Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Planned Parenthood Complains about Religious Hospital Mergers
Focus on the Family ^ | 11.14.05 | Kim Trobee

Posted on 11/16/2005 2:00:47 PM PST by victim soul

Religiously run hospitals are now in the crosshairs of the abortion provider.

A new call to action from Planned Parenthood is hoping to frighten women with the rising number of hospitals run by faith-based organizations, many of which refuse to offer abortion services. According to the abortion provider, women are in danger of losing their “right” to reproductive services if they don’t step up and oppose mergers between community hospitals and faith-based healthcare providers. Those providers are usually Catholic, 7th Day Adventist and Baptist.

“Planned Parenthood isn’t content with getting all the abortions they want in secular hospitals, now they want to demand that religious hospitals perform abortions as well. They want to take us down with them and make everybody violate their morals and their religion in this quest for abortion and contraception on demand everywhere.”

That’s Kiera McCaffrey, Director of Communications for the Catholic League.

“It’s not about saying, ‘Let’s get everyone to a Catholic hospital or a Baptist hospital so that we can make them one of us or things like that, it’s about seeing a need and helping.”

Far from being “dangerous,” faith-based healthcare providers offer much to the communities they serve including aid to the poor and uninsured. Deirdre McQuade is with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“The services that they provide in their whole integrity, they care for the person not only as a physical body, but as a whole person.”

McQuade says surveys indicate 86% of the hospitals in the United States do not perform abortions; of those that do, they report only a handful of the procedures every year. Frances Kissling, President of Catholics for a Free Choice, a pro-abortion group quoted in the report, did not return calls for comment.

Dangers of Hospital Mergers

by Molly M. Ginty 11.10.05 http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/newspoliticsactivism/fean-051110-hospital-mergers.xml

In New Hampshire, a woman could not get an emergency abortion at her local hospital when her amniotic sac broke at 14 weeks of pregnancy, even though the fetus had no chance of survival and the woman faced a life-threatening infection. Her physician was forced to put her in a cab and send her 80 miles to the nearest hospital that would allow termination of her pregnancy.

In Illinois, a patient diagnosed with a dangerous ectopic pregnancy was sent from a community hospital to seek care elsewhere, despite the risk of injury and death.

"Many Catholic hospitals test the rape victim to see if she is ovulating, and if she is, they refuse to give her emergency contraception."

In California, a woman could not get her tubes tied immediately after giving birth to her ninth child because sterilizations were no longer allowed at the only hospital in town.

Stories like these have become more common in recent years, as community hospitals have merged with religiously sponsored hospitals that use doctrine to restrict women's access to reproductive health care.

Today, one in five hospital beds in the United States are owned by religious entities. Some of these religious organizations — particularly Baptist, Catholic, and Seventh-Day Adventist groups — ban or limit reproductive services. For the women treated at these institutions, that can mean no access to abortion, contraception, fertility treatment, or other vital reproductive health care.

Money Matters

Financial pressures from HMOs and government cost-cutting have forced more community hospitals to merge with or join large health systems. In search of financial stability, city and county governments have also contracted with private health systems to operate their facilities. Such mergers and hospital management arrangements often are bad news for local health consumers, because they can lead to elimination of services.

Women can be harmed when one of the merging hospitals operates under religious doctrine — and insists that the newly merged entity follow such doctrine. According to the New York-based MergerWatch, an estimated 200 mergers between sectarian and non-sectarian hospitals have occurred in the United States since 1990.

Though many of these unions took place in the 1990s, they still threaten women's health care today. Earlier this month, Modern Healthcare, an industry magazine, suggested another wave of mergers was on the horizon. According to the Washington-based Catholics for a Free Choice, half of hospitals affected by Catholic mergers have eliminated reproductive services and continue denying these services to women even though respected medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, object to such restrictions.

Catholic Health Care Restrictions

Catholic hospitals operate under the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, guidelines approved by the Vatican that forbid medical procedures that contradict church teaching. The Directives bar abortion, birth control pills, condoms, in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, family planning counseling, and other key reproductive health services — even for patients who are not Catholic or who have no objection to these services.

