ACLU sues Dignity Health over Redding hospital’s refusal to perform contraception surgery

[_Abyssinia]

In its ongoing dispute with Catholic hospital officials in Redding, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Dignity Health, contending the hospital system is unlawfully denying women’s rights to contraception.

The suit is filed on behalf of Physicians for Reproductive Health and a Redding woman, Rebecca Chamorro, who requested a tubal ligation at Mercy Medical Center in Redding during her scheduled cesarean section in late January. Chamorro and her husband, who have two other children, want the procedure as a permanent form of contraception.

Read more here: sacbee.com/news/local/article52168780.html#storylink=cpy

 

[_Abyssinia]

Different case but there was a lawsuit against the USSCB and “three chairs or former chairs of Catholic Health Ministries, the organization that in 2000 established Mercy Health parent Trinity Health Corp” and you can see what happened: mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2015/07/judge_dismisses_muskegon_woman.html

On Tuesday, June 30, U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell dismissed the lawsuit without a hearing on the evidence. He based his opinion on written briefs submitted by both sides.

Bell cited two basic reasons for the dismissal:

Michigan federal courts have no jurisdiction over the bishops’ conference for policy directives issued by the Washington, D.C.-based organization.

It’s improper for courts to interfere in religious doctrinal decisions, which Bell concluded was behind the anti-abortion policy directives. Considering the Muskegon woman’s negligence claim would “impermissibly intrude upon ecclesiastical matters,” the judge wrote in his opinion.

Bell noted that Means still had recourse in the courts to sue doctors or hospitals for medical malpractice if she received inadequate medical care – but not, the judge concluded, to sue a religious organization or officials for their religious doctrine.

"It is not up to the Court to mandate the larger structural and policy reform to Catholic hospitals that Plaintiff seeks; that issue is left to the Church and its tribunals," Bell wrote.

My emphases.

 

[Cathoholic]

Remember. These are the same types of people who insist “Women’s health” is between them and their doctor.

Now the courts, lawyers, Physicians for Reproductive Health, and the ACLU are all getting involved?

You mean this is NOT merely between a woman and her doctor??

Where are all the “It’s between a woman and her doctor” evangelists now??

Those people might object and say, “Well this has to do with Redding Hospital policies!”

But the physicians there apparently agree with this philosophy too (suggested by them getting privledges there. You would not go to a dedicated rehab. Hospital and insist upon doing retinal or cardiac surgery there either. Likewise you do not go to a Catholic Medical Center and insist upon practicing Anti-Catholic “medicine”).

My point is, when you hear people claim, “Women’s health issue are between them and their doctors!” I would suggest taking this statement with more than a grain of salt.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Is there a “right” to have every possible elective procedure performed at any facility? Can a hospital / doctor be forced to perform an elective, non-emergency procedure that they do not want to?

 

[phil19034]

This who thing infuriates me. I had to go to confession because of sinful anger regarding this issue and the ongoing Planned Parenthood horrors

 

[mdgspencer]

Dignity Health has just won this case, though the ACLU may appeal to a higher court.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Where are all the “It’s between a woman and her doctor” evangelists now??

This WAS between her and her doctor. The hospital would not authorize the doctor to perform the procedure requested by the doctor and patient.

 

[MacBP]

Dignity Health has just won this case, though the ACLU may appeal to a higher court.

Thanks be to God!

To me, this case is the rough equivalent of someone going into a pizza place and being upset if they don’t make schwarma. Then suing them over it.

 

[MacBP]

This WAS between her and her doctor. The hospital would not authorize the doctor to perform the procedure requested by the doctor and patient.

The vast majority of qualified doctors in a vast majority of appropriate medical institutions will provide this service. Something tells me she won’t have too much trouble getting a tubal ligation.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The vast majority of qualified doctors in a vast majority of appropriate medical institutions will provide this service. Something tells me she won’t have too much trouble getting a tubal ligation.

Then perhaps Dignity Health can do without State funding including $684.5 million in government program allocations and should not be part of the Medicare or Medicaid programs, losing $3.3 billion in payments. If you don’t play by the king’s rules then you shouldn’t get the king’s coin. If they want to play by the UCCB’s rules then they can foot the bill.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Then perhaps Dignity Health can do without State funding including $684.5 million in government program allocations and should not be part of the Medicare or Medicaid programs, losing $3.3 billion in payments. If you don’t play by the king’s rules then you shouldn’t get the king’s coin. If they want to play by the UCCB’s rules then they can foot the bill.

Catholic hospitals are legally allowed to operate adhering to Catholic views in regards to abortion etc. and receive state funding.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Catholic hospitals are legally allowed to operate adhering to Catholic views in regards to abortion etc. and receive state funding.

