I just re-read the article more closely, and the reporter, Ian Tuttle, sure does a full-body slam on Mercy’s capitulation - maybe if he knew more about the health of the mother, then he would reconsider his conclusion - Did he ever ask if that was a consideration?
“But, if this was a compromise on principle, who believes that? Mercy has shown that, when push comes to shove, it does not really believe what it says it believes. So it has not just betrayed the cause of religious liberty; it has betrayed its own mission.”
But if it wasn't strictly therapeutic, but rather was an intentional sterilization per se, then why would the Catholic hospital capitulate?
And if that were the case, why would they say "but it really kinda does follow our ethical guidelines"? It either does or it doesn't.
They're just succeeding in muddying up the ethics. "Our position is, if the ACLU's involved, go on ahead, do what you want."