Lawsuit Challenges Anti-Abortion Policies at Catholic Hospitals [NYT]

[livingwordunity]

Dec 2, '13 10:00 pm

The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of a Wisconsin woman, is suing Catholic bishops, arguing that their anti-abortion guidelines to affiliated hospitals are leading to medical negligence.

Full article…

The ACLU, basically the legal arm of the left, defended the pedophile organization called “NAMBLA”.

 

[Trader]

There may or may not be a legitimate medical malpractice case here, but suing the USCCB as a responsible party is so outrageous that the plaintiff should be held responsible for any legal fees expended by the defense. This is clear abuse of process for reasons other than obtaining justice for a patient.

The USCCB has no authority over this hospital and even a first year law student should know that. This is all about promoting abortion and punishing those who speak against it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

USCCB President Archbishop Kurtz Responds To ACLU’s Lawsuit

 

[Corki]

There may or may not be a legitimate medical malpractice case here, but suing the USCCB as a responsible party is so outrageous that the plaintiff should be held responsible for any legal fees expended by the defense. This is clear abuse of process for reasons other than obtaining justice for a patient.

The USCCB has no authority over this hospital and even a first year law student should know that. This is all about promoting abortion and punishing those who speak against it.

And according to the article, they aren’t suing the USCCB as “a” responsible party but “the” responsible party. They aren’t suing the hospital. No matter what the facts are in the medical case, the USCCB can’t be guilty of malpractice since it’s not in the practice of medicine.

This is all about promoting abortion and punishing those who speak against it.

:sad_yes:

 

[Cojuanco]

I would not go that far, but if the claim is identical to that outlined in the article, they have not stated an actionable claim, at least not one that could get past the First Amendment. They’re just trying to use the judicial process to stoke up Protestant America’s prejudices.

 

[CarolNoel]

Going only by the New York Times article, it looks like the hospital was neglectful, and that has nothing to do with abortion or the Church’s teaching. It’s possible that the staff were confused over the rules of the Church regarding such a situation, but it’s the staff’s job to be clear on it, and not compromise patient care in the process. It’s a shame she’s blaming the Bishops for this, rather than suing the hospital and those who were responsible for her poor care.

Yeah. We can all believe the NY Times. They are such an authority.

 

[Cojuanco]

Yeah. We can all believe the NY Times. They are such an authority.

But even if it is true, the suit against the bishops would still have no merit. This is, with apologies to the Blessed Mother, a procedural Hail Mary pass. Then again, I don’t think they’re trying to win the case, but to make our Protestant neighbors to see us as barbarians or un-American. It’s the same old story told in the same old way. We’re supposed to be beyond the era of Know-nothigism, but looks like it never really went away.

 

[Rence]

You lost me right there. NYT has ZERO credibility reporting on catholic issues. The fact that Maureen Dowd is still employed there after her long record of obscenely biased columns on catholic issues is clear evidence of editorial animus. Not that NYT can’t be A source on such issues, but you do yourself a disservice if you ONLY read their side. Important things get omitted, perspective is lacking and catholic teaching is often misrepresented.

It’s almost as bad as reading LifeSiteNews only to get all the facts on a pro-choice organization.

Get a second source, a better one.

Yeah, with all due respect, I didn’t know I was addressing only you, in order to have lost you. Secondly, why should I have to find a second, better source? I am not the on who started the thread. Thirdly, I commented based on that article only, and said that from the beginning. Looks like you’re the one in need of finding another source that suits you. I only meant to reply in the thread based on what was already presented, and that’s exactly what I did. You do yourself a disservice for jumping on people with no reason and without any cause.