietarico.com/2013/06/06/do-catholic-restrictions-on-healthcare-force-doctors-to-commit-medical-malpractice/

  55. And if they don’t, because the Catholic hospitals have bought up the nearest ones in a community? They are SOL.

    Patient’s
    rights are by their nature trampled by not following professional
    medical ethical protocols and informed consent in favor of arbitrary
    religious dogma. One’s treatment is literally held hostage to the
    beliefs of the provider.

    People whose conscientious objections
    to performing their regular professional obligations and feel the need
    to harm others in service of it, have no business working in those
    fields. Just like parents have no right to harm their children in
    service of their faith, doctors have no right to harm their patients by
    the same token.

  56. A “dishonest euphemism to attack people’s rights” is simply a dishonest euphemism for you and your friends’ attacks on other people’s rights of conscience.

    What they are refusing to do is perform treatments and procedures contrary to their consciences, and they inform patients of that. The American armed forces have a similar provision for conscience.

    There is nothing immoral or illegal about refusing to do that which violates your faith.

    The only way a healthcare provider can place on jackboot on a patient is if she or he performs a procedure on an unwilling or uniformed patient. Examples include abortions on minors by Planned Parenthood without parental knowledge or permission.

    https://www.malpracticeteam.com/blog/2016/february/a-doctors-refusal-to-treat-a-patient-may-lead-to/

    In the three years since these slip and fall attorneys wrote this, they, the ACLU, and Americans United have not won a single case by argument along these lines. The reason is simple – it is hogwash.

    https://valerietarico.com/2013/06/06/do-catholic-restrictions-on-healthcare-force-doctors-to-commit-medical-malpractice/

    Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and a known anti-Catholic and anti-Christian.

    If you really want to see malpractice, take a look at the disciplinary records from the various state boards governing psychologists.

    Psychologists do not take the Hippocratic Oath nor an equivalent.

    That makes her a non-expert on malpractice.

    Get some facts to go with your ill-formed opinions.

  57. When bigots talk of their alleged religious compulsion to discriminate, they call it “refusing to participate”. In reality it just means denying others things they are entitled to using religion as an excuse. You are the guys who came up with that little dishonest chestnut, not me. “Refusal to participate” inevitably means something they are obligated to do as an integral part in their profession.

    What they are refusing to do is provide care on the basis of patient need and refusing to properly inform patients of options available. Medical ethics being subborned to religious dogma.

  58. When bigots accuse people with religious beliefs of discrimination, they often wrap themselves in the American flag as though Mom, Apple Pie, and Irreligion were what it is all about.

    They also tend to refer to their opponents as “You guys”.

    “Refusal to participate” has the same meaning in this context as it has in military service.

    What they are refusing to do is violate their consciences, and the state is refusing to incorporate your personal irreligious dogma into medical ethics.

    Which is as it should be.

  59. There is not a single market in which “Catholic hospitals have bought up” sufficient healthcare facilities to prevent individuals from obtaining abortions, contraceptives, and other services Catholic and other religious affiliated providers will not. None. Zip. Zero.

    There is no, none, zero professional medical ethical protocols that require a healthcare provider to perform or assist in abortions, provide contraception, or make referrals to those who do.

    You can do no harm if you do nothing.

  60. By all means play denial games. Its not like you are making a credible argument here.

    In every instance of people denying goods and services in open commerce to others based on their “religious conscience” (blatant discrimination) they have been calling it “refusal to participate”. It is what Kim Davis called her deliberate dereliction of duty, it is what Christian bigots say when they just want to say, “we don’t serve your kind”. Same exact argument word for word as yourself.

    Religious freedom is not license to attack the rights of others. The end result is the same any way you choose to frame it. Using religion as an excuse to deny rightful access of good and services to the general public.

  61. It is you who is repugnant, attempting to force your hidebound beliefs on people who don’t share your particular beliefs. That’s okay if you’re in a Catholic hospital and serving only Catholics. But in this day and age, chaplains and clergy in an interfaith context serve diverse people’s.
    You show up at the bedside willing to listen and mentor, support, encourage, but mostly to sit down and zip your lip. You are called on to serve others. You serve them by listening to them and their sorrows. Your kind only wants to judge and be punitive. Useless, horrible.

  62. You lie. Women have died in Catholic hospitals. They go in having had a miscarriage and need to have the uterus cleaned out with a D+C. There is no heartbeat but there is infection or hemorrhage. You idiots don’t know any medicine but you’d let w woman die before you utter the words ‘therapeutic abortion.’ The fetus is dead or has been expelled but you don’t care. You want her to die you fascist bully.

  63. Jose:
    No wonder women are disengaged from the Catholic church and disengaging more every day. What does the CC offer to them but more hoary old teachings that deny their personhood, their own right to make decisions on their own behalf. What merciless monsters you are.

  64. Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet. They don’t ‘deny’ Jesus.

  65. That’s what Thomas William Bennett and Desmond Doss, both Medal of Honor winners, did – refuse to participate.

    You should know better than this.

    No one but you and your friends are attacking the rights of others.