In cases of sexual assault, the Directives do permit Catholic hospitals to give women emergency contraception pills, which are up to 89 percent effective at preventing pregnancy if taken 72 hours after unprotected sex. "But many Catholic hospitals test the rape victim to see if she is ovulating, and if she is, they refuse to give her emergency contraception," says Jill Morrison, senior counsel at the Washington-based National Women's Law Center. Since the risk of pregnancy is highest around ovulation, if a woman actually needs emergency contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy, she can't get it.

Why Care?

If your hospital is non-denominational or you think your access to health services is secure, why should you care about religious hospital mergers?

The services you need could be taken away. In 1998, after Doctors Hospital in Little Rock, AR, merged with nearby St. Vincent's Hospital, the resulting entity — St. Vincent's Doctors Hospital — allowed women who gave birth there to continue getting post-partum tubal ligations (sterilization performed immediately following the birth) under a special arrangement.

In a leased space within the new hospital, independent doctors sterilized women who didn't want more children or who suffered from preeclampsia, in which blood pressure spikes so high that subsequent pregnancies can be life-threatening. But in 1999, Vatican officials stepped in and ended the arrangement because it was in "violation" of Catholic principles. Though sterilization is the most common form of contraception used by American women, the Directives hold that the procedure is "intrinsically evil."

Mergers can creep up on patients unexpectedly. Take Scripps Memorial Hospital in Chula Vista, CA, which merged with a local Catholic hospital in October 2004 without alerting the public. Community activists were also not informed. Nor were the hospital's doctors, who became aware of the merger's consequences only when they applied to renew their admitting privileges and were told they now had to follow the Directives. Heath advocates fear there could be more "sneak mergers" like this one.

Even if you don't go to a hospital constrained by religious doctrine, your tax money does. According to a 2002 MergerWatch study, hospitals with religious affiliations receive more than $45 billion in public funds each year, with half of their revenues coming from Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs.

Even if you have access to contraception and reproductive care, other women do not. Since a quarter of religiously sponsored hospitals are in rural areas, these facilities are often the only ones within driving distance — and the only ones to which women can turn in medical emergencies. For women who are poor, uninsured, or underinsured, religiously run hospitals are often the only sources of available care.

What You Can Do

Health advocates say you should start by asking questions. "First, meet with your doctor," says Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice. "Ask 'Where do you practice medicine? Is that a Catholic hospital or affiliated with one? Are there any services you don't provide? And if I need to go to the hospital, where do you have admitting privileges and does that hospital restrict any services?'"

Next, reach out to MergerWatch to fight proposed mergers in your area. "We've helped 52 communities in 25 states face proposed religious hospital mergers," says Lois Uttley, the organization's director. "We defeated 19 of these proposals and forged compromises in 15 other cases that saved at least some threatened services. We have also unraveled eight existing mergers that were detrimental to reproductive health."

At Brackenridge Hospital in Austin, TX, MergerWatch helped health advocates (including Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region) create a separate "hospital within a hospital" on the fifth floor of the city-owned facility so patients could continue getting tubal ligations and emergency contraception. The rest of the hospital was managed by a Catholic health system under contract with the city.

According to a survey by Catholics for a Free Choice, 85 percent of American women believe publicly funded Catholic hospitals should not be allowed to restrict women's health care. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 74 percent of women receive reproductive and contraceptive services. To make sure you remain one of them, know the facts about hospital mergers — and fight for services that are essential to your health.

Molly M. Ginty is a freelance writer living in New York City.

© 2005 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. All rights reserved.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; antichristian; bigotry; catholichospitals; plannedparenthood; religioushospitals

1 posted on 11/16/2005 2:00:49 PM PST by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: victim soul

Perhaps PP would like to open some full care hospitals of their own. Find out just how many people support them.


2 posted on 11/16/2005 2:06:20 PM PST by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
You can't blame Planned Parenthood. These mergers could cripple a profitable business and cost them Billions of dollars. Does anyone know what they make a year in abortions? I know it makes them a very profitable non-profit organization.
3 posted on 11/16/2005 2:06:25 PM PST by paguch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
According to a survey by Catholics for a Free Choice, 85 percent of American women believe publicly funded Catholic hospitals should not be allowed to restrict women's health care.

I don't have a problem with this, since the term "publicly-funded Catholic hospital" is an oxymoron by definition.