We shall see how long that lasts particularly in a case involving a standard medical procedure. BTW - no hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds can refuse ANY emergency treatment including abortion when medically necessary.

 

[SilverLight]

This who thing infuriates me. I had to go to confession because of sinful anger regarding this issue and the ongoing Planned Parenthood horrors

Sinful anger?

 

[_Abyssinia]

We shall see how long that lasts particularly in a case involving a standard medical procedure. BTW - no hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds can refuse ANY emergency treatment including abortion when medically necessary.

Don’t Mercy Health Partners receive Medicare or Medicaid money? If they do, and what you say is accurate, then why didn’t the ACLU sue the hospital in the Tamesha Means case?

The ACLU claims her care was negligent because the policy prevents staff from telling her “that terminating her pregnancy was an option and the safest course for her condition.”

According to that statement, the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives prohibit abortion but allow operations, treatments and medications for a pregnant woman to treat a “proportionately serious pathological condition,” even if doing so causes the unintentional death of the child.

mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2015/07/judge_dismisses_muskegon_woman.html

They went after the “Directive”, they didn’t sue the hospital, and they lost their case on the “Directive”.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Don’t Mercy Health Partners receive Medicare or Medicaid money? If they do, and what you say is accurate, then why didn’t the ACLU sue the hospital in the Tamesha Means case?

They’re in the process of suing the USCCB.

They went after the “Directive”, they didn’t sue the hospital, and they lost their case on the “Directive”.

They didn’t lose or win the case. The judge determined that he did not have jurisdiction to hear it so it was dismissed and the ACLU filed an appeal that is still pending. The notion that such a large nationwide network of hospitals is exempt from any kind of liability for the real harm caused by their policies just because those policies are created by a religious organization simply will not stand.

 

[_Abyssinia]

They’re in the process of suing the USCCB.

They didn’t lose or win the case. The judge determined that he did not have jurisdiction to hear it so it was dismissed and the ACLU filed an appeal that is still pending. The notion that such a large nationwide network of hospitals is exempt from any kind of liability for the real harm caused by their policies just because those policies are created by a religious organization simply will not stand.

They are appealing the decision, as the article says above, but they haven’t sued the hospital, and you said, “no hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds can refuse ANY emergency treatment including abortion when medically necessary.”

Did they refuse an abortion as such? They didn’t inform her that abortion was an option. Is that a refusal? Whatever the case, why didn’t the ACLU sue the hospital? Doesn’t the hospital take Medicare or Medicaid funds?

The Judge made clear, they can’t rule over the Directive itself because that is a Church issue, and it’s interesting to see where that appeal will go, because if the Directive can’t be ruled over and it’s the Directive that in turn disallows abortion, where can the lawsuit go if the ACLU continues to go after the USSCB?

 

[MacBP]

Then perhaps Dignity Health can do without State funding including $684.5 million in government program allocations and should not be part of the Medicare or Medicaid programs, losing $3.3 billion in payments. If you don’t play by the king’s rules then you shouldn’t get the king’s coin. If they want to play by the UCCB’s rules then they can foot the bill.

Hospitals and clinics have the ability to define their scope of practice. Not every hospital, for examle, will contain a seating clinic or a hand therapy clinic they still recieve public funding. Why is it that a hospital is “allowed” to select what services they offer in every area except sexuality? Moreover, while the hospital does accept federal funding, its not as if the government has recieved that money for the expressed purposes of providing the services they will not perform. They recieve money to perform money within their scope of practice. The scope of practice of a clinic specializing in hip surgery is hip surgery, and so by recieving funding from the government they are enabled to perform hip surgery and are under no obligation to perform back surgery. Similarly, the scope of practice in a Catholic hospital are those practices allowed within the Catholic tradition. I fail to see why they should be compelled to operate outside of their scope of practice.

Moreover, by taking patients whovdon’t require contraceptive services, the hospital frees up other hospitals in the area whose scope of practice does include that service. I doubt the hospital in question negatively affects the patients ability to receive the service. It just shifts around where its done.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Did they refuse an abortion as such? They didn’t inform her that abortion was an option. Is that a refusal? Whatever the case, why didn’t the ACLU sue the hospital? Doesn’t the hospital take Medicare or Medicaid funds?

The case is much worse than that. Tamesha Means had a serious medical condition that required a medically necessary abortion. The hospital withheld both the nature and severity of her condition and the required treatment from her three times which resulted in significant deterioration of her health. They did not disclose this to her until she started to miscarry as they tried to hustle her out the door again and they had to perform the procedure. Monsters with no medical ethics to speak of. The ACLU is suing both the USCCB and the governing body of the hospital (Catholic Health Ministries.)