  66. Let’s look at your evidence.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/05/07/health-care-denied-at-550-hospitals-because-of-catholic-doctrine/#c56dc4b5ad9d

    This tout piece/propaganda for the the American Civil Liberties Union, which at the time had a couple of pending lawsuits against Catholic healthcare systems – both of which were tossed out of court, does not provide a single example of an actual inability to obtain services anywhere. They mention the single facility on San Juan Island but fail to point out that other services are 15-20 minutes away.

    Amusingly the article you provided actually contains this rebuttal:

    https://www.chausa.org/newsroom/news-releases/2016/05/09/catholic-health-association-responds-to-aclu-merger-watch-report

    This url:

    http://www.eclectablog.com/2015/02/how-the-expanding-reach-of-catholic-health-systems-is-restricting-access-to-care.html

    is simply a recap of the first, which is covered by the very same rebuttal. Dr Judy Stone is associated with “Catholics for Choice”, an anti-Catholic organization founded by the owner of an abortion clinic.

    You need to find some actual sources of actual facts.

  67. I suggest you get a grip on yourself and your rhetoric, beginning with sticking to facts.

    Yes, women – and men – have died in every hospital in this country and every other country.

    There is nothing in the Catholic ethical guidance that would stand in the way of a D+C after a miscarriage.

    Although one hears “women have died in Catholic hospitals”, when it comes to specifics – names, dates, and the facts – it appears to always wind up blank.

  68. I do not go into a kosher deli looking for a ham sandwich, and you should not go into a Catholic hospital looking for an abortion.

    If you and your friends in the Massachusetts’ Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights want to fund and build a hospital that comports with your own beliefs, do so. Grabbing someone else’s and converting to your own use is stealing.

  69. Those people had morals, you do not.

    They were willing to personally sacrifice for their religion, not force others to do as their faith commands. I don’t remember either of them reneging on obligations to others and responsibilities in their exercise of conscience. Quite the contrary, they went out of their way to serve others and do more for them.

    By calling your position “religious freedom” you crap on the concept. You don’t want freedom, you want license and authority. There is a big difference.

    Make it simple:
    You deny yourself a right and privilege you would normally be entitled to for your faith, it would be an act of conscience. If you deny others a right and privilege they would normally be entitled to for your faith, its being a malicious d-bag.

  70. The accusation that your respondent lacks morals fails to advance the discussion or present anything reasonable .

    Your entire line of argument has crossed the line into ranting.

  71. Too bad for women who don’t have transportation or are in such dire straits when they enter the ER that they have to make do. I guess you ignore, again, how many communities ONLY have religious hospitals.

  72. the only goose stepping in (sh)it is you.
    When the government is paying healthcare costs, it doesn’t matter if a hospital is private or not. ALL should provide the correct standard of care: birth control, access to abortion, reproductive healthcare. Catholic hospitals operate as if it was the 1930s when no one could get birth control and abortions were illegal (and deadly).

  73. Catholic hospital networks are buying up hospitals across the country. you are either an ignoramus or you are in denial.

  74. You lie. They refused a D+C. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.

  75. I agree on all counts. And Teresa was a menace. Unsterile conditions, repeated re-use of needles and syringes, dehydrated patients in their own filth. Shame on you and Shame on the Sisters of “Mercy’. The lady spent decades with doubt about the existence of God and finally found meaning defending world leaders who were Catholic and totalitarian.
    And she was sadistic. She wrote of “how beautiful the way the poor suffer.” They suffered due to her neglect and perverse theology. She caused more harm than good. A complete fraud.

  76. what a sick theology, suffer to gain merit.
    I bet you don’t practice that!!! No, you’re too smart for that.

  77. Hell, Jose. Women come in stinking from the rot within them. This woman AND HER FAMILY wanted a therapeutic D+C. You are lying.

  78. you have too many dodges! You don’t want to discuss. You only want to spread misinformation and lies.

    Also Hitchens wasn’t the only one who wrote a book against Teresa’s horrible mistreatment of patients. A former Sr. of Mercy wrote a tell all. All this was worse because the patients were Hindu and made to suffer for her peculiar christian ideology. Suffering is NOT redemptive and to make helpless people suffer for your own soul is horrible. It’s an example of her utter narcissism–and yours.

  79. Legalism is the last refuge of the (religionist) scoundrel.
    You have a fixed idea, a monomania, and every fact or story is bent to that ideology.

  80. as a former chaplain, my job was to SERVE, without questioning or turning away from the cases which were a challenge. Little snowflake pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control. Doctors who won’t write prescriptions for Plan B. Get out of the profession is you don’t care for your patents. It’s not about them. It’s about serving the patient.

  81. Valerie Tarico is not anti-Catholic or anti-Christian. She is a truth teller and gives the history of the perfidy of the Catholic hospital system, doctors, nurses who refuse to serve a patient getting a therapeutic abortion. So you snowflake medical people have a sit down, like passive aggressive trolls and not adult human beings.

    Psychologists and nurses take their own version of the hippocratic oath. You think no one has any ethics but you. Ethical teachings precede Christianity by a thousand years, going back to the ancient Greeks. You are an ethical eunuch.

