Posted on 05/01/2007 5:42:17 AM PDT by NYer
The Connecticut state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday April 25 that would require all hospitals — including the four Catholic facilities — to provide the Plan B emergency contraceptive to rape victims. The abortifacient drug is also known as the morning after pill. “This bill is a violation of the separation of Church and State,” wrote Bishops Henry Mansell of Hartford and William Lori of Bridgeport in a letter to lawmakers on Wednesday. “The Catholic Bishops of Connecticut are responsible for establishing and determining what moral guidelines Catholic institutions should follow; not the Connecticut General Assembly.” “Senate Bill 1343 should contain language that respects the religious beliefs of Catholic hospitals and not force them to cooperate, either directly or through a third-party contract, in an abortion,” they said. The bill, which passed 32-3, now heads to the House, where it appears likely to pass, reported the Journal Inquirer. The bill allows hospitals to first give patients a pregnancy test. Those with religious or other objections could hire an outside physician to administer the contraceptive rather than assign that duty to hospital staff. The Connecticut Catholic Conference rejected the measure, saying that hiring a physician outside of regular staff would not undo the ethical concern. "It is clear to us that this approach would involve the hospital in a way that would violate Catholic moral principles of cooperation," the bishop wrote. "It would still involve Catholic hospitals in the performance of early abortions by administering Plan B when the medication cannot act solely as a contraceptive." The state's four Catholic hospitals — St. Francis, St. Raphael, St. Vincent, and St. Mary — do not provide the contraceptive if a woman is ovulating or pregnant. The Catholic hospitals have argued that the Plan B contraceptive could cause an abortion by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. Catholic teaching holds that human life begins at conception. “Catholic hospitals provide emergency contraception to rape victims in the vast majority of cases,” the bishops noted in their letter. “In fact, it is an extreme rarity when this medication would not be provided.” Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca (R-Woodbury), Sen. Daniel Debicella (R-Shelton), and Donald DeFronzo (D-New Britain) opposed the bill. DeLuca had proposed an amendment, which was endorsed by the Catholic Conference, would require every hospital to have a written protocol for dealing with rape victims. Hospitals would be allowed to refer such patients to other facilities, but would have to report their reasons for doing so to the Department of Public Health. “Catholic hospitals, in those rare cases, would provide the patient information on where the medication is available and provide transportation to another hospital if the patient requests a transfer. Outside rape crisis counselors are also available from outside the hospitals if the patient requests their support,” the bishops said. DeLuca did not succeed in getting the amendment passed.
Those folks only believe that only restricts the Church from getting involved with the State, not the State regulating the Church. As if somehow the Constitution was a documents whose purpose was to limit the Church. Seeing how the Constitution was adopted by the Government and not by the Church, it can only logically be interpreted as a document which limits the power of the government. So the whole doctrine of separation of Church and State is flawed legally.
The problem is that the church has not publicly excommunicated all its priests for molesting children so now, it has a real disadvantage in protecting itself.
No, it would be diseases and accidents that would kill people. I doubt it would have to be in effect longer than a month before Connecticut voters persuade lawmakers to recant.
The Church will shut down the hospitals before they would administer so-called Plan B.
Nonetheless, abortion is an elective surgery, and therefore they can recommend other hospitals rather than participate in a surgery that is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church, whose name is on the doors.
The best option for the Church is to keep the hospitals open and simply refuse to distribute. It will force a confrontation, but in the meantime, the hospital can continue providing legitimate healthcare to the public. When the hospital administrators are led away in cuffs, these hospitals will close their doors, but not before then. The key is to obstinately refuse to follow an immoral law. At that point, all bets are off. Shutting them down right away will only hurt the people they are legitimately giving care to, as well as all of the employees who earn their living at these facilities.
“No, it would be diseases and accidents that would kill people.”
I see, so is it guns — not people — that kill people then? (sarc)
Shutting down the hospitals completely would inevitably lead to the death of some people who would have otherwise survived. Meanwhile, people who want Plan B will simply go elsewhere.