It is one thing for people to say that such hospitals should be allowed to refuse certain elective procedures on religious grounds. It is absolutely diabolical for people to say that such hospitals should be allowed to withhold the nature and severity of a patient’s medical condition, the medically recommended course of action, and place a patient’s life at serious risk.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The case is much worse than that. Tamesha Means had a serious medical condition that required a medically necessary abortion. The hospital withheld both the nature and severity of her condition and the required treatment from her three times which resulted in significant deterioration of her health. They did not disclose this to her until she started to miscarry as they tried to hustle her out the door again and they had to perform the procedure. Monsters with no medical ethics to speak of. The ACLU is suing both the USCCB and the governing body of the hospital (Catholic Health Ministries.)

It is one thing for people to say that such hospitals should be allowed to refuse certain elective procedures on religious grounds. It is absolutely diabolical for people to say that such hospitals should be allowed to withhold the nature and severity of a patient’s medical condition, the medically recommended course of action, and place a patient’s life at serious risk.

I’m pretty sure I can find statements from various medical professionals who will basically say the same thing: there is no reason an abortion should be medically necessary for health of the mother.

Is the ACLU suing for medical negligence? If Tamesha Means was not told the the full extent or seriousness of her condition, or they didn’t investigate her problem properly, then that could be medical negligence for sure, but they shouldn’t have offered her an abortion, the killing of a child.

If a woman had a serious condition that can’t wait to be treated until the baby is induced early or full term, then treatment should be sought to remedy the problem. If the baby died during the process, that would be devastating, but at least they would have tried to save both lives.

When a mother’s water breaks this early in a pregnancy, it is a condition known as PROM, preterm premature rupture of membranes. The ACLU suit claims that,”…MHP did not inform Ms. Means that, due to her condition, the fetus she was carrying had virtually no chance of surviving…” However, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians,

…when membrane rupture occurs before 37 weeks’ gestation, it is known as preterm PROM. Preterm PROM complicates approximately 3 percent of pregnancies and leads to one third of preterm births.It increases the risk of prematurity and leads to a number of other perinatal and neonatal complications, including a 1 to 2 percent risk of fetal death.
That contradicts the ACLU’s claim that Ms. Meaks’ baby “had virtually no chance of surviving.” While it may be that Ms. Means’ baby would not have survived under any circumstances, there is no reason to think that abortion was “the safest treatment option.”

blog.acton.org/archives/63263-aclu-sues-u-s-catholic-bishops-denial.html

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I’m pretty sure I can find statements from various medical professionals who will also say the basically say the same thing: there is no reason an abortion should be medically necessary for health of the mother.

I’m pretty sure the medical facts would run contrary to any such statements particularly in this case. The hospital neither disclosed the condition to her or the medically necessary action to treat it, they claim because of that directive. Mrs. Means suffered from preterm premature rupture of membranes resulting in severe acute chorioamionitis and acute funisitis, which left her in increasing agony and placed her at risk of death and infertility as the futile pregnancy continued and the hospital wouldn’t treat it or even disclose the condition or those risks to her.

Delivery before 32 weeks’ gestation may lead to severe neonatal morbidity and mortality. In the absence of intra-amniotic infection, the physician should attempt to prolong the pregnancy until 34 weeks’ gestation. Physicians should advise patients and family members that, despite these efforts, many patients deliver within one week of preterm PROM.4 Contraindications to conservative therapy include chorioamnionitis, abruptio placentae, and nonreassuring fetal testing. Physicians should administer a course of corticosteroids and antibiotics and perform an assessment of fetal well-being by fetal monitoring or ultrasonography. After transport to a facility able to care for patients with preterm PROM before 32 weeks’ gestation, patients should receive daily (or continuous, if indicated) fetal monitoring for contractions and fetal well-being. Umbilical cord compression is common (32 to 76 percent)7 with preterm PROM before 32 weeks’ gestation; therefore, at least daily fetal monitoring is indicated. In addition, the physician should observe closely for fetal or maternal tachycardia, oral temperature exceeding 100.4°F (38°C), regular contractions, uterine tenderness, or leukocytosis, which are possible indicators of amnionitis. Corticosteroid administration may lead to an elevated leukocyte count if given within five to seven days of PROM.

Evidence suggests that prolonged latency may increase the risk of intra-amniotic infection. A retrospective analysis31 of 134 women with preterm PROM at 24 to 32 weeks’ gestation who received steroids and antibiotics found a nonsignificant trend toward intrauterine inflammation in patients with a latency period longer than one week. Delivery is necessary for patients with evidence of amnionitis.

Tamesha was only 18 weeks pregnant and how many of the above guidelines did the hospital follow? Zero. They ignored the condition because the fetus had to come out.