4 posted on 11/16/2005 2:06:54 PM PST by Alberta's Child (What it all boils down to is that no one's really got it figured out just yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

Ping.


5 posted on 11/16/2005 2:07:22 PM PST by Alberta's Child (What it all boils down to is that no one's really got it figured out just yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
Catholics for a Free Choice

Not her again! This is one woman funded by the Ford Foundation. And she ain't no Catholic.

6 posted on 11/16/2005 2:08:09 PM PST by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: siunevada

And well they might...


7 posted on 11/16/2005 2:08:29 PM PST by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys-Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
..just another subtle attack on Christians.


Doogle
8 posted on 11/16/2005 2:08:52 PM PST by Doogle (USAF...7thAF ..4077th TFW...408th MMS..Ubon Thailand.."69",,Night Line Delivery..AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul

Those "Catholics for a Free Choice" should hie themselves off to some other church where anything goes. I can think of several denominations. For them to expect the church to change to accomodate them is the height of selfishness.


9 posted on 11/16/2005 2:09:12 PM PST by Past Your Eyes (Hey, getta your tootsi frootsi ice-a cream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul

The Catholic hospitals that I've ever been to have been wonderfully welcoming places. If given the equivalent choice I'd always choose a Catholic hospital, even if just so that I can say hi to "Sister Mary Lobby", which is the term of endearment used by a Catholic hospital that I have the most experience with, in reference to the beautiful Nun who was an icon for decades in the lobby.


10 posted on 11/16/2005 2:09:32 PM PST by MarineBrat (When it rains, New Orleans makes its own gravy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul

When we lost our last commercial hospital in this area, the only remaining hospital was a Catholic one (supported via endowment). The local chapter of the ACLU wanted the Catholic hospital to agree to provide abortion services or they were not going to allow the commercial hospital to close it's doors. The single most important health issue to liberals is access to services to erase their sexual misdeeds.


11 posted on 11/16/2005 2:11:43 PM PST by Ben Mugged (Sins can be forgiven but stupid is forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
Catholics For Free Choice is an oxymoron. Once can't be a faithful Catholic and at the same time, disavow Church teaching. Such an animal has never existed.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

12 posted on 11/16/2005 2:12:19 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Is it really? If you live in Alberta, you should know that several hospitals are Catholic, and are provincially funded.


13 posted on 11/16/2005 2:13:28 PM PST by instantgratification
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
According to the abortion provider, women are in danger of losing their “right” to reproductive services kill..

There, fixed.

14 posted on 11/16/2005 2:13:52 PM PST by A message
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged
Yep liberal ideology trumps rights of religious conscience. At least the Left is honest in insisting religion stops at the hospital doors.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

15 posted on 11/16/2005 2:13:59 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Once can't be a faithful Catholic and at the same time, disavow Church teaching. Such an animal has never existed.

There's another name for a Catholic who supports abortion.....Episcopalian.

16 posted on 11/16/2005 2:16:06 PM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
And well they might...

I don't think they've got the support they would need to run a hospital. They can only manipulate government funds like this:

"We've helped 52 communities in 25 states face proposed religious hospital mergers," says Lois Uttley, the organization's director. "We defeated 19 of these proposals and forged compromises in 15 other cases that saved at least some threatened services. We have also unraveled eight existing mergers that were detrimental to reproductive health."

At Brackenridge Hospital in Austin, TX, MergerWatch helped health advocates (including Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region) create a separate "hospital within a hospital" on the fifth floor of the city-owned facility so patients could continue getting tubal ligations and emergency contraception. The rest of the hospital was managed by a Catholic health system under contract with the city.

17 posted on 11/16/2005 2:16:48 PM PST by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: victim soul; siunevada

Catholic hospitals, like every other hospital in this country, rely on taxpayer dollars for their financial survival. As long as they're doing that, they should be required to provide all legal medical procedures that patients request. Anytime they want to start living on their own dime, they should be free to impose whatever restrictions they want. I won't be holding my breath for that, though, since the Catholic Church in the U.S. has driven itself into financial ruin by aiding and abetting pedophile priests in their illegal and immoral activities, and doesn't have much left over to fund things like faith-compliant medical facilities.


