It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Catholic Hospitals Being Forced

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Catholic Hospitals in Mass. are being forced to provide
the Morning After Pill. This is considered to be an
abortificant by the Catholic Church.

No matter what you feel about the Morning After Pill,
it is against the religion of the hospital. In this country
people have a right to practice their faith as they wish
and if the Catholics want a Catholic hospital, then the
state shouldn't require them to provide something that
goes against their religion.

People are smart enought to understand that if they
want a Morning After Pill, then they just go to a different
hospital. The Catholic hospitals should be left in peace
to practice their faith and NOT be forced to provide
abortificants. If this causes them to have less patients,
then so be it. It's their right.

The Governor gave no reason why he is changing the law
or why he is interfering with the freedom of religion rights
of the citizens of Mass.

www.ktvu.com...

Excerpt from KTUV and AP

BOSTON -- Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has abandoned plans to
exempt Catholic and other private hospitals from a law requiring them
to offer the morning-after pill to rape victims.

The Republican governor said his legal advisers told him that the new
law supersedes the old law and that all hospitals should be required
to offer the morning-after pill, although many Catholics and other
Christians consider it to be a form of abortion.



[edit on 12/10/2005 by FlyersFan]




posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Pardon my ignorance. This is something I've never thought about.

Are hospitals state- or federally-funded? Is a Catholic Hospital a private institution? If so, I'm not sure how the state can force them to do anything. I cannot speak to this because I don't know enough about how hospitals work.

What constitutes a "Catholic Hospital"? What's the difference between that and a regular secular hospital?



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The catholic church has no business running a hospital. Health care isnt an outlet for a radical adgenda. its nice to see that Gov. Mitt Romney has a spine. In any countrie winning the war against the delsions of a minorty is as important as winning the so called war on terror.

So far the delsions in NZ have been limted to the political party known as destiny church they were a flop at the last election.
If a group of delsion people dont have to sell have to sell women birth controll whats next?

If we allow these people hijack society we will face a very long slipy slope that leads society back 100 years or so.

[edit on 10-12-2005 by xpert11]

[edit on 10-12-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I'm with Benevolent Heretic here....it all depends on where these hospitals are getting their money from, if any of it is from the state, well, sorry, they gave up some of their rights to operate it as the see fit when they accepted gov. funds. and well, the government has the right to step in and make some rules on how this money is to be spent. if the church doesn't like the rules, they can always opt out of the funding.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
This is for rape victims so what is the problem? Are you saying that the Catholic Church Hospital has the right to go tell a rape victim to get lost? If some Catholic girl gets raped and wants to get treated at the CC Hospital why can't she be offered the pill? Organized religion should be banned throughout the world.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
From what I've seen from a (admittedly quite brief) search is that they are allowed to issue tax-free municipal bonds to fund the hospitals but I haven't seen any claims that they get direct gov't funding.

If that is the case, I don't think the gov't can force them to do something against their faith as a religious organization. I expect this law will be overturned by the federal courts.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Correct me if I am wrong Flyers,

I believe the reason they have to do what the state is telling them is due because they receive funs by the state to provide for free health care to needy people.

If that is the reason then they have not choice or lose their funding.

But if is a private entity funded by the church only then the state can not legislate against them.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I believe the reason they have to do what the state is telling them is due because they receive funs by the state to provide for free health care to needy people.


The do receive Medicaid/Medicare insurance funds for treating patients under these programs, but I don't see how that could be a lever for overturning their religious rights, or other freedoms. Under this logic, vegan grocery stores would be forced to sell meat and kosher stores pork if they accept food stamps.

[edit on 12/10/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The do receive Medicaid/Medicare insurance funds for treating patients under these programs, but I don't see how that could be a lever for overturning their religious rights, or other freedoms. [edit on 12/10/2005 by djohnsto77]


Well not really, see if you receive funding to provided medical care you can not deny that care to the ones that ask for it, regardless of religious, political or racial views.

