Catholic Hospital Argues Fetus is NOT a person in lawsuit

[lerapt78]

:Quote:
But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

I have to admit that even I was shocked by this.

My contention with malpractice lawsuits aside, I agree that the hospital’s representatives had an opportunity to promote the Catholic understanding of life and, according only to what I read in the article, they didn’t step to the platform in this case. Instead of stating that the court should not overturn Colorado’s present law, the attorney probably should have worded it differently. But then, this is the hospital’s attorney speaking (and who even knows if he is a practicing Catholic?), not a Church authority.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.

Or in other words, the hospital is just playing by the rules set forth by those who made the laws. Isn’t that what everyone is supposed to do - abide by the law? Legally, the hospital is not responsible, so why wasn’t this case thrown out?? I agree that this could have been a good anti-abortion battle, but I would prefer to see a battle fought when there is no money involved - that way we would know that it is a case of actual morality and the good of society being considered. Monetary compensation tends to make everyone’s motives suspicious by default.

 

[Maria1993]

Weren’t they stripped from their Catholic title in 2010?

 

[Lucky7]

Weren’t they stripped from their Catholic title in 2010?

I I don’t know. I was wondeirng about the list of “Catholic” organizations/hospitals that were suspect (and wondering whether this hospital was on it). I’m pretty sure something like that was posted here at CAF in the last 6 months or so?

 

[catholictiger]

To play some devils advocate the current law doesn’t recognize a fetus as a human the lawyers are simple stating that while we don’t agree with it the law of the land states that a fetus isn’t a person meaning legally you can’t say we killed three people. The legality of this stuff muddies the waters

 

[JaMc]

To play some devils advocate the current law doesn’t recognize a fetus as a human the lawyers are simple stating that while we don’t agree with it the law of the land states that a fetus isn’t a person meaning legally you can’t say we killed three people. The legality of this stuff muddies the waters

Right. They aren’t saying that a fetus isn’t a person, nor that they don’t believe a fetus is a person. They are saying that the law applicable to the suit doesn’t recognize a fetus as a person for wrongful death liabilty purposes.

 

[Maxirad]

Here is a relevant video featuring Michael Voris.

 

[twoshoes]

Lawyers are paid to argue law as it is, not as how their clients might want it to be.

I know hypocray and lies are the first tool in a lawyers tool box, I suggest that when they are defending a Catholic Church organization they should not us them to under mine the character of there client. How many more slaps in the face must the church endure. If you must lie to win, then the your argument is not valid, I’d rather pay the penalty, then say a fetus is not a child. If the lawyer is not good enough, or the case is to weak, maybe the hospital was wrong. Winning at any cost has ramification that go way beyond this law suit.

 

[Dawnia]

I know hypocray and lies are the first tool in a lawyers tool box, I suggest that when they are defending a Catholic Church organization they should not us them to under mine the character of there client. How many more slaps in the face must the church endure. If you must lie to win, then the your argument is not valid, I’d rather pay the penalty, then say a fetus is not a child. If the lawyer is not good enough, or the case is to weak, maybe the hospital was wrong. Winning at any cost has ramification that go way beyond this law suit.

Wow…don’t like lawyers huh?

I’m curious…what lies do you think they told? Because saying civil law doesn’t recognize the rights of the unborn is the truth.

 

[RobbyS]

*The Catholic bishops of Colorado learned recently of the deaths of Lori Stodghill and her two unborn children, which took place at St. Thomas More Hospital in Cañon City, Colo. in 2006. We wish to extend our solidarity and sympathy to Lori’s husband Jeremy, and her daughter, Elizabeth. Please be assured of our ongoing prayers.

From the moment of conception, human beings are endowed with dignity and with fundamental rights, the most foundational of which is life.

Catholics and Catholic institutions have the duty to protect and foster human life, and to witness to the dignity of the human person – particularly to the dignity of the unborn. No Catholic institution may legitimately work to undermine fundamental human dignity.

Catholic Health Initiatives is a Catholic institution which provides health care services in 14 states, providing care to thousands of people annually. Catholic Health Initiatives has been accused by some of undermining the Catholic position on human life in the course of litigation. Today, representatives of Catholic Health Initiatives assured us of their intention to observe the moral and ethical obligations of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic bishops of Colorado are not able to comment on ongoing legal disputes. However, we will undertake a full review of this litigation, and of the policies and practices of Catholic Health Initiatives to ensure fidelity and faithful witness to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, S.T.L., Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Denver
Most Rev. Michael Sheridan, S.Th.D, Bishop of the Diocese of Colorado Springs
Most Rev. Fernando Isern, Bishop of the Diocese of Pueblo*

Edit: My apologies OP. I see that your link is an actual article, so I think this thread will be fine!