18 posted on 11/16/2005 2:18:44 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
And I can't have chicken soup, steak, or pork chops at a Seventh Day Adventist hospital either.

Not even Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, eggs, sausage, and Spam for breakfast!

Waaaaah!

My masticatory choice rights are being violated!

19 posted on 11/16/2005 2:20:41 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A message
women are in danger of losing their “right”

Since it's an 'emanation from the penumbra' of the Constitution it's always in danger of evaporating.

20 posted on 11/16/2005 2:20:51 PM PST by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
Hmmm. Notice how most of the ranting is against catholics here? I'm a baptist, and I don't think tube tying or contraceptives are evil, but I sure think killing unborn children is.

According to a survey by Catholics for a Free Choice, 85 percent of American women believe publicly funded Catholic hospitals should not be allowed to restrict women's health care. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 74 percent of women receive reproductive and contraceptive services. To make sure you remain one of them, know the facts about hospital mergers — and fight for services that are essential to your health.

Though, as Christians, we are not supposed to do this, if PP keeps this crap up one of these days church hospitals will grow weary of doing good and close their doors. We'll be in sorry shape then.

If PP is so worried about this, why don't they open their own hospital. No one's stopping them. If they care about women's health, why don't they do something about it? Frankly, I don't think secular organizations like these care enough about people to run a hospital for them. When was the last time you heard of a place called First Athiest Hospital, or Secular Medical Center? Most small to mid sized cities, however, have a Baptist or Methodist or Catholic hospital. It's pretty easy to see who really cares and who doesn't.
21 posted on 11/16/2005 2:26:12 PM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: instantgratification
1. I don't live in Alberta (at least not now).

2. In most jurisdictions, a Catholic hospital that accepts public funding is Catholic in name only because it must sell its soul for the public money.

Alberta is an interesting place because of its unusual system of allocating tax dollars to schools. Taxpayers actually check off which local school "district" (public or "separate") they want to support when they pay their school taxes, so religious schools actually get as much public funding as their supporters want to give them. The only problem is that most people who are serious about their religion will tell you that the Catholic schools are not much better than the public schools in most areas related to faith and morals.

Most Catholics I know in Alberta send their kids to completely private/religious schools.

22 posted on 11/16/2005 2:27:07 PM PST by Alberta's Child (What it all boils down to is that no one's really got it figured out just yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

Kosher delis should offer pork. I demand it!


23 posted on 11/16/2005 2:27:29 PM PST by SteveMcKing ("I was born a Democrat. I expect I'll be a Democrat the day I leave this earth." -Zell Miller '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
I won't be holding my breath for that

Try anyway...

24 posted on 11/16/2005 2:28:52 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Very often it's the other way around -- in which a county or municipal government relies on Catholic hospitals to care for a large number of its citizens.

The same goes for schools in some parts of the country. I can tell you right now that the New York City would collapse tomorrow if the Catholic schools in this diocese were to close.

25 posted on 11/16/2005 2:30:53 PM PST by Alberta's Child (What it all boils down to is that no one's really got it figured out just yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Correction . . . the New York City school system, that is.
26 posted on 11/16/2005 2:32:12 PM PST by Alberta's Child (What it all boils down to is that no one's really got it figured out just yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Anytime they want to start living on their own dime, they should be free to impose whatever restrictions they want.

Or the government could withdraw their funds, if it really mattered to them.

the Catholic Church in the U.S. has driven itself into financial ruin by aiding and abetting pedophile priests in their illegal and immoral activities, and doesn't have much left over to fund things like faith-compliant medical facilities.

So. They've all been closed? No problem then.

27 posted on 11/16/2005 2:36:12 PM PST by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: siunevada

In the greater context of this subject I find the evaporation good and the danger welcome.

Who knows what evil lurk in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!


28 posted on 11/16/2005 2:40:41 PM PST by A message
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: victim soul

The baby killers never sleep.


29 posted on 11/16/2005 2:59:16 PM PST by Pittsburg Phil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

No government entity is financially relying on a Catholic hospital to care for its citizens. If the Catholic hospital closed, it would reopen the next day under new management (quite possibly government management), since most of the money it survives on is government money. The Catholic Church is certainly not pouring money into hospitals. Various Catholic agencies are in the hospital business to MAKE money.

