Skip to comments.Religious group attacks religion in U.S. healthcare
Posted on 04/25/2007 2:57:26 AM PDT by Bluestateredman
HomeU.S.BusinessWorldEntertainmentSportsTechPoliticsElectionsScienceHealthMost Popular Secondary Navigation Local News Education Religion Politics Crimes and Trials Search: All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio Advanced
Religious group attacks religion in U.S. healthcare By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Tue Apr 24, 6:11 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A coalition of religious leaders took on the Catholic Church, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bush administration on Tuesday with a plea to take religion out of health care in the United States.
They said last week's Supreme Court decision outlawing a certain type of abortion demonstrated that religious belief was interfering with personal rights and the U.S. health care system in general.
The group, calling itself the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said it planned to submit its proposals to other church groups and lobby Congress and state legislators.
"With the April 18 Supreme Court decision banning specific abortion procedures, concerns are being raised in religious communities about the ethics of denying these services," the group said in a statement.
"They are imposing their points of view," Barbara Kavadias, director of field services for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, told reporters in a telephone briefing.
She noted that the five Supreme Court justices on the majority in the 5-4 decision were all Catholic men -- Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia.
All were appointed by conservative Republican presidents who oppose abortion, including President George W. Bush.
The group also complained about Catholic-owned hospitals that refuse to sterilize women who ask for it, refuse to let doctors perform abortions and do not provide contraception.
"Doctors, pharmacists and nurses are also increasingly exercising a so-called 'religious or moral objection,' refusing to provide essential services and often leaving patients without other options," the group said in a statement.
"And now, to make it worse, the government is codifying these refusals, first through legislation and now with the recent Supreme Court decision, where five Catholic men decided that they could better determine what was moral and good than the physicians, women and families facing difficult, personal choices in problem pregnancies," it added.
The group includes ordained Protestant ministers, a Jewish activist, an expert on women's reproductive rights and several physicians.
"The threat comes from a few, but powerful, religions and a few ... powerful religious leaders who pretend to speak for all religions," said Larry Greenfield, executive minister of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago.
"Health care decisions ought to be made freely, based on medical expertise and individual conscience," he added.
The group wrote up a series of guidelines and asked for all health care providers to implement them.
They include allowing doctors to use best medical practices, providing comprehensive counseling on sexual or reproductive health and an agreement to honor advance directives -- including "do not resuscitate" orders.
"Refusal to provide health care would be balanced by alternate service delivery so that no one would be victimized when another exercises his/her conscience," the guidelines read.
Marie Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia said she had grave concerns about the report.
"There is no recognition of the true meaning of the separation of church and state, which mandates that the free exercise of religion, including that of the provider, be respected," she said.
"What we have tried to avoid is to be coercive ourselves," Greenfield said. "We have tried to allow for the freedom of conscience of every participant in the health care system."
