ACLU Claims Catholic Hospitals Refusing Life-Saving Abortions for Women

[juliee]

ACLU Claims Catholic Hospitals Refusing Life-Saving Abortions for Women

Albany, NY – The ACLU is making a claim that Catholic hospitals nationwide refusing abortions for women in very rare instances in which it may somehow be necessary to save their life. But ACLU is coming under fire on its own accord for misrepresenting the situation and trying to force hospitals to do abortions.

LifeNews.com/nat6512.html

 

[JimG]

The letter asks federal officials to interpret the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and the Conditions of Participation of Medicare and Medicaid – which require hospitals to provide appropriate medical care to all patients.
The ACLU says the portion of the ACT concerning “emergency reproductive health care” includes abortions.Under this current administration and Obama’s health care plan, I expect to see further attempts to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic physicians to act against their conscience.

 

[mlund]

Our own Bishop made the Church’s teachings clear: one inflicts automatic excommunication upon one’s self for procuring or performing an abortion. Period. End of sentence.

Medical procedures to address a condition or pathology that have the undesired double-effect of terminating a pregnancy can be performed to save a mother’s life from eminent threat, but children can never be acted upon as if they are the disease.

What is more, most abortions procured to “save the life of the mother” are performed when the mother’s life is not in eminent danger. They are typically performed because of any out-of-the-ordinary increase in the possibility of life-threatening pregnancy complications - things like increased blood pressure, for example. The “save the life of the mother” argument has been mutilated by the NARL, the ACLU, and others of their ilk.

• Marty Lund

 

[Rence]

I think that the publicity that the St. Joe’s case has resulting in is probably going to have a positive effect on Catholic hospitals, or at least I hope it does.

I think that if people don’t understand the ramifications of being admitted into a Catholic hospital by now, they should after this “investigation” is conducted, if it is conducted.

This will stop physicians and other health care providers from admitting their patients to Catholic facilities if they suspect an abortion may be the end result. They need to know that their chronically ill patients who are pregnant are not going to get abortions at Catholic hospitals and admit them elsewhere instead. This will eliminate any need or requirement for Catholic hospital to go against their rules, and it will eliminate any negative views that patients have of Catholic hospitals.

This will also stop non-Catholic patients from going to Catholic hospitals if they think their care will involve needing a product or procedure, and will again eliminate the need or requirement for Catholic hospitals to go against their rules. For example, if a woman who is raped already knows she wants Plan B as part of her emergency care, she should just not go to a Catholic hospital. And if she does, she should know that she can get Plan B from a pharmacy. One over the age of 17 doesn’t even need a prescription for Plan B and several places have it available. In many cases, if a pharmacy tech or pharmacist doesn’t administer plan B, there is another employee available to do the actual selling. And of course, the same applies for those who are under 17, except that they need a prescription.

I know that there are bills being introduced that require any medicare/medicaid recipient entities to provide Plan B and PlanB counseling for rape victims who enter their emergency room. But if it doesn’t get passed, patients have the right to (and really should) know that they won’t get these services from Catholic hospitals and should go elsewhere.

As for chronic conditions, such as the pulmonary hypertension suffered by the woman at St. Joe’s: doctors and patients need to know they won’t get abortive services from Catholic hospitals, even to save the life of the woman. They just need to go elsewhere. And they need to know that.

I don’t know how the problem will be resolved for true emergencies. My guess is that ethics committees will be involved and health care providers will take the heat for whatever actions they take either way. True emergencies are different senarios…

 

[Lutheranteach]

I think that the publicity that the St. Joe’s case has resulting in is probably going to have a positive effect on Catholic hospitals, or at least I hope it does.

I think that if people don’t understand the ramifications of being admitted into a Catholic hospital by now, they should after this “investigation” is conducted, if it is conducted.

This will stop physicians and other health care providers from admitting their patients to Catholic facilities if they suspect an abortion may be the end result. They need to know that their chronically ill patients who are pregnant are not going to get abortions at Catholic hospitals and admit them elsewhere instead. This will eliminate any need or requirement for Catholic hospital to go against their rules, and it will eliminate any negative views that patients have of Catholic hospitals.

This will also stop non-Catholic patients from going to Catholic hospitals if they think their care will involve needing a product or procedure, and will again eliminate the need or requirement for Catholic hospitals to go against their rules. For example, if a woman who is raped already knows she wants Plan B as part of her emergency care, she should just not go to a Catholic hospital. And if she does, she should know that she can get Plan B from a pharmacy. One over the age of 17 doesn’t even need a prescription for Plan B and several places have it available. In many cases, if a pharmacy tech or pharmacist doesn’t administer plan B, there is another employee available to do the actual selling. And of course, the same applies for those who are under 17, except that they need a prescription.