As for NYC schools, the Catholic schools are closing bit by bit, so the slack will have to be taken up by public and other private schools.


30 posted on 11/16/2005 3:16:58 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: siunevada

No, they haven't closed. They are not receiving any significant amount of money from the Catholic Church or from any Catholic-affiliated organization.


31 posted on 11/16/2005 3:18:28 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

In most jurisdictions, a Catholic hospital that accepts public funding is Catholic in name only because it must sell its soul for the public money.

That may be true, I don't know but in Alberta, that is not the case. Several hospitals are run by Catholic organizations, are publicly funded, and refuse to provide abortion services. It is not really an issue because abortion clinics also exist.

Alberta is an interesting place because of its unusual system of allocating tax dollars to schools. Taxpayers actually check off which local school "district" (public or "separate") they want to support when they pay their school taxes, so religious schools actually get as much public funding as their supporters want to give them. The only problem is that most people who are serious about their religion will tell you that the Catholic schools are not much better than the public schools in most areas related to faith and morals.

Not quite accurate. Alberta allocates funds to school districts which, theoretically, should be on a per pupil basis but in reality, are not - rural schools have higher per student funding. Catholic schools are funded separately because of the BNA Act. One cannot determine which school district one supports in Alberta: Those who sign a stat dec stating they are Roman Catholic can have their tax dollars allocated to the Separate (i.e. Catholic) School Board in the appropriate municipality.

However, a certain number of dollars follow students no matter what school they attend - public, Catholic, or "charter" schools (as long as they follow the Alberta curriculum, and are approved by Alberta Education, they can enroll students and receive funding.

I would also disagree on morals. I am not Catholic. I am an Albertan, however, and my children attend a Catholic school. Morals were not an issue. It just happened to be the best school in the community, and many of its students are not Catholic. There is a real emphasis on Christian faith. There is a requirement for respect of each individual. School starts with prayer, and from kindergarten, religion is a component. In first grade, each child is given a blessed rosary. In each year, there is an emphasis on a Christian theme - such as collecting supplies/coats/etc. for needy children, making lunches for the homeless, fundraising for an inner city school's field trip, etc.

Most Catholics I know in Alberta send their kids to completely private/religious schools.

Most Catholics I know in Alberta send their children to Catholic schools. Most Albertan children attend public schools. There are charter schools, but they are in the minority, because Alberta school boards offer such varied programs.


32 posted on 11/16/2005 3:30:55 PM PST by instantgratification
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
They are not receiving any significant amount of money from the Catholic Church or from any Catholic-affiliated organization.

That certainly appears to be true. So what was the point about the Church in financial ruin if the Church never was an important funding source in modern times?

From American Atheist magazine, Fall, 2003:

In America, as of 1999, 13% of all hospitals were religious (totaling 18% of all hospital beds); that's 604 out of 4,573 hospitals. (6) Despite the presence of organized religion in America, the Church has managed to scrape together only a few hospitals. Of these 604 hospitals many are a product of mergers with public, non-sectarian hospitals. Not all of these 604 hospitals are Catholic; many are Baptist, Methodist, Shriner (Masonic), Jewish, etc. Despite the religious label, these so-called religious hospitals are more public than public hospitals. Religious hospitals get 36% of all their revenue from Medicare; public hospitals get only 27%. In addition to that 36% of public funding they get 12% of their funding from Medicaid. Of the remaining 44% of funding, 31% comes from county appropriations, 30% comes from investments, and only 5% comes from charitable contributions (not necessarily religious). The percentage of Church funding for Church-run hospitals comes to a grand total of 0.0015 percent.

So if the Church is in complete and total financial ruin, it threatens .0015 percent. Not a big threat.