This is a hospital no a church, yes they can offer religious counseling but they can not withold medical care or treatment because their status and funding.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
If they don't want to stock that type of medication, they don't have to...tell them to go somewhere else. I'm sure there are many of places that do. They can't charge for a service they don't provide, so I don't see the problem.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Well, DJ is not as easier as you make it sound.

See, if the hospital enters in a contract agreement with the state or federal government and it includes birth control, the hospital is liable to have the birth control available to patients that ask for it, or they will lose their contract and their funds can be withheld.

They may not need to do abortions but if the morning after pill falls in the guide lines of birth control and they already supply birth control, I am sorry to say that they have to offer it and have it available.

They don't need to advertised or even offer it to the patient but if the patient ask for it they have to provided as part of the Agreement.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
But if is a private entity funded by the church only then the state can not legislate against them.


I cant speake for Americans but where I live Health care isnt a median to push agendas. If you have a problem with any aspect of health care you shouldnt be apart of the health care industry period.
If a bus driver refused to let cathoics or black people on the bus there would be an uproar.
Im a guy so if women lose the rights they fought long and hard for it wont affect me as much.

Society has to take a stand before its to late sometimes the greatest threats come from within. While the public is distracted by the war on terror peoples rights are/will taken away by the religious right. Society must win the war against the religious right other wise you will be able to swap the present system for a Tailban type state and there wont be much differnce.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Health care isnt an outlet for a radical adgenda.


As a lifelong Catholic could you please inform me as to what I have been missing all of my life. Just what is this radical agenda??

There is nothing radical about being against abortions. Some people just believe that this is a real human life that should be protected just like yours and mine.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Classified Info I consider attepting to take away womens rights via the US health system to be a radical adgenda. If your against abortion and other related items you have plenty of outlets where you can voice your point of view newspapers ,TV town halls e.t.c . It just so happens that health care along with schools is one of the few places where you cant pursue your adgenda.

As for what your missing that is possible another topic although Im not sure where your coming from in that part of your post.



[edit on 10-12-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
If it’s a private institution then the State or Federal government has no business telling them what they can and cannot do. However, if they do get funding from the State then I have to agree that the Governor can make that law. Also, does any one know if a Federally funded institution can be ordered by the State?



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Classified Info I consider attepting to take away womens rights via the US health system to be a radical adgenda. It just so happens that health care along with schools is one of the few places where you cant pursue your adgenda.
As for what your missing that is possible another topic



They are not trying to take away a womans rights via the US health care system. Private hospitals are not the only game in town and there are plenty of other clinics and hospitals were she can can obtain this abortion pill.

And as far as schools persuing their own private agenda, dont make me laugh. The NEA and other Leftist elements have already been doing this for decades. But you are right, that is another topic.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also, does any one know if a Federally funded institution can be ordered by the State?


That is an excellent question, and as far as I know only the Federal Government can do that, not the state.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
According to Medical Ethics, it is the responsibility of the practioner to act in the best interest of the patient, NOT make judgments based on their own religion as to how to treat a patient. The patient also has the right to choose their treatment and deserves to know the whole truth about their treatment. If people want to withhold treatment or pick and choose treatment based on their own religion, perhaps they should start a church instead of a medical facility. This is medicine, not religion.

Six of the principles commonly included are:

* Beneficence - a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
* Non-maleficence - "first, do no harm" (primum non nocere), from the Hippocratic Oath.
* Autonomy - the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
* Justice - concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment.
* Dignity - the patient (and the person treating the patient) have the right to dignity.
* Truthfulness and honesty - the patient should not be lied to, and deserves to know the whole truth about their illness and treatment (though certain exceptions are made for the proper use of placebos).



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
They are not trying to take away a womans rights via the US health care system. Private hospitals are not the only game in town and there are plenty of other clinics and hospitals were she can can obtain this abortion pill.


Really ?
The hospital is a part of the US health system and they are denying women access to the Morning After Pill. Unless the hospital isnt apart of the US health system your statment dosnt make any sense. Letting one group of people impose there adgenda on society is like breaching a dam once the flood starts you cant stop it.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also, does any one know if a Federally funded institution can be ordered by the State?


Maybe this is the truly relevant question that needs to be answered.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join