I know that there are bills being introduced that require any medicare/medicaid recipient entities to provide Plan B and PlanB counseling for rape victims who enter their emergency room. But if it doesn’t get passed, patients have the right to (and really should) know that they won’t get these services from Catholic hospitals and should go elsewhere.

As for chronic conditions, such as the pulmonary hypertension suffered by the woman at St. Joe’s: doctors and patients need to know they won’t get abortive services from Catholic hospitals, even to save the life of the woman. They just need to go elsewhere. And they need to know that.

I don’t know how the problem will be resolved for true emergencies. My guess is that ethics committees will be involved and health care providers will take the heat for whatever actions they take either way. True emergencies are different senarios…

 

[Lutheranteach]

For example, if a woman who is raped already knows she wants Plan B as part of her emergency care, she should just not go to a Catholic hospital. And if she does, she should know that she can get Plan B from a pharmacy. One over the age of 17 doesn’t even need a prescription for Plan B and several places have it available. In many cases, if a pharmacy tech or pharmacist doesn’t administer plan B, there is another employee available to do the actual selling. And of course, the same applies for those who are under 17, except that they need a prescription.

Because I am sure this is the kind of thing a rape victim wants to have to deal with in the hours after she’s attacked.

 

[Rence]

For example, if a woman who is raped already knows she wants Plan B as part of her emergency care, she should just not go to a Catholic hospital. And if she does, she should know that she can get Plan B from a pharmacy. One over the age of 17 doesn’t even need a prescription for Plan B and several places have it available. In many cases, if a pharmacy tech or pharmacist doesn’t administer plan B, there is another employee available to do the actual selling. And of course, the same applies for those who are under 17, except that they need a prescription.

Because I am sure this is the kind of thing a rape victim wants to have to deal with in the hours after she’s attacked.

I agree Lutheranteach, but if you know a place will not give you the treatment you require, why would you go there at a time like that and argue with them? It’s only going to make her feel worse. At a time like that, she just wants to get treated, go home and get on with her life and begin her journey of healing. Being refused her right to treatment is only going to fester more anger and hinder her healing. It’s better to know she shouldn’t go there from the beginning IMOHO. And until such a law is passed requiring all emergency rooms to treat all rape victims according to a standard of care, all she will do is argue and fight and in the end, waste precious time going elsewhere.

 

[Mark77]

**“Life saving abortions?” (i love the way these slick attorneys can mangle the Truth!)

That is the ultimate oxyMORON!!!

The Catholic Church has always taught that direct abortion is always a grave evil!

“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:” (CCC2271) search the Catechism here; scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

The Church has also always given primacy to the medical treatment of the mother, & if the innocent baby dies indirectly as a result of the “life saving” treatment to the mother, then a sad tragedy has occurred, but no direct abortion, therefore no grave evil.

i miss the good old days when parents were willing to sacrifice & even die to save their children! Now its assumed (incorrectly) that the innocent baby must be murdered by abortion to save the mothers life???

i suspect it is far safer for the Doctor & hospital to avoid a malpractice lawsuit by recommending an abortion, even if it is not necessary!
**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[ALLGIRLS]

"Life saving abortions?" (i love the way these slick attorneys can mangle the Truth!)

That is the ultimate oxyMORON!!!



i suspect it is far safer for the Doctor & hospital to avoid a malpractice lawsuit by recommending an abortion, even if it is not necessary!

Sadly, this is true. I’m pregnant for the 6th time (5th time in 8 years), so I frequent a lot of pregnancy and parenting boards (including here). I’m also 39, and have been “Advanced Maternal Age” for the last 3 pregnancies, so I’m forced to deal with the “high risk” doctor (even though my babies and I are always healthy and “complication” free) as well as my own OB/GYN. In “talking” (on-line) to other Moms, I’ve found our experience is the same: ANY hint of an “abnormality” and abortion is recommended. It’s the first thing recommended. You have to say no to “termination” before your “other options” are explored. I’m sure it’s partly because abortion is MUCH cheaper than a lot of things you must do to care for high risk pregnancies and babies, but, I’m not going to totally blame the doctor’s, because I’m sure some where along the line, they got sued for neglecting to recommend abortion. Some have even been sued for “wrongful life” by the parents, and even the special needs children themselves. And these plaintiffs have won! “You should have told me I could kill my child. You didn’t, and he’s cost me a lot of money. You owe me.” and “My life is miserable because of this disability. I wish I’d never been born. You should have told my mother she could have aborted me. You owe me.”