33 posted on 11/16/2005 3:37:34 PM PST by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: victim soul

Okay, first of all, if a woman's amniotic sac breaks she has 48 hours before anyone STARTS worrying about infection (in this case, Group B strep, aka GBS). Second, that infection can be taken care of with antibiotics (see homebirths where things are allowed to take their time and, if things take longer than 48 hours, the mom is given antibiotics). As far as ectopic pregnancies go, they are not viable and they can be fatal for the mom; in an ectopic pregnancy, the baby implants in the fallopian tube (or in VERY rare cases, in an ovary or in the cervix) and when the baby is large enough, the tube can rupture, causing hemorrhage and possibly death. It would be highly unlikely that any doctor in his right mind would send a woman with an ectopic pregnancy that had ruptured/was about to rupture eighty miles away; one assumes that he knew that she would be fine if the laparoscopic surgery she needed was postponed for two hours. I would question why on earth he would have the woman in a car rather than a Medevac chopper or an ambulance, but that isn't the point.
Finally I fail to see the connecton between the prevention of pre-eclampsia and sterilization (aside from the obvious that if a woman doesn't have any more children she cannot be pre-eclamptic again). No one knows for certain what causes preeclampsia; treatments are designed to reduce symptoms (swelling, high blood pressure, constriction of blood vessels).
Frances Kissling is about as Catholic as Chappaquidick Ted and Dick Haskell Durbin.
Since when did the Vatican approve of contraception at any time? Seems to me like that would be in direct violation of the Church's teaching on such matters.
Finally, I hate to break this to Planned Barrenhood (but I guess I will anyway): You have become the minority. No matter how much you shriek, you will continue to be ignored as the culture of life is accepted by an ever-growing number of people. Get over it.


34 posted on 11/16/2005 4:03:13 PM PST by PalestrinaGal0317 (We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity-Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul

I own a company that employs several hundred people. About 2/3's consist of sales folks....
I sent down a very clear dictum...
No business with Planned Parenthood or any subsidiary under any conditions. Period! The contract will never be approved.


35 posted on 11/16/2005 4:16:19 PM PST by nevergore (“It could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PalestrinaGal0317

Research is still being done on when antibiotics should be given to women when the amniotic sac breaks. As one who had this happen in two pregnancies (before labour), I can tell you that I was put on antibiotics immediately as a precaution.

I don't think there is a "culture of life" in the U.S. or, for that matter, anywhere in the Western world.

I do believe that the view of the fetus as just a conglomerate of cells, as pro choice advocates have maintained for decades, is being challenged (quite successfully, I think) because of science and photos which demonstrate just how "human" a very young fetus really is.


36 posted on 11/16/2005 4:17:48 PM PST by instantgratification
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nevergore

Good for you!! My wife has been on the local CPC board since its inception about 15 years ago. Last week I noticed that she had visited the PP website. I asked her was she spying on the enemy. She didn't admit it but I b'lieve that's exactly what she was doing.


37 posted on 11/16/2005 4:47:47 PM PST by Past Your Eyes (Hey, getta your tootsi frootsi ice-a cream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nevergore
No business with Planned Parenthood or any subsidiary under any conditions. Period! The contract will never be approved.

Damn, you got Moxie.

I like that.

38 posted on 11/16/2005 4:54:06 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("If the Marine Corps wanted you to have a wife, they'd have issued you one." - - Chesty Puller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts; Past Your Eyes

Heck, I can't claim complete credit....

My CFO and VP of sales supports this policy also....


39 posted on 11/16/2005 5:42:29 PM PST by nevergore (“It could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: instantgratification

These women who want to kill their babies can find themselves an abortion clinic. This is just a ploy to force religous hospitals to change their policies.


40 posted on 11/16/2005 7:11:08 PM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
If the Catholic hospital closed, it would reopen the next day under new management (quite possibly government management), since most of the money it survives on is government money.

So what happens if the hospital closes and the diocese sells the property to someone else?

41 posted on 11/16/2005 8:27:05 PM PST by Alberta's Child (What it all boils down to is that no one's really got it figured out just yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: virgil

This is just a ploy to get transfer agreements for hospitals to treat botched abortions.

Lots of hospitals (secular and hopefuly all religious hospitals) refuse to participate in abortion and picking up the pieces from botched abortions and infections, etc caused by Main Street but still BACK ALLEY circuit rider abortionists.


42 posted on 11/17/2005 9:10:59 AM PST by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Someone else would run it, relying primarily on revenue from federal and state tax dollars, just as the Catholic management is currently doing.