Email Story IM Story Printable View RECOMMEND THIS STORY Recommend It:
Average (152 votes) » Recommended Stories Full Coverage: Health Care News Stories Religious group attacks religion in U.S. healthcare Reuters via Yahoo! News, Apr 24 Emergency Care Lacking for Patients Over 90 HealthDay via Yahoo! News, Apr 24 Posing as pals, drug reps sway doctors' choices Reuters via Yahoo! News, Apr 24 Group backs U.S. critical care changes AP via Yahoo! News, Apr 19 Feature Articles Gates Foundation billions change pharma landscape Reuters via Yahoo! News, Apr 17 A Generation Uninsured: Living Without Health Insurance at NY Magazine, Mar 26 Opinion & Editorials Lower prices will expand coverage at Orange County Register, Apr 25 Celebrate Small Business: First Do No Harm at FOX News, Apr 23 U.S. News 6 dead as storms strike Texas community AP Police: No motive in Va. Tech shootings AP Riot breaks out at Indiana prison AP Ga. residents flee as wildfire spreads AP Base mourns 9 soldiers killed in Iraq AP Most Viewed - U.S. 6 dead as storms strike Texas community AP Riot breaks out at Indiana prison AP Judge: No religion at post office AP Fla. woman dies after camel sits on her AP 9/11 pilot's brother runs for Congress AP U.S. News Video Shock jocks in trouble CNN - 14 minutes ago Wiccan gravestones CNN - 15 minutes ago 'Why?' Still looming question at Va. Tech AP - 31 minutes ago Bush hints Iran talks possible AP - 1 hour, 38 minutes ago Sponsored Links( What's this? )
Vonage - Official Site Talk all you want for just $24.99 per month & get 1 month free. www.Vonage.com Refinance Loan Quotes Up to 5 quotes with 1 form. Serious refinance inquiries only please. www.NexTag.com Online Degree Programs Accredited degrees from top US colleges - 100% online. Find out more. www.bisk.com
Is the law against murder an incursion of religion into secular government just because “Thou shall not kill” is one of the 10 commandments? It is ridiculous to claim that the ban on partial birth abortion is a ‘religious’ decision. It is a barbaric practice, and I have NEVER heard any legitimate medical justification for it. My faith is central in my life, but my support for this ban is not based on some finite religious principle, but rather on the sensibilities of wanting to do the right things and be a humane human being.
Episcopal church USA, “humanist “Jews (?), the UCC, Ethical societies, hell, the Scientologists are more of a religion than these.
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is another Soros funded organization.
Smells to me like a George Soros front group.
That's ironic because 34 years ago 7 men overturned the laws of 33 states opposing abortion and found it to be a right in the Constitution.
Let's go back to the situation ante-1973, seems more democratic to me.
As Joseph Sobran once wrote (and this echoes my sentiments) as to the charge that pro-lifers are trying to impose the teachings of the Catholic Church on non-believers, "The Pope can make abortion a sacrament tomorrow and it would still be wrong."
Perhaps we shouldn’t allow people who attend church to vote. after all that fits the true meaning of the separation of state from church.
Apply to purchase ground on this planet by e-mailing me !
Only 300$ per acre !!! Get an original certificate of ownership now (multiple exclamation marks)
Today's BAAL worshipers...
LOL...Imagine that...religious belief is interfering with crushing babies’ skulls and sucking out their brains. What “religious leaders” could possibly be in favor of this barbaric practice?
One thing is sure. These worshipers of death will be separated into the goat herd on Judgment Day.
There are plenty of protestant Freepers who dump on Catholics every chance they get.
On a tangental note....yesterday at the Post Office I saw Jehovah Witness style booklets placed on the counters that were titled..."Exploring the Koran".
I threw them out.
Five JUDGES decided what should be done. What this council carefully ignore is that THEY are deciding in exactly the same way.
Seems to me that these doctors, pharmacists, and nurses are pro-choice in that they have voluntarily chosen life over death. Once again, this demonstrates that pro-choice really means pro-abortion, because any other choice, except abortion, is unacceptable.
“The group includes ordained Protestant ministers, a Jewish activist, an expert on women’s reproductive rights and several physicians.”
i.e., another phony religious group—liberal activists masquerading as believers to get the attention of the media.
Partial birth abortion has absolutely no medical value as a procedure and actually increases the risk to the mother.
If the ultimate goal is to kill the unborn child, then, from a purely medical point of view, the safest procedure for the mother would be to deliver the child in one piece without all the unnecessary instrumentation inside the mother and then simply kill the child after it is born.
It is the abortionists that are mixing medicine with other issues.
RE: Five JUDGES decided what should be done.
My understanding was the majority of the elected officials decided what should (not) be done, and five judges decided not to overrule the will of the people as expressed by their representatives.
So, coalition of “religious” leaders, what part of piercing the baby’s skull, sucking out the baby’s brain, and crushing the baby’s skull do you like best?
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.