Skip to comments.Wisconsin forces Catholic hospitals to dispense "emergency contraception"
Posted on 01/25/2008 7:30:38 AM PST by NYer
.- The Wisconsin State Assembly has passed legislation mandating that all Wisconsin hospitals, including religiously-affiliated hospitals, must inform any self-described victim of sexual assault of emergency contraception and must provide it upon her request.
Emergency contraception, as defined by the bill, includes both the morning-after pill and the intrauterine device (IUD). The morning-after pill can alter the lining of the uterus so that a newly conceived embryo cannot implant in the womb, leading to its death. The IUD always blocks implantation, also causing the death of any newly conceived human being.
It is a sad day for Wisconsin, said Peggy Hammil, state director of Pro-life Wisconsin. The state Assembly has shamefully ignored the fate of embryonic children by forcing Wisconsin hospitals to dispense a known abortion-causing drug to vulnerable women. In so doing, they have trampled upon the conscience rights of hospitals and hospital workers in blatant disregard of our federal and state constitutions which guarantee freedom of religious expression and liberty of conscience.
Pro-life Wisconsin, which represents 30,000 families in the state, commended the 34 Republican legislators and the one Democrat legislator who voted against the bill.
Bishops Robert Morlino and Jerome Listecki have spoken out forcefully against the legislation in the past few months. Efforts to pass the bill included a letter sent by Catholics for a Free Choice which claimed to represent the Catholic position on abortion and contraception.
If you receive federal or state money, prepare to accept the consequences.
Guess “separation of church and state” doesn’t apply if the liberal agenda needs furthering.
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
This is really the fault of the bishops.
Bingo. But I think the state could make a reasonable accommodation.
The alternative? Turn away federal/state dollars.
They need to turn doen those federal dollars. That’s what Hillsdale College had to do.
Federal money=federal control. Simple as that.
What did charitable entities ever do before they hooked up to federal and state money?
I feel very bad for them, but as a Catholic, I think it is the height of naiveté to think that you can collect tax money and that there will be no strings attached.
I’d much rather the Church be able to perform it’s ministry without having to compromise.
The hospital is free to give up it's state issued license to operate.
This article does not say anything about the hospitals getting public funding. They should refuse to comply and dare them to shut the doors of hospitals where 1 out 4 beds in hospitals exist. You want a healthcare crisis. I’ll give you one. What are they going to do, pull a Hugo Chavez? I dare them.
Do you seriously doubt that the hospital gets public funding?
That seems to always be the avenue by which the government weasels in and demands compliance with “X”.
I agree with you on one thing: if somehow this isn’t tied to public funding, they should close their doors if they can’t complete their mission without compromising their faith.
Caring for the sick is one of the corporal works of mercy.
Hospitals permit the Church to care for the sick in more than a trivial way.
Unfortunately, something 40% of the health care economy is controlled by government at various levels. What is naive is to think that one can participate in this industry, give care to the entire range of the population, and avoid government money.
What do you do for a senior citizen who shows up at the door with Medicare? A poor person with Medicaid?
“What did charitable entities ever do before they hooked up to federal and state money?”
They didn’t provide heart bypass surgery. Or transplants. Or high-tech cancer treatments. Or use MRIs and CT-Scans for diagnostics.
There are two sides to this sword. Fifty years ago, health care spending amounted to a few percent of GDP. Today, it’s 14% or 16% and still growing. Even if we were to streamline administrative costs, squeeze out costs through tort reform, etc., it's still be at around 10% - 12% of a 14 trillion dollar economy. That's still well over a trillion dollars.
Also, in absolute terms, our per capita GDP has grown significantly in the last half-century. Thus, we’re not only spending a greater percentage of our GDP on health care, but that percentage is from a much, much bigger pie.
That growth in the health care sector has enabled doctors and hospitals to care for the sick - a basic corporal work of mercy - far more efficaciously than ever before.
But it has also created an industry that’s one-seventh or one-sixth of our entire economy. And the society at large has voted for politicians who have deeply enmeshed government in the provision of the funding for these services. And that government involvement has helped drive those costs.
I have always had a prejudice on this issue. I like that hospitals and doctors can cure more folks, help them live better, longer, healthier (or at least better at ameliorating the effects of illness) than ever before.
This past year, my own prejudices deepened as my younger son was diagnosed with a serious illness. The medicine of 50 years ago likely would not have been sufficient to save his life and/or his long-term health.
Congress shall make no law .......
I guess that everybody forgets that part.
The Democrats in the General Assembly tried the same thing in Illinois.