Our society has gotten absurd. I shudder to think how much worse it could get

In Christ,

Ellen

mark

 

[pnewton]

Regretfully, it may be time for Catholics to get out of the emergency health care business. All current hospitals can be converted to surgical centers. Perhaps the ACLU would be willing to operate emergency rooms since the seem so intent on closing Catholic ones.

 

[Mark77]

ALLGIRLS:
**Ellen,

My most beautiful sister in Jesus Christ,

You are truly an inspiration to me! Thank you for your loving witness.

You will surely be a beautiful rose in the garden of heaven (while i will be the weed sprayed with roundup!)

Santa Maria, Mater Dei, ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
**
mark

 

[ALLGIRLS]

**Ellen,

My most beautiful sister in Jesus Christ,

You are truly an inspiration to me! Thank you for your loving witness.

You will surely be a beautiful rose in the garden of heaven **(while i will be the weed sprayed with roundup!)

Santa Maria, Mater Dei, ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

Well, thank you very much! If I do make it to heaven, it’ll be due to my children cultivating virtue in me.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[JRPO]

Regretfully, it may be time for Catholics to get out of the emergency health care business. All current hospitals can be converted to surgical centers. Perhaps the ACLU would be willing to operate emergency rooms since the seem so intent on closing Catholic ones.

unfortunately this issue goes far deeper than ACLU condemning Catholic hospitals.
This very issue is mentioned on this video realcatholictv.com/cia/02fake/
as you will see on the video the problem runs far deeper than healthcare. It is a world wide problem.
Please do take the time to watch the video. It run for about 90minutes.

 

[Tide210]

A private business should be able to refuse services to whomever it wants on any grounds they see fit.

 

[ryecroft]

A private business should be able to refuse services to whomever it wants on any grounds they see fit.

Not trying to be argumentative because I agree but then if a business is truly private, it should not be receiveing any government funding at all.
God Bless
Rye

 

[Tide210]

Not trying to be argumentative because I agree but then if a business is truly private, it should not be receiveing any government funding at all.
God Bless
Rye

I agree with you. If the business in question is in fact receiving Government assistance, then it cannot discriminate based on federal law. I believe all hospitals should be private but that’s another story.

 

[Rence]

A private business should be able to refuse services to whomever it wants on any grounds they see fit.

If that were true, then they would be able to refuse people who cannot pay, and no hospital can do that either, regardless of religious affiliation. By law, even if a patient cannot show proof of insurance or ability to pay, a hospital is responsible for stabilizing the patient before moving them to another facility.

If a patient winds up admitted into any facility in a life and death situation, that hospital is responsible for caring for that patient and stabilizing that patient and after the patient is stabilized they can move the patient to another hospital. A hospital is not allowed to watch a patient die because they don’t agree with the legal and prescribed care that the doctors have prescribed in a true emergency situation. It would be better if that facility just changed their status to not take emergency patients.

If a private business should be able to refuse services to whomever it wants on any grounds they see fit then a nurse who happens to be a JW in the ER can refuse to administer a blood transfusion – which of course they cannot do. If the nurse cannot find someone willing to trade assignments with her, she has to administer the blood in an emergency situation or she will be guilty of abandoning her patient. The same principle applies.

What would solve the problem is letting patients, doctors and emergency response teams know that under no conditions will certain procedures be performed. That way patients don’t go there, doctors don’t send their patients there, and emergency response teams bypass those hospitals. It’s the same as if a facility didn’t own a type of equipment that is needed for a particular surgery: that facility would be bypassed to the next hospital who owned the equipment.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I agree with all of that, Rence, and that works for emergencies going into the facility. The problem develops with situations or conditions which in the normal medical course would not evolve into emergencies, but which nevertheless can. I’m not even a medical professional, yet I’ve heard of cases close to me and not close to me which surprised the entire medical team in that an emergency did ensue and would not have been predicted from the patient’s situation or health history, and while there is no time to transport safely to a different facility.

Does it sound reasonable instead to have admitted patients, before any emergency ensues, sign waivers that they will agree to abide by the moral parameters set forth in the printed regulations of the Catholic hospital, and to give a copy of those scenarios to the patient? (Or, if they can’t agree, not to be admitted.)

I guess there’s an additional alternative, which would be to have independent wings of the same facility, one run according to strict Catholic standards, the other overseen by a different ethics board, and those who cannot sign the waiver submitting to Catholic emergency procedures, choose the alternative wing? That separate-but-joined arrangement might alleviate some of the independent financial operating pressures that have been discussed on previous threads.