  82. There have been several cases in the news. I guess you just ignore what doesn’t fit your ideology. Look them up yourself. You seem to have entirely too much time on your hands with all this contentious fiddle-fiddle.

  83. This has been covered in many major publications, at least those which are not afraid of the Roman Catholic Church’s clout. It’s draconian how much power and sway the RCC has.

  84. It’s an emergency. The woman is bleeding to death and the only hospital is Catholic and hidebound and illegally and immorally denies proper medical care. The woman lies on the stretcher in the hall and bleeds to death. And you don’t care.

    There are RCARs all over the USA. People from all different denominations have signed on in solidarity with women who want access to abortion and reproductive rights. You and your tribe of holy eunuchs would just as soon they died and got out of the way. If you had any knowledge or decency, you would know that.

    http://www.au.org.

  85. Trump would love that, a million more lawyers. Every time he gets caught up in another scandal or a new prostitute comes forth, he sends a lawyer with a check for hundreds of thousands lot lawyers and the truth is silenced.

  86. 1. Businesses Serving the Public Should be Open to All, HuffPost, Dec. 4, 2017

    2. Oklahoma Doctor Refuses To Provide Rape Victim With Emergency Contraception, ThinkProgress, May 31, 2012

    3. Report: Health Care Denied, American Civil Liberties Union, accessed Jan. 19, 2018

    Hospitals Didn’t Give Rape Victims Emergency Contraception, Teen Vogue, April 26, 2017

    4. Trump administration announces new ‘conscience and religious freedom’ division at HHS, ABC News, Jan. 18, 2018

    5. Medical and Mental Health Groups Tell HHS: No #RxforDiscrimination!, National Center for Transgender Equality, Jan. 3, 2018

    6. Lawsuits Target Catholic Hospitals For Refusing To Provide Emergency Miscarriage Management, HuffPost, June 10, 2016

    7. Medicaid Works for Women — But Proposed Cuts Would Have Harsh, Disproportionate Impact, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 11, 2017

    8. Ibid

    9. Black Women Are 3 Times More Likely to Die From Childbirth, The Cut, Dec. 8, 2017

  87. This proposal puts religious beliefs over the needs of patients to the point of putting patients’ health, and even lives, in danger. Hospitals that take taxpayer dollars should not be allowed to discriminate against patients. Plain and simple, this rule legalizes that discrimination. That’s why major medical organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists overwhelmingly oppose such discrimination.5

    “Under this rule, a woman can be denied birth control simply because her provider or pharmacist only believes in the “rhythm method.” A hospital administrator could cancel a woman’s decision to have life-saving cancer treatment because it might harm her pregnancy. A child whose parents happen to be of the same sex can be refused urgent treatment by a pediatrician or dentist. A mental health clinic can refuse to see a woman in a same-sex relationship.

    Many Catholic hospitals already turn away women suffering from miscarriage, subjecting them to infection or severe hemorrhage.6 This is dangerous, particularly in rural areas without other options, as well as illegal. HHS is proposing to make it legal for ALL hospitals. That’s wrong.

    This proposal is particularly dangerous for the more than 40 million women on Medicaid. Medicaid finances 75% of all publicly funded family planning services and nearly half of all births–areas of care which are often the target of discrimination by providers. When targeted for discrimination, compared to privately insured individuals, Medicaid patients often have nowhere else to turn that accepts Medicaid insurance.7

    This proposal is particularly harmful for women of color. Among women of color who are also of reproductive age, 31% of Black women and 27% of Latinas rely on Medicaid.8 Black women already face a several times higher rate of maternal mortality compared to white women–and this proposal endangers quality care even further.9″

  88. I like they way they put this at http://www.weareultraviolet.org.

    When two-year-old Katie knocked her tooth out, the dentist wouldn’t treat her because she has two mommies.1 When an Oklahoma rape survivor needed emergency contraception, her emergency room doctor refused, citing religious beliefs.2 And Tamesha Means of Michigan was forced to suffer an infection and hemorrhage when her water broke at just 18 weeks after she was turned away twice because Mercy Health Partners hospital refused to provide emergency miscarriage treatment.3

    These are real stories from real people–and the situation will only worsen if Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has its way. On Friday, it announced a new rule to allow any medical professional, insurance plan, or hospital to refuse to treat a patient on “religious or moral” grounds–legalizing the kind of discrimination these women faced, and basically threatening that discrimination on a massive scale.4

    For a rural woman suffering from a miscarriage, this could mean being turned away from the ER. For LGBTQ folks, a homophobic doctor could refuse to treat any condition, including in an emergency. And for the 40 million women on Medicaid, legalized discrimination makes it hard or impossible to find another provider that takes Medicaid insurance.

    There’s a chance to stop this. HHS is taking comments from the public before this proposal becomes law. We need our comments to outnumber those submitted by religious extremists who support this proposal. A furiously loud outcry will demonstrate to Trump’s HHS that there will be a political price to pay for messing with our health care and will convince it to reverse course. Can you sign and leave a comment opposing this sick proposal to legalize medical discrimination?