Statement is strange. Is it a Catholic hospital if it takes non-Catholic positions?Can’t just try to distinguish between a legal position and an ethical one. The bishops have too much of their credibility invested in opposition to abortion.

 

[twoshoes]

The deaths happened in 2006 and according to reports he filed suit 2 years later. The appeal was decided Aug 16, 2012. Interesting that it’s just now making headlines.

District court opinion

Oral Arguments on Appeal - April 23, 2011 Stoghill v Pelnar

It is rather shocking they would argue against Church law, but they are in a civil court, Church law doesn’t apply. Unborn children are not “persons” under civil law…yet.

Here’s more information…

Is a fetus a person? The Colorado Supreme Court may have to decide

It appears that the children may have already died by the time a c-section could have been performed. Terrible situation all around.

Does Gods law apply? I thought all law was based on the Ten Commandments, if wrong please advise me. For an organization like the Catholic Church which operates under Gods Law and not mans, this is hypocracy.

 

[twoshoes]

Wow…don’t like lawyers huh?

I’m curious…what lies do you think they told? Because saying civil law doesn’t recognize the rights of the unborn is the truth.

The lawyers that represent and speak for the Church argue a position that is polor opposite of the position of there client, The Church. The Church and God tells us all life, begins at conception. This I believe is true. Because Civil Law, which is usually created by Lawyers, says life begins at birth, does not make it so, “the lie”. God say’s it begins at conception, and science is begining to recognizing this fact. These lawyer’s misrepresent Our Churches position. Your correct, as a profession I don’t think much of attorney’s. To many lies, to much hypocracy for me. Win at any price.

 

[twoshoes]

Right. They aren’t saying that a fetus isn’t a person, nor that they don’t believe a fetus is a person. They are saying that the law applicable to the suit doesn’t recognize a fetus as a person for wrongful death liabilty purposes.

With this argument you may win in the court of Law, but how would this argument work in God’s court. Just a thought.

 

[catholictiger]

The lawyers don’t argue catholic opinion they argue the law the law suit should be based on law not opinion. I understand the law is in stark contrast with catholic doctrine but that doesn’t matter in this case in the eyes of the law. If we over turn rvw it will be based on the 14th amendment not the 5th commandment. The lawyers are arguing law not opinion. My only question should the hospital argued on other grounds for the sake of the unborn I dot know.

 

[catholictiger]

Can any lawyers give insite into this issue

 

[Dawnia]

Does Gods law apply? I thought all law was based on the Ten Commandments, if wrong please advise me. For an organization like the Catholic Church which operates under Gods Law and not mans, this is hypocracy.

Civil courts follow civil law. The Ten Commandments are not the basis for our laws.

The Catholic Church also operates under civil law. They don’t get to ignore building codes or employment laws…or lawsuits. They have to follow the same guidelines that govern everyone who lives in the US and suffer the same punishments for breaking those laws.

It is not hypocrisy to say that the civil code doesn’t recognize rights of the unborn, because it doesn’t. In this lawsuit, the Church is operating in the civil realm and the civil realm says that they are not monetarily liable for the deaths of the mother or the two children.

If you can show me where in God’s law where it talks about culpability for malpractice and monetary compensation…I’ll be more than ready to change my position.

 

[Dawnia]

The lawyers that represent and speak for the Church argue a position that is polor opposite of the position of there client, The Church. The Church and God tells us all life, begins at conception. This I believe is true. Because Civil Law, which is usually created by Lawyers, says life begins at birth, does not make it so, “the lie”. God say’s it begins at conception, and science is begining to recognizing this fact. These lawyer’s misrepresent Our Churches position. Your correct, as a profession I don’t think much of attorney’s. To many lies, to much hypocracy for me. Win at any price.

The civil law doesn’t not match with Church law. The lawyer was not stating what the Church believes because civil courts don’t rule on Church law. They were arguing what the civil law says…that doctors are not liable in malpractice cases in unborn children’s deaths.

