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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Catholic Hospital Takeovers



"We're seeing a huge increase in the number of hospitals and clinics being purchased by religious hospitals that refuse to offer the full range of reproductive care,"


Catholic Hospitals and Birth Control



My healthcare network recently merged with a Catholic hospital, and now they won't renew my prescription for birth control pills. Is that legal?
...
And, for now, this is perfectly legal.


Newly Catholic Hospital Bans Family Planning



When the community hospital in Gilroy opens its doors this morning, it will have changed hands -- and the word ``saint'' in its new name foretells an overnight policy change that will cause hardship for some families.

Most of the faces will be the same, as will most of the services. But a woman wanting a tubal ligation after delivering a baby, needing an abortion or planning to switch to a new type of birth control will be in for an unpleasant surprise.


Yeah, I think I see where this is going. I hope nobody expects my sympathy for the poor Catholic Hospitals being 'forced' to provide decent birth control, because that ain't gonna happen.

Seems the Catholic Church is buying up the medical facilities as fast as they can to impose their religious views on birth control on the country. Well, isn't that special?




In this era of mergers and managed care, the Roman Catholic Church is having more of a say in all sorts of women's reproductive health-care services. Five of the ten largest hospital corporations are Catholic. (These are: Daughters of Charity National Health System, Catholic Health Initiatives, Catholic Healthcare West, Catholic Health Care Network, and Mercy Health Services.) There are more than 600 Catholic hospitals and 200 health-care centers serving some fifty million patients a year. And as the hospitals merge and affiliate with non-religious facilities, they often close off reproductive health care for women.




posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   
BH is called monopolizing health care to push religious agendas.

I believe that government funds should be taken away from these facilities.

But occurs these types of hospitals would not affect me or anybody that can afford medical plans and have their own personal doctors.

But as usual the poor and needed is the target here, specially the ones that can not even feed themselves and neither the few children they have.

But occurs the whole idea is to protect the possible fetus and make sure that if a woman have unprotected sex outside marriage they get the punishment they deserved.

Is the same old BS over and over.

Without abortions will not be anti abortion movement. Right?

Because we know that sex will never be erradicated.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
* Non-maleficence - "first, do no harm" (primum non nocere), from the Hippocratic Oath.


Don't you think that that's exactly what they're doing by refusing to prescribe a medication whose sole purpose is to cause the death of a baby?



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Don't you think that that's exactly what they're doing by refusing to prescribe a medication whose sole purpose is to cause the death of a baby?


Like I said same old same old.

But in this ideology we are targeting not the woman that can afford to pay a private doctor but the needy and poor that can not pay to even feed their own born children.

But occurs these women are the same women that will be so easy to manipulate and deny social services paid by the tax payer because she should not be having children out of wed luck.

Yeah, save the fetuses screw the rest.


same old same old.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
But it's not just abortion that Catholic hospitals are against. My younger sister needs a hysterectomy but was still of a childbearing age. She could not get the operation done unless she went to another town close by, to a secular hospital.
This was a medicalaly-warranted procedure, not some wild-eyed attempt at birthc control.

But, we can't say all of a sudden the Church is becoming restrictive. The Catholic hospitals have always been pro-life, anti-birth control and all the procedures conneacted with these two positions.

Now, there may be some agenda in that these hospitals are gobbling up smaller hospitals. And, in large metro areas, you may have to travel further to find a secular hospital.
But, hey they are practicing what they preach.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
But it's not just abortion that Catholic hospitals are against. My younger sister needs a hysterectomy but was still of a childbearing age. She could not get the operation done unless she went to another town close by, to a secular hospital.
This was a medicalaly-warranted procedure, not some wild-eyed attempt at birthc control.


I personally can't imagine anyone refusing to give a hysterectomy to someone who needs one who's not pregnant. That just baffles me. If someone does have uterine cancer and a doctor refuses to treat them, that does sound like a violation of the hippocratic oath to me.

I really don't understand the Catholic Church's stance against all forms of preconception birth control either, but I certainly do understand their refusal to buy, carry, or prescribe the "morning after" pill that can prevent a fertilized zygote that would otherwise develop into a normal, healthy child from developing.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Unfortunately, the Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment was enacted last year, which enables vigilante public hospitals to continue receiving Federal funding even if they deny women the right to prevent a pregnancy with emergency contraception or they refuse to perform certain procedures.

This law also impedes the prevention of hospital takeovers and mergers in situations where the community would be served only by a religious hospital. As someone mentioned earlier, the largest non-profit health care systems are Catholic and they are running more and more hospitals in the U.S.

The consequence of this "conscience-protecting" legislation is more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. Many communities are only served by a federally-funded Catholic hospital---and that means that too many women who are raped are subjected to judgement and coercion at the hands of religiously-oriented medical institutions. In many cases, these women are too poor to travel hundreds of miles to a hospital that will provide emergency contraception. Because time is of the essence, by the time a woman can save up for the trip, it is too late. If the rape victim is impregnated, some states have mandatory waiting periods, which add to the expense because two trips are required, adding travel expense, missing work, childcare, etc. The State doesn't have the right to exploit victims of rape this way--these women should be protected and treated with understanding, not harrassed further.

If these were private hospitals we were talking about, I have much less of a problem with them setting their own set of rules. But we are talking about public hospitals that receive federal funding. These facilities should not have a religious affiliation and should provide all of the services needed by the taxpayers footing the bill for their existence.

Also, there are many secular schools have opened up health-centers and have given up their federal funding because they feel that it is morally irresponsible to teach abstinence-only sex-ed. Why aren't these schools protected too? Or has the government decided that only the religious have a conscience?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Unfortunately, the Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment was enacted last year, which enables vigilante public hospitals to continue receiving Federal funding even if they deny women the right to prevent a pregnancy with emergency contraception or they refuse to perform certain procedures.


Sorry but I can't see anything in the link you provided that's applicable to this conversation.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
These are the same hospitals that will provide Viagra but not contraceptives



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Still say that if ALL the married women, and men, who don't want anymore children would wake up tomorrow and say, hey, ya know what, I don't want anymore kids, so I guess I just won't have anymore sex........well, crap like this would stop rather quickly afterwards!!! They know that an abstinanence only policy wouldn't work, and in reality, they don't want us all practicing that, especially their own wives!!! But, they know that such policies will increase the birth rate if all other options could be done away with. more people paying for all this fine national debt they're running up to the heavens and more english speaking workers competing for the jobs, keep the wages nice and low.

I thought that law that was mentioned above failed to make it through congress? maybe it was a different law or something. the least they could do was make it mandatory for the healthcare providers to post just what medical proceedures that they find offensive and have chosen not to perform!! Just so people don't waste their time and money! and well, the rest of us, who find their actions offensive, can just find ourselves new providers if our old ones chose to start trying weed out many of our options.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

I personally can't imagine anyone refusing to give a hysterectomy to someone who needs one who's not pregnant.


But Dj, this woman could still breed! If they could get her out there and give her husband some Viagra and get them busy breeding, she might be able to pop out 2 or 3