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.
“...allow the state to start dictating faith?”
I proposed no such thing.
“Hey Noob, how do you make the leap to conclude that a CLOSED hospital “kills” people? It’s an inamimate object and can’t kill anyone.”
Oh man that name-calling just cuts to the quick. Did you think that one up all by yourself?
Listen carefully. Maybe you’ll get it this time. The “act” of closing the hospital, carried out by PEOPLE, would cause deaths.
Yes, "if."
The state should be prepared, however, to pick up the slack and have contingencies in place to serve the communities that would suffer when the Catholic hospitals close their doors.
The question is, is it wise?
Are abortion politics worth more to the politicians and the public than the existence of hospitals in certain communities?
If the Church pulls its support for its hospitals under state-mandated terms with which it can not in good conscience agree, who fills in the gap?
And we get to the real issue...
They think regulations tied to government funding should apply to other people, but not to them. Won’t fly.
Wrong again. Stem cell regulations do not require scientists to violate their religious oaths, where the abortion requirement would. Secondly, I don't know if a hospital is even ALLOWED to turn away a medicare patient, as you suggest the Catholics should do if they want to have religious freedon.
I think the Catholic hospitals should announce that if this proposal goes through, their emergency rooms will close on all Sundays and Holy Days of obligation. The surrounding secular hospitals can take up the overload caused by this measure... Should get an interesting reaction. Separation of Church and state, you know!
Many scientists’ religious or other beliefs require them to make their best effort to find cures for diseases. Their beliefs aren’t any less important than Catholic beliefs, and the government has no business deciding that one set of beliefs should get privileges that are denied to another set of beliefs.
The only thing that subjects hospitals to federal requirements to treat Medicare patients, illegal immigrants, and all the rest, is if the hospital accepts government funds. There may be additional Massachusetts laws that carry things further, but I seriously doubt that a law requiring a hospital to provide care to Medicare patients, even if it doesn’t receive a penny of government funding, would survive a Constitutional challenge.
It is bound to come up more and more and all Catholics must be prepared to defend the Truth we proclaim.
Failure to do that consistently will eventually lead to finding us all on a shore waving goodbye to Christianity and western civilization in this country.
No, we close the ERs on our Sabbath and on all Catholic holydays.
Where does it say anywhere that hospitals must stay open 24x7? I’m sure the ER down the road will LOVE this move. So much so, that they will do the “heavy lifting” in the legislature over this.
More balderdash. The gov't is supposed to be a wise steward of the monies it is entrusted. This necessarily involves making decisions about whose "beliefs" about science should be funded.
You have no right to gov't funding for your pet scientific theories.
If a Catholic hospital closes or stops accepting patients whose bills are paid by government programs, other hospitals would quickly open to fill in the gap. There are plenty of huge companies operating hospitals all over the country. A more likely scenario is that the Catholic agency that owns the hospital would find that there isn’t enough financial support in the community to sustain a truly private hospital, and would sell the facility to a party which would operate it in accordance with the laws applicable to hospitals which receive government funding. Maybe then the Catholic Church would finally start to see the evil of socialism and stop enthusiastically promoting it. For now, they’ve made their bed and are whining about having to lie in it.
Exactly!
You sound awfully sure. Perhaps we'll find out soon, if CT goes ahead with this.
I'm not so sure accepting medicaid rates for treating the destitute is such a big profit center.
But if you say so.
Tell you what “intellectual powerhouse,” cite me just ONE study showing any beneficial clinical result from fetal stem cell research!
If you and your “lab mates” want to work on a perpetual motion machine, do so but not on MY dime! That is what these scientist clowns are holding forth: “if only we had the money, we could cure all diseases.”
Codswallop, as Dave said.
Absolutely! The site surveys, land purchase, architectural design selection, zoning permits, construction bids, environmental impact statements, yadda, yadda, can be done within weeks! Construction will be completed with non-union labor in about a month! And we can staff the entire enteprise with competent physicians in about 48 hours!! We'll show those Catholics sods!
Medicaid is killing hospitals nationwide. Why do you think hospitals are moving from inner cities to tony suburbs? The teaching hospitals are all that can thrive in the inner city and that is by government largesse for training purposes. And they have to eat a ton in non-paying patients.
No one runs a hospital with their own money. They run it with the revnue generated by patients. They could just refuse to treat some people - but would that not break other laws as well?
“To give a trival analogy, this is a bit like requiring a Kosher restaurant serve ham and pork. “
IF you’re taking government money to run your restaurant, yes. A totally private restaurant can serve what it pleases.
It reminds me of the local summer day camp the boys club used to have.
One year the director was told he had to provide state required services for special needs kids.
The cost was so much he wound up shutting the entire camp down for everyone.
So the libs pat themselves on the back for supposed feelgood legislation, but a bunch of kids are cut off from summer camp.
Ain’t New York grand?
Your story reminds me of the manufacturing company in Mississauga, Ontario, that closed its doors and went out of business rather than allow itself to be organized by the machinist union.
The union went to government, which forced the owners to go back into business. I don’t know what happened after that, but can’t imagine it worked.
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.