 

[Dawnia]

The lawyers don’t argue catholic opinion they argue the law the law suit should be based on law not opinion. I understand the law is in stark contrast with catholic doctrine but that doesn’t matter in this case in the eyes of the law. If we over turn rvw it will be based on the 14th amendment not the 5th commandment. The lawyers are arguing law not opinion. My only question should the hospital argued on other grounds for the sake of the unborn I dot know.

If you listen to the oral arguments during the appeal, it appears they did argue other positions. Including that the hospital isn’t liable for doctor’s decisions and that the children died when the mother did and a c-section wouldn’t have saved the twins. The hospital only represented the nurses in this case, the doctors are seperate defendants.

 

[twoshoes]

The lawyers don’t argue catholic opinion they argue the law the law suit should be based on law not opinion. I understand the law is in stark contrast with catholic doctrine but that doesn’t matter in this case in the eyes of the law. If we over turn rvw it will be based on the 14th amendment not the 5th commandment. The lawyers are arguing law not opinion. My only question should the hospital argued on other grounds for the sake of the unborn I dot know.

My thought exactly, is there not another argument to be made. if it is there only argument then they have no defense.

 

[twoshoes]

Civil courts follow civil law. The Ten Commandments are not the basis for our laws.

The Catholic Church also operates under civil law. They don’t get to ignore building codes or employment laws…or lawsuits. They have to follow the same guidelines that govern everyone who lives in the US and suffer the same punishments for breaking those laws.

It is not hypocrisy to say that the civil code doesn’t recognize rights of the unborn, because it doesn’t. In this lawsuit, the Church is operating in the civil realm and the civil realm says that they are not monetarily liable for the deaths of the mother or the two children.

If you can show me where in God’s law where it talks about culpability for malpractice and monetary compensation…I’ll be more than ready to change my position.

Love your neighbor as yourself. Do not covet your neightbors goods. Do not bear false witness against your neightbor. These are the basis I’m talking about. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal. I wrote basis, not the finished product. What does building codes, employment law, or for that matter lawsuits have to do with an attorney that builds his defense against the moral, and ethical fiber of his client, the Catholic Church. That is what the orginal post was about. The lawyer does no service for their client by speaking opposite 2000 years of Catholic moral teachings. The lawyer is cutting the legs out from in under his client to win.

There has to be more than one way for the church to defend against this suit beside saying a fetus is not a person, Granted it may be the best defense legally, but morally it’s not. The last time I checked the church was in the moral and spiritual business, not the business of winning. Win at any cost, even to the point of damaging the client.

It is hypocritical the for the Catholic Church to have a teaching that life begins at conception, then argue, to win a lawsuit that it doesn’t. The think in your argument you are forgetting who the client is. It’s the Catholic Church.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Love your neighbor as yourself. Do not covet your neightbors goods. Do not bear false witness against your neightbor. These are the basis I’m talking about. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal. I wrote basis, not the finished product. What does building codes, employment law, or for that matter lawsuits have to do with an attorney that builds his defense against the moral, and ethical fiber of his client, the Catholic Church. That is what the orginal post was about. The lawyer does no service for their client by speaking opposite 2000 years of Catholic moral teachings. The lawyer is cutting the legs out from in under his client to win.

There has to be more than one way for the church to defend against this suit beside saying a fetus is not a person, Granted it may be the best defense legally, but morally it’s not. The last time I checked the church was in the moral and spiritual business, not the business of winning. Win at any cost, even to the point of damaging the client.

It is hypocritical the for the Catholic Church to have a teaching that life begins at conception, then argue, to win a lawsuit that it doesn’t. The think in your argument you are forgetting who the client is. It’s the Catholic Church.

Why stop at just what the Church teaches (and for clarification the hospital isn’t owned by the Church)? The non-Catholic gentleman who is suing for malpractice has in a past interview indicated that he does not have a real opinion on abortion or when a person is a person. If what a person or institution holds to be true overrules actual law does that not then mean one can only sue for the death of a fetus if one’s faith or moral system holds that a fetus is a person? What if this gentleman held the belief that a person only becomes a person after birth? Would he still be entitled to sue the hospital for the deaths of his children even though he himself does not hold them to have been people yet?

Let’s take it further. What if I owned a law firm sanctioned by the Church in a similar manner to the hospital. Would I therefore be able to file suit against my local DA to force them to charge abortion doctors in my area with murder? Would I be able to file malpractice lawsuits against these doctors on behalf of women and men who have had their children aborted?