Mind you, I agree that the Catholic hospitals should not be forced to give out Plan B. But shutting down completely would be moronic.
The state bumps aside private insurers to become the #1 insurer, and then you figure that makes it alright for the state to dictate to a religious organization, because the religious organization “operates with huge amounts federal funding”?
That’s a crock.
If the hospital were to take ear-marked grants, that’d be one thing, but just because the state provides the insurance for many of the hospital’s customers hardly makes the hospital a creature of the state, and therefore at the state’s mercy for making policy.
If McDonald’s sold hamburgers to state workers, would that make McDonald’s “a recipient of government funds”?
All they have to do is line the walls of the abortion area with pictures of the slaughtered, and hire the most scary, freakiest looking doctor with some thick foreign accent to perform the murder. That would sure discourage me from going there, or anywhere, for such a thing.
Bravo!!!
(Except most bishops — I can’t speak specifically for the two from Connecticut — are Stalinist apostates who just try to look good for Rome.)
Sounds like another potential Supreme Court showdown.
They would also demonstrate power by simply ignoring the law and keeping the hospitals open for legitimate services. In other words, telling the legislature, “MAKE US!”
There is a great lesson to be learned here in appropriate civil disobedience. When the law is immoral, there is no longer an obligation to follow said law. Closing the doors without a fight means the culture of death has power over the moral right to refuse following laws that are morally unsupportable.
>> Shutting down the hospitals completely would inevitably lead to the death of some people who would have otherwise survived. Meanwhile, people who want Plan B will simply go elsewhere. <<
But the point is that the Catholic Church is not responsible. Literally, not responsible. You, and the state of Connecticut, are treating the Catholic hospitals as if they do what they do out of legal duty. They don’t; they do it out of moral compassion, which, so long as it doesn’t participate in evil, is a Christian work. If they must participate in evil, then all they are doing is diverting religious funds to support a socialist state by filling in where the state fails to meet the responsibilities it has claimed for itself.
This is the what the church should do.
It would send the right initial message. I sincerly hope the do it.
My first reaction was to say shut the doors.......but that reaction would put too many members of the community at risk.
The church should excommunicate them and the hospitals should simply refuse to perform the service.
ping to self
I’m not treating the Catholic hospitals like anything. I have nothing to do with this. I simply think closing the doors would be moronic. Just refuse to provide Plan B and battle it out in the legislature and in the media.
I have to agree with you....if they shut it down, the neighborhood loses out. since all elections and politics are local, perhaps some hell would be raised by the actual people affected, not some catholic bashing politician...
As with all great liberal ideas - the ones who will get hurt will be the ones they claim to care about.
The hospitals will wind up closing, and the sick and the poor will have less access to health care.
A triple oxymoron!
Poor analogy, the criminal wielding a gun INTENDS to kill someone in the commission of a crime, the accident perpetrator (while perhaps acting carelessly) does not intend to cause injury to another. And the disease simply doesn't care.
Shutting down the hospitals completely would inevitably lead to the death of some people who would have otherwise survived. Meanwhile, people who want Plan B will simply go elsewhere.
Yes, and while the outcome of the Civil War was the abolition of slavery in the US, many people on both sides died. Was it worth it? Only history will judge that.
Your point about those wanting Plan B finding it elsewhere applies to most of the people needing hospital treatment during the Catholic hospital shutdown. Connecticut is not an isolated backwater, requiring many miles of travel to get to someplace else. Inconveniencing Connecticut citizens for about a month should be all it takes to see that Catholic hospitals need the freedom to reject Plan B, in order for life to get back to normal.
But shutting down completely would be moronic.
How many slices need to be taken in the "death by a thousand cuts" that moral people are enduring for their commitment to innocent life? The legislators in Connecticut seem to think they can have their cake and eat it too, somebody needs to say it ain't gonna be like that.
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.