    Tell the Department of Health and Human Services: “Do not enact your proposal to legalize discrimination in health care.”

  89. Mississippi House Bill 1523 is stunningly discriminatory, to be sure, and will be challenged (as it should be). However, it isn’t quite as despicable as you describe it. Subsection 4 deals with medical care, and it specifically addresses emergency medical treatment:

    This subsection (4) shall not be construed to allow any person to deny visitation, recognition of a designated representative for health care decision-making, or emergency medical treatment necessary to cure an illness or injury as required by law.

    One could argue that what you describe might be the next step. I wouldn’t put it past any believer with medical training to test the limits of the law by denying medical care to someone because they’re “abominations” in the sight of their god. After all, if a doctor can legally refuse a 2-year-old as a patient and refuse emergency care to a woman suffering a miscarriage on religious grounds, why not a homosexual with a broken leg (or worse)?

    As we’ve seen with the Trinity Lutheran and FEMA decisions within the past 12 months, no ruling or legislation is as narrow as it seems.

  90. Which source are you referring to?

    If you have been lead to believe there was only one you have been misinformed

    “Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, mayor of Kolkata from 2005 to 2010, said that “she had no significant impact on the poor of this city”, glorified illness instead of treating it and misrepresented the city”:

    “Chatterjee criticized her for promoting a “cult of suffering” and a distorted, negative image of Calcutta, exaggerating work done by her mission and misusing funds and privileges at her disposal. According to him, some of the hygiene problems he had criticized (needle reuse, for example) improved after Teresa’s death in 1997.”

    “Teresa’s objective was “to convert the person, who was being served, into a Christian”.”

    “According to a paper by Canadian academics Serge Larivée, Geneviève Chénard and Carole Sénéchal, Teresa’s clinics received millions of dollars in donations but lacked medical care, systematic diagnosis, necessary nutrition and sufficient analgesics for those in pain. “Mother Teresa believed the sick must suffer like Christ on the cross”.[114] It was said that the additional money might have transformed the health of the city’s poor by creating advanced palliative care facilities.”

    Check the links at Wikipedia

  91. Dentists are not professionally required to provide care to anyone.

    The “Oklahoma rape survivor” had access to contraception within walking distance of the ER.

    The ACLU pushed the Tamesha Means case all the way to the 6th district and lost both times.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1747776.html

    In fact the ACLU has been unable to get any traction with these trumped up cases, of which it has pursued dozens.

    There is no reason why, under Catholic ethical guidelines, a woman suffering from a miscarriage would be “turned away” from the ER.

    These are not real stories about real people, these are contrived propaganda by the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and other lobbyists for a particular viewpoint which you happen to share.

  92. I hesitate to point out that you’ve posted a mass of unsupported propaganda verbatim from the “National Women’s Law Center”, a left wing anti-Catholic lobby group for LBGT, taxpayer subsidies of abortion and contraception, and other issues under the guise of “women’s rights”.

    It has won zero lawsuits in its 45 year history.

    Its major product appears to be propaganda such as that which you quoted.

  93. Real stories…like the Margaret McBride case.

    In 2010, doctor’s at the catholic-affiliated hospital, St. Joseph’s, in Phoenix, AZ, performed a life-saving abortion on an 11-week pregnant woman, dying from pulmonary hypertension in the ER. Medical nun, Margaret McBride, authorized the life-saving abortion. Local Bishop Olmsted got wind of this loss of a martyr to the ‘faith’, and promptly excommunicated the nun involved in the decision to save the woman, and retracted the hospital’s catholic affiliation. Can’t go around saving those uppity women! The doctors and hospital administrator stated that they saved the life that they could–the woman–who means nothing to those who worship the fetus. Public outcry ensued, of course, and McBride was restored to her Sister’s of Mercy, but the hospital remains unaffiliated because they refuse to let women patients die.

    Celibate males in long funny dresses certainly do not dictate my reproductive medical care. In my fertile years I belonged to a cadre of women, who stated to husbands and other loved ones, that under no circumstances should things go wrong in a pregnancy were we to be taken to a catholic hospital.

  94. Correctly, you can’t go around representing yourself as Catholic and doing abortions.

    Similarly you can’t sell ham sandwiches and call your deli kosher.

    Margaret McBride’s restoration involved a formal recantation and had zero to do with “public outcry”.

    St. Joseph cannot hold itself out to be Catholic, nor does it any longer have a Catholic chapel, because it refuses to adhere to the national Catholic ethical guidelines.

    The individual in question had alternative treatment options available, as well as other places for an abortion. She was mis-advised as to ethics of the abortion by Margaret McBride who used a situation ethics framework to advise her.

    Once one cuts out the snark – e.g., “celibate males in long funny dresses” – from your post there is really not much substantive to respond to.

  95. Why exactly is she bleeding to death? Describe – exactly – the medical condition.

    Otherwise you can’t support “denies proper medical care”, can you?

  96. “(S)nowflake …. passive aggressive trolls … You are an ethical eunuch” – do you find name calling works for you?