43 posted on 11/17/2005 10:17:48 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: siunevada

The point is that the Church is using public money to impose its religious practices on taxpayers who don't share the Church's beliefs. That's just not acceptable. An acceptable alternative would be for the Church to own and operate some hospitals according to their beliefs, using only private funds, but that's not a realistic option given the Church's financial condition. In the U.S., the Catholic Church has forked over more than a billion dollars in settlements and court awards (and plenty more is in sight) for its role in aiding and abetting pedophile priests to continue committing their crimes. They could have bought and endowed a few hospitals with that money.


44 posted on 11/17/2005 10:27:06 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
The point is that the Church is using public money to impose its religious practices on taxpayers who don't share the Church's beliefs. That's just not acceptable.

They impose their beliefs by forcing taxpayers to use their institutions?

Every medical provider must provide every imaginable medical service?

From a different angle, they (and the Baptists) provide a limited range of medical services. The government knows that range is limited and has agreed to pay for the benficiaries of public medical programs like Medicare. Those individuals remain free to choose (or not) to use religious institutions. The Church isn't operating in a vacuum and doesn't control the payment system.

The government doesn't care whether or not the provider offers every medical service imaginable. The government holds the purse strings, they control the action. If it actually mattered to the government, they would not pay hospitals or individual medical providers that failed to provide a politically correct range of services.

45 posted on 11/17/2005 12:13:59 PM PST by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: instantgratification

I would have to disagree. Overall, I have certainly received the impression that more and more young people are pro-life and are willing to take a stand for their beliefs. I began to suspect this when the homecoming queen (and captain of the cheerleading squad) at the local public high school gave a speech on why premarital sex and abortion are wrong. The high school newspaper editor of the largest public school in the city had an ongoing debate column in the newspaper about abortion; she had started out as pro-abort but after dialogue via letters to the editor and reponses, she became pro-life, and admitted so in the paper.
It's kids like this who are our future leaders-and they are ready and eager to stand up for what they believe. For every nutjob bisexual transgendered pro-abort whatever-the-politically-correct-term-is-this-week nut out there, there is a kid who is ready to stand up and say "This is wrong." The people who fought for so-called "abortion rights" are dying off; some will replace them, but many more will come to our side. It is happening already; even the PP folks admit it (see the recent documentary in which a clinic worker wryly admitted that they were losing). Given 30-50 years, I would have to think that we have a fighting chance of making abortion illegal-or at least extremely rare. The numbers are dropping as I type and they will continue to drop.
As far as administration of antibiotics, I will bow to your greater experience (and that of your doctor).


46 posted on 11/17/2005 6:22:14 PM PST by PalestrinaGal0317 (We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity-Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PalestrinaGal0317

Have a look at some studies. By high school, over 2/3 of teens have been sexually active.

And look around you for evidence of the lack of respect for life in American culture. Look at the top grossing movies. The top selling video games. The top television programs. Look at the number of adolescents on mind numbing, usually prescribed drugs.

As for your comments on transgender issues, I suggest you read a bit more. Transgendered individuals are not "nutjobs". Nor are they responsible for abortion.

I believe abortion is wrong, but I don't think it should be illegal. If illegality changed behavior, there would not be a single drug addict in the US.


47 posted on 11/17/2005 7:44:27 PM PST by instantgratification
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
They impose their beliefs by forcing taxpayers to use their institutions?

Socialism is an insidious thing, and you need to keep your eyes on the details. In many (perhaps most) states, the state government controls how many hospitals are allowed to exist. Hospitals need a state license to operate legally, and some states have elaborate schemes to limit the number of hospitals and hospital beds in a given area. The deciding factors are all about expense to the state, since the state funds a huge percentage of medical care, and not about what the taxpaying patients want.

This policy has been used against completely private medical practices which want to open small outpatient surgery centers to provide a narrow range of procedures in the doctors' area of expertise. If the procedures they proposed to do required a hospital license, the state can (and sometimes does) just say no. So the answer is that taxpayers often ARE forced to use whatever hospital the state has allowed to operate in their area, or undertake severe inconvenience and/or extra expense (i.e. using a hospital that is 100 miles away and inaccessible by public transportation, making it difficult or impossible for relatives to visit.

Every medical provider must provide every imaginable medical service?