Cardinal George came down to Springfield and met with some of the lawmakers there. He basically told them that if they force Catholic hospitals to dispense the morning after pill in violation of their consciences, then he would shut down all the Catholic hospitals in the Archdiocese of Chicago. They could then answer to the public for the health care crisis that would result.
The Democrats backed down.
Wow, great story about Cardinal George. Good for him.
In addition, someone very close to me has a heart problem that requires long-term, high-tech monitoring and care that was not possible 30 years ago but is commonplace today. I have seen modern medicine at it's finest.
And I am a Catholic who loves the Church.
But we should never pretend that there is not a downside to partnering with tax dollars to do that good work. Under the current system, there is always a catch.
I recognize that the flip side is that the public should show gratitude and should never forget that a lot of their care comes from religious hospitals and comes because of the goodness of others.
Yes, the government controls health care in a major way. And I don't have the answers except that perhaps it will take a hospital or two closing to get people thinking about this and demanding change. Something has to give, but I'm not sure it will until people are affected directly, because the Church has to stand on principle. The Church can't buckle under and provide services that go against it's greater mission to be faithful to the Word.
For what it is worth, I am angry that once again we are about to have a presidential election, and that once again, we are letting every one of the candidates slide in regards to health care. We are not demanding that they offer solutions to the issues mentioned in your post to our own detriment.
Prayers for your son.
And the other patients it serves? What about them? Why should they be forced to close rather than exercise their freedom of religion? Do you think a private or parochial school should be forced to teach homosexuality is an acceptable alternate lifestyle? Or that a Baptish crisis pregnancy center must refer unwed mothers to abortion agencies? Or that a Jewish day care center must serve pork chop if requested to by non Jewish parents?
The only reason for the law is hostility to the Catholic faith. The morning after pill can be made available by other institutions which do not have to compromise their faith to do so.
My sentiments exactly.
“But we should never pretend that there is not a downside to partnering with tax dollars to do that good work. Under the current system, there is always a catch.”
Yes, but your prior post to which I replied seemed to suggest that if we Catholics accept government money for our hospitals, we must accept the strings that come attached to that money.
“...I think it is the height of naivete to think that you can collect tax money and that there will be no strings attached.”
I don’t view it as naivete, but rather a necessary right for which Catholics must fight vociferously.
For all that, the blame for this problem really rests at the feet of the bishops, pretty much almost entirely. For decades now, they have permitted so-called “Catholic” politicians to loudly, publicly promote policies that do wholesale violence binding Catholic teaching without any consequence, while still attracting votes in large numbers as a result of their “Catholic” identity.
Collectively, the bishops, by their culpable inaction, have led Catholic laity to the conclusion that all this “culture of life/culture of death” stuff is only so much talk.
There are few bishops who are exceptions to this general rule.
“Prayers for your son.”
This had nothing to do with “federal or state money.” The legislation applied to all hospitals without exception. State tyranny pure and simple.
You accept money from Uncle Sam (or, in this case, Uncle Jimmy Doyle), expect it to come with strings. Yet another argument against vouchers lost on the collar and cassock brigade.
I doubt that, but since there is no such thing in this country as a hospital that doesn’t get taxpayer funding, it’s rather a moot point. The issue of government forcing all medical care under a socialist umbrella is what we should be worried about.
Thanks for posting a well detailed description of the situation.
I think you've got that right, GovernmentShrinker.
It's impossible to get a state-issued license to operate if you have no ties whatsoever to either public funding or public regulation.
The only hospital I hever heard of in the USA that doesn't have public funding entanglement is the St. Rose's cancer hospital run by the Hawthorne Dominican Sisters in NYC. To this day the sisters do not charge their patients. They do not deal wiuth insurance. Nor do they rely on government support; they accept neither Medicare nor Medicaid. What they rely on is 100% private donations ---"what the mailman brings us every day," according to Sr. M. Joseph, administrator of St. Rose's.
It’s also impossible for an individual doctor to get a license to practice medicine without spending at least one year (and realistically, four years) working for way below market pay at a hospital which provides a lot of below-cost care to Medicare, Medicaid, and other patients. And the government-protected anti-competitive national matching program will assign the medical school graduate to a particular hospital. You go where the government’s agent tells you to go, and work as many hours a week as the government’s agent tells you to (even if it’s more than the law allows), and get paid what the government’s agent says you will get paid. Only after that can anyone legally practice medicine in the US, even in a one-doctor office that doesn’t accept any kind of public or private insurance.
Sorry but I never said one word about anything you posted.
I was responding to your post “The hospital is free to give up it’s state issued license to operate.”
That would be the license that wasn't required before 1900 right?
Just goes to show ya what a Death Grip the Liberals have on this city...and many parts of our state.
F#$% Caesar, the Kaiser, the Tsar and the horse he rode in under.