    She is anti-Catholic and anti-conservative Christian.

    There is zero perfidy in being a conscientious objector.

    Professional mental health therapists swear nothing, not MSWs, not psychologists. Psychiatrists, of course, swear the Hippocratic oath as physicians.

  97. That sort of thinking is what underlaid Planned Parenthood clinics nabbed providing abortions to minors without parental notification: abortion über alles.

    What you are describing is what is called a “water boy”.

  98. You have a fixed idea, a monomania, and every fact or story is bent to that ideology.

  99. You don’t want to discuss. You only want to spread misinformation and lies.

    Every single book that describes “Teresa’s horrible mistreatment of patients” relied on Hitchens’ fabrications.

    The ex-religious sister, Mary Johnson, wrote “An Unquenchable Thirst: Following Mother Teresa in Search of Love, Service and an Authentic Life”. She describes, among other things, breaking her vows with a priest.

    Her recollections DO NOT jibe with Hitchens’ fabrications.

  100. No name.

    No dates.

    No location.

    Nonsense, in short.

    Do you find calling people liars an effective approach?

  101. Of course I do. I read your post and respond for example.

    There is hardly on-line suffering worse than that.

  102. I assume you can read.

    I even provided the official Coroner’s Inquest report.

    Facts, not accusations like some folks who accuse others of lying.

  103. We call it “the free market”.

    What they don’t have is a lock on denying the services you want in any locale.

    Ignoramus? Do you find this name calling an effective approach?

  104. There is no “correct standard of care” in American law which overrides the right of conscientious objection.

    Period.

  105. You don’t need a hospital for an abortion.

    Perhaps you need to get familiar with the facts and stop relying on propaganda?

  106. I assume that the accusations about morals and “being a malicious d-bag” are the sign that this is nearing the end and that you’ve run out of “facts” altogether.

    Good.

  107. “Check the links at Wikipedia” = “Do my research for me”.

    If you have links, provide them.

    Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya is a communist Indian politician whose vociferous opposition to Christians in India is a matter of record. Teresa was competition to the commies.

    Yes, all Christians hope to convert the world to Christ.

    I’ll translate this one for you:

    http://es.catholic.net/op/articulos/63224/cat/729/la-verdad-tras-las-acusaciones-contra-santa-madre-teresa-de-calcuta.html

    ….. Another attack against Mother Teresa is that of a 27-page “report” by three Canadian academics – Serge Larivee, Genevieve Chenard, and Carole Senechal – who in 2013 published ” Mother Teresa: Anything but a Saint ” in which they cited a series of supposed “problems” not taken into account by the Vatican in the process of beatification.

    Some of them were her “dubious” way of caring for the sick in deplorable foster homes, while receiving better care for herself; poor handling of donations; and her “fanaticism that made her want poverty more than the poor”.

    Doino looked for people who knew Mother Teresa closely to ask them about these accusations. Each one of them said that Mother Teresa was presented by the Canadian investigators in an unrecognizable way, and to prove it, they answered the accusations point by point.

    The “most powerful” testimony, according to Doino, was that of Susan Conroy, who worked with Mother Teresa in Calcutta in 1986 as a volunteer and wrote the book Mother Teresa’s Lessons of Love and Secrets of Sanctity (Lessons on Love and Secrets of the sanctity of Mother Teresa).

    “When I read the critics about how patients were treated at home for the dying, I kept thinking about my personal experiences there … I know how tenderly and carefully I treated each of the indigent patients. The way he bathed them, washed their beds, fed them and gave them medicine. ”

    The place, Conroy points out, “was cleaned thoroughly and regularly from top to bottom, and each patient was bathed as often as needed, even several times a day.” ….

    The paper purported to be “an analysis of the published writings about Mother Teresa”. However, it largely based on Christopher Hitchens’, who is amply quoted in their “analysis”. Among other criticisms they level are her “dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce”.

    She was a Catholic sister. What a surprise she held “dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce”.

    And so on.

  108. 🙂

    The statement still stands. Its not an act of principle or conscience to force others to obey the dictates of your religious faith. “Refusing to participate” in a conservative Christian context inevitable means refusing to carry out an obligation to others legally ethically or professionally. Its not being Desmond T. Doss, its being Bull Connor.

  109. Re: “…representing yourself as Catholic…”: You must not have heard of “Catholics For Choice”. Or the fact that of religious women who seek abortions, the greater percentage (24%) identifies as catholic (Guttmacher Institute).

    Re: “alternative treatment options”: Really? So you are a M.D. who was personally present at this ER situation? But they didn’t listen to your words of wisdom? What “alternative treatment” did you propose for this dying woman, sweetie?

  110. You lie.
    ACLU and AU are protecting people from things like this and trying to outlaw gay ‘conversion therapy’–another area where untold trauma and suffering takes place. What do you care? it’s not happening to you and your fellow sadists.

  111. They deny he was the son of god, which they consider blasphemy. They deny that believing in jEsus does anything for anyone.

    Other han that, you’re right.

  112. Of course it still stands.

    You’ve dug the hole, you’ve climbed in, and you’ve covered yourself up.

    There is no way out, and you lack the ability to simply acknowledge your error.

  113. Catholics for Choice is an anti-Catholic organization founded by an ex-Catholic who started and owned an abortion clinic. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Archdiocese of Mexico have declared the organization to be anti-Catholic, promoting positions contrary to Catholic teaching. In several dioceses joining the organization knowing its positions leads to an automatic excommunication. The only thing “Catholic” about is its name, which was chosen to hide its true purpose.

    Why don’t you describe with some precision the exact issue that the woman was dealing with before we discuss alternative treatments?

    You used the term “pulmonary hypertension”.

    Pulmonary hypertension involves increased blood pressure within the arteries of the lungs which exhibits as shortness of breath, syncope, tiredness, chest pain, swelling of the legs, a fast heartbeat and the onset is typically gradual.

    The cause is unknown, approximately 1,000 cases occur each year in the USA, females are more often affected than males, and onset is typically between 20 and 60 years of age.

    There is no cure.

    Supportive measures include oxygen therapy, diuretics, and anti-clotting medications, prescribing epoprostenol, treprostinil, iloprost, bosentan, ambrisentan, macitentan, and/or sildenafil.

    A lung transplant may be an option in certain cases.

    Now, tie this with pregnancy and explain how an abortion would be necessary.

    Take your time. I understand that we don’t even know the individual’s name, nor are her medical records public, so parsing her condition and care beyond an allegation that a doctor or doctors said she needed an abortion may be problematic.

  114. Again with “you lie”. You nuts? You rude?

    Americans United for Separation of Church and State (founded as Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State), recently de-emphasizing “for Separation of Church and State”, has a track record of silliness and tilting at windmills that speaks for itself. It began as an advocate for an eccentric interpretation of the First Amendment which has no antecedents in American history or jurisprudence prior to WWII except for the anti-Catholic Blaine amendments, which was the raison d’être for its founding as a continuation of the 19th century Know Nothing movement.

    Glenn L. Archer, one of its founders, was the architect of the organization’s 1949 statement that the Roman Catholic Church was “more dangerous and clever than communism”. He petitioned the FCC to deny TV licenses to Jesuits because they were “an alien organization”, demanded that Cardinals in the Catholic Church have their citizenship revoked, and asked the House Un-American Activities Committee to investigate the intentions, scope and achievements of “Vatican espionage” in the United States, charging that the Catholic clergy had learned “American secrets hardly anyone except the president knows”.

    The main focus of AU’s activity for its first decade was opposition to the Roman Catholic Church as a Protestant-based anti-Catholic organization. As it’s moved further and further to the left, it has lost a good portion of its Protestant base and become an LGBT lobby in order to bolster its sagging membership (less than 75,000). At this point it consists of little more than talking head Barry Lynn and enough members to pay his salary and support a small staff.

    The American Civil Liberties Union, which once had a respected position as the defender of the Bill of Rights – with the exception of the Second Amendment – is now so radically politicized that Alan Dershowitz, the prominent constitutional law and criminal law expert, resigned his membership.

  115. I am not the one who is arguing dishonestly in support of forcing others to follow your religious dogma. You have never been describing acts of moral conscience. You have been describing excuses for malice and dereliction of obligations to others.

    You were the one who identified with the actions as I described for malicious dbags. By all means take offense.

    I stand by the statement. Your counter examples were nonsense. It actually proved my point.

    The only error here is anyone calling your view “religious freedom”.

  116. There are three logical possibilities:

    1 – All conscientious objectors are malicious dirtbags. In that case Medal of Honor winners Thomas William Bennett and Desmond Doss are malicious dirtbags.

    2 – Anyone who conscientiously objects to something YOU think they should do despite conscientious objections is a malicious dirtbag, and you are the Grand Poobah of Conscientious Objection qualified to judge who and who is not worthy. All hail the Grand Poobah!

    3 – You’ve stepped into it, found your position indefensible, and are now doubling on the error because it beats admitting a mistake.

    Pick one and own it.

  117. i repeat: Re: “alternative treatment options”: Really? So you are a M.D. who was personally present at this ER situation? But they didn’t listen to your words of wisdom?

    So you proposed all those drugs to the woman’s doctors in the ER, of which they, of course, being physicians were totally unaware, and they ignored your advice? How dare they.

    Re: “Why don’t you describe with some precision the exact issue that the woman was dealing with before we discuss alternative treatments?”: Sweetie, you’re the one who arrogantly proclaimed that ‘alternative treatments’ are available to this total stranger to you. Since you’re the one with the arrogance that leads you to believe that you know more than this woman’s attending physicians–keep having at it.

    In case you’re unaware, there are over 100,000 ectopic pregnancies a year in this country, and an abortion saves the woman from hemorrhaging to death from ruptured fallopian tubes. Abortion saves the lives of women suffering from placental abruption, that pesky pulmonary hypertension, eclampsia, and other pregnancy complications. Do tell of your “alternative treatments” that these women can undergo! Do list as well as your “alternative treatments” that would have saved the lives of the 700 to 900 women in any give year, who die from childbirth complications.

    Abortion is basic reproductive health care for women, and is considered so and supported by our major medical health organizations such as the American Medical Association, Academy of Family Physicians, American Medical Women’s Association, Physicians for Reproductive Health, and American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Religious cults such as catholicism, which are perfectly fine with a woman dying in childbirth, should join the 21st Century.

  118. LOL! You need some help understanding what is considered logical.

    1. You are not supporting the acts of conscientious objectors. Only people faking it. A fake conscientious objector is a scumbag. Especially when they are doing so to deliberately harm the lives and rights of others.

    2. Its called being honest and understanding the facts here. Something you have avoided like the plague. I am qualified to judge because I am seeing the situation honestly. You are the one looking for excuses to act badly. So yes you can call me Grand Poobah. No you are not even close to worthy by any standards used here.

    3. A declaration of victory by an immature fool who can’t understand or react sensibly to the arguments given.

    The actions you are supporting are as far from those of actual conscientious objectors as one can get. A conscientious objector does not use their beliefs to attack others in their faith nor deliberately avoid obligations to others. Far from it, even from your examples.

    William Bennett and Desmond Doss served the military and their fellow soldiers despite their objections, at great personal risk to themselves. Doing so above and beyond the call of duty. You support people who want to avoid serving others and shirk responsibilities. Below basic notions of adequacy or decency.

    Where is the personal risk of these people? Where is the sacrifice for their faith? There is none. They are looking for excuses to avoid any of that. Not just malicious d-bags, but spineless malicious d-bags. You should be ashamed for even considering them on par with Bennett and Doss.

    Go play in traffic. You are a dishonest and immature fool.

  119. Well you certainly avoided answering the question.

    So did St. Joseph Hospital, for the same reason you did.

    You, and they, did not have one iota of actual information on the woman’s condition.

    In fact, medical experts opined at the time they could not envision a circumstance when pulmonary hypertension would ever make an abortion mandatory.

    To gain some insight into your vast knowledge of the topic, under the Catholic ethical guidelines ectopic pregnancies which can rupture the fallopian tubes can be removed.

    You’re not doing well so far in establishing your bona fides.

  120. My goodness, you are certainly full of yourself! What a pathetic putz that you think actual PHYSICIANS in attendance at St. Joseph would know less than you about the woman’s physical condition! Your narcissism is astounding!

    Sweetie, I have read no such thing that “medical experts” second guessed the St. Joseph medical personnel. Heart failure is a commonly cited condition in which women die from pregnancy and childbirth complications.

    Re: “Catholic ethical guidelines”: Honey, who cares what arcane methods that a bunch of celibate males in long funny dresses deem appropriate reproductive medical care for women, other than their own brain-washed minions? Catholic doctrines limit medical options for pregnant women in catholic-affiliated hospitals.

    Re: “ectopic pregnancies”: “At non-Catholic hospitals, doctors typically perform surgery or inject a drug called methotrexate to stop cell growth and dissolve existing cells. Some Catholic hospitals, though, won’t offer those options if the fetus shows cardiac activity.” Women in catholic hospitals are usually sliced and diced to remove a fallopian tube with an ectopic pregnancy, rather than the non-invasive option of drugs dissolving the embryo.

    “As more hospitals have been taken over by Catholic hospital chains in recent years, reproductive health advocates have become increasingly concerned that fewer medical centers will provide abortion, contraception and other reproductive services.”–“Abortion fight at Catholic hospital pushes ACLU to seek federal help”; Washington Post

  121. My goodness, you are certainly full of yourself!

    What you read at the time and what did not read at the time is not a datum pro or con.

    Again with “a bunch of celibate males in long funny dresses deem appropriate”, indicating you’re trying to enter an attitude into evidence in support of what requires some facts.

    “At non-Catholic hospitals, doctors typically perform surgery or inject a drug called methotrexate to stop cell growth and dissolve existing cells. Some Catholic hospitals, though, won’t offer those options if the fetus shows cardiac activity.” Women in catholic hospitals are usually sliced and diced to remove a fallopian tube with an ectopic pregnancy, rather than the non-invasive option of drugs dissolving the embryo.

    “As more hospitals have been taken over by Catholic hospital chains in recent years, reproductive health advocates have become increasingly concerned that fewer medical centers will provide abortion, contraception and other reproductive services.”–“Abortion fight at Catholic hospital pushes ACLU to seek federal help”; Washington Post

    Your quotation can be found at:

    https://www.scpr.org/blogs/health/2016/01/13/18103/some-catholic-hospitals-limit-treatment-for-pregna/

    First, it is in error. Catholic ethical guidelines permit the removal of an ectopic pregnancy. Two, the difference between injecting methotrexate and excision is the difference between a direct abortion and removal of the affected section of the tube.

    The ACLU lost this 2016 suit both at the hearing level and in the district court because there is no “established standards of care” which could be used to override the right of the privately-owned religiously affiliated hospital’s right to follow the Catholic “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services”.

    Individuals can go to the hospital of their choice, and any competent physician knows what is not permitted in a Catholic facility.

  122. Re: “Individuals can go to the hospital of their choice”: No, they can’t….especially in rural areas where hospitals are being bought up by catholic organizations.

    In Washington state, data shows that 40% of all hospital beds are in a Catholic hospital. There is no other option for care in entire regions. This is especially true in rural regions, and it is frightening when the only access to healthcare is dictated by someone else’s religious doctrine, rather than medical science.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/05/07/health-care-denied-at-550-hospitals-because-of-catholic-doctrine/#738c38825ad9

  123. Your citation fails to support your assertion.

    The ACLU has been fishing around for a market where ONLY Catholic healthcare is available to make a case for this “must have” shtick, and has failed repeatedly for years.

    Even were it true, which it is not, religious-affiliated hospitals – and it is not just Catholics who own hospitals – cannot be compelled to violate their religious beliefs. There is simply no basis in law for such compulsion, while there is a basis in law for their resistance to compulsion.

  124. You sure are in denial, sweetie, when the facts are laid before you.

    Alas, one of these days, in a U.S. catholic hospital, there will come to light a case such as Savita Halappanavar, who died from sepsis from placental abruption in an Irish catholic hospital, where doctors refused to perform a life-saving abortion.

    The USCCB is egregious now in promoting their lack of treatment for women suffering from pregnancy complications. The USCCB are not doctors–they are, indeed, just celibate males in long funny dresses; they will eventually lose their stranglehold over women’s reproductive health care in catholic hospitals–such as happened at St. Joseph’s. Many woman would already have died in catholic hosptials, without women being sent to other normal regular hospitals when pregnancy complications arise. The ACLU and a secular nation are watching.

    https://www.aclu.org/report/report-health-care-denied?redirect=report/health-care-denied

    “The Myth: “Abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life.”

    As recently as 2015, the USCCB claimed that there was no such thing as a life-saving abortion. It said that “there is significant credible evidence that the universe of abortions ‘necessary’ to save a woman’s life comprises an empty set.” But medical consensus says otherwise. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the nation’s leading group of women’s health care physicians, “more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related reasons right here in the United States. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives.” There are a number of conditions that can arise during or be exacerbated by pregnancy that may require a life-saving abortion, such as the following.

    -Hypertensive disorders
    -Premature rupture of membranes (PROM)

  125. The Coroner’s Inquest in the case in Ireland of Savita Halappanavar concluded that she died from medical misadventure, not “doctors refus(ing) to perform a life-saving abortion”. Specifically her doctors failed to properly diagnose the sepsis until it was too late.

    The USCCB has provided, in accordance with their own religious beliefs, guidance for healthcare providers as to what can and cannot be accomplished morally.

    You, the ACLU, and others who agree with you are free to pool your funds and build hospitals that provide services in accord with your own beliefs.

    Stealing other people’s facilities to accomplish your purposes is not consistent with American law.

    The ACLU’s 2016 “Report: Health Care Denied”, which was part of a large ACLU propaganda campaign to go along with two cases that the ACLU was conducting, simply demonstrates how politicized the ACLU has become, to the point where the renowned civil rights attorney and advocate Alan Dershowitz resigned his membership, as did I.

    The ACLU lost the 2016 cases, and has lost dozens of other cases trying to push this political agenda, because American law is foursquare against stealing property and compelling citizens to accomplish political agendas, in this case abortion on demand.

  126. No, dear, Savita Halappanavar died because doctors refused to perform an abortion even though Savita was going through a miscarriage, and the fetus was not going to survive. If a doctor had removed the fetus earlier, Savita would not have become septic. What a catholic dance over Halappanavar’s death–women should not have to be near death in order to receive medical care–but Irish catholicuckoo law required it.

    Savita Halappanavar would have survived if her pregnancy had been terminated days before she died of blood poisoning at Galway University hospital last autumn, the inquest in Galway courthouse has heard.

    Re: “USCCB…morally.”: Sweetie, morals are subjective. You may want to live your life under the rules those men in long funny dresses, but the rest of us sane people in this country do not have to, and we will not.

    Re: “political agendas”: Abortion isn’t a political agenda–it’s a reproductive health care procedure that you uber religious have fits over because it offends your delicate sensibilities…and interferes with your control over women’s social behavior, sexuality, and fertility.

  127. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/savita-halappanavar-jury-returns-unanimous-medical-misadventure-verdict-1.1365716

    actual text:

    http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/06/savita-halappanavar-hse-report.pdf

    The Sunday Independent in Ireland noted that the inquest “freed us from the crippling version of this story that was initially presented to the country by the Irish Times, which sought to shape this woman’s tragic death into a rallying cry for a change to Ireland’s abortion laws. In a sense, they immediately dug the trenches and we all dutifully took our places on either side of the battlefield and began shooting at one another before we even had all the facts. That has been hugely damaging.”

    An individual who wrote “Savita Halappanavar died because doctors refused to perform an abortion even though Savita was going through a miscarriage” would feel like a right bloody fool after reading the Coroner’s Inquest if he or she weren’t a tool of propagandists.

Leave a Comment