Obviously I'm not suggesting that small hospitals with limited specialized staff, be required to do stuff like heart transplants. However, there is no hospital that has any ob-gyn department, where doctors aren't qualified to do early abortions and tie tubes. Another problem is that these hospitals often don't advertise their religious affiliation or notify patients in advance of basic procedures that the hospital will refuse to perform.

An example is the story told to me by an electrician who was doing some work on my house (entirely on weekends, since he needed the overtime to make ends meet). He and his wife married young, and figured on having 2-3 children. The first two were boys, so when the wife was asked at the hospital after the birth of the second one, whether she wanted her tubes ties, she said no because she and her husband had decided to have one more, as they hoped for a girl. About two years later, she went to the same hospital to deliver baby #3 (a girl), and planned to have her tubes ties while there. So after she arrived at the hospital, already in labor, she told the doctor or nurse that this time she did want her tubes ties. Surprise! "We won't do it, because the hospital was bought by a Catholic hospital operator last year." No change in the name of the hospital, no warning to patients. As a young family strapped for cash, they couldn't come up with the cash right away to have either of themselves sterilized somewhere else (much more expensive to tie tubes in a separate hospital stay, than in connection with a delivery). They resolved to save up and he would have a vasectomy. Unfortunately, she got pregnant again in the meantime, and they weren't comfortable with abortion. So now this young couple has an additional child they didn't want, and daddy is wokring long hours and spending little time with the kids, in order to make ends meet.

Sorry, but it is NOT okay for religious hospitals to be pulling that kind of stunt while operating primarily on public funding.

48 posted on 11/18/2005 8:41:25 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
However, there is no hospital that has any ob-gyn department, where doctors aren't qualified to do early abortions and tie tubes.

I live in a relatively small community now down to one hospital. It's completely secular. No religious affiliation. They don't do any abortions. What does one make of that? It ain't religion yet they are theoretically "forcing" something or other on the powerless taxpayers. But what?

It's about an hour and a half's drive to the big, big city. You want it enough, you go get it.

Sorry, but it is NOT okay for religious hospitals to be pulling that kind of stunt while operating primarily on public funding.

You're letting the young couple off the hook for their own responsibility.

It wasn't a secret that the hospital changed hands and policy was going to change. Think there was a big stink about that in the news? Of course there was, there always is. Admittedly, a busy young couple might not pay attention to the news. But it was no secret. And it was 'their' hospital.

They knew they wanted tubal ligation. During the course of their pre-natal care this topic had to be raised with their doctor. They were experienced in the ways of doctors, hospitals and pregnancies by that point in time. They weren't innocent babes in the woods going through everything for the very first time.

They 'unfortunately' happened to become pregnant? Well, dang. I'm pretty sure the hospital changing policies and government social policy was not a consideration in that event.

My only point being, in addition to institutions, 'we the people' are part of the equation of responsibility. We can't just say 'they' did it to us. That's the victim mentality. If somebody really, really wants "reproductive health care services" they can get them. Maybe not as conveniently as they would like, but they can get them.

Jumping back to your original thought about the Church's financial disaster, part of the problem was the laity shirking their duty to be vigilant. Decades of trusting every priest to be a saint, when the honest ones tell you all the time they are sinners like everyone else, turned into an absolute moral and financial catastrophe. The priests and bishops were primarily responsible but the laity also had a part to play.

The responsibility thing holds true for the medical consumer as well as the Church layman. All that sexual activity entails tremendous personal responsibility.

49 posted on 11/18/2005 11:04:30 AM PST by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: siunevada

The solution, of course, is to eliminate socialism, and make all medical care private. The first thing to happen after that, would be the disappearance of the vast majority of "full-service" hospitals. These animals are dinosaurs and 99% of the patients in one at any given time don't need to be in such a facility, and would get better care and better safety from infection, in a small specialized facility devoted to whatever type of medical care they happen to need at the time.

Frankly, I think the only reason hospitals as we know them still exist, is the socialism driven, blatantly unconstitutional system of medical residencies. Medical residents are providing the vast majority of below-market care of patients who require one or more night's stay in some kind of medical facility. Start tinkering with the existing system, which is inextricably intertwined with the phenomenon of large multi-department hospitals, and the whole residency scam will quickly disintegrate. That possibility terrifies the socialists.


50 posted on 11/18/2005 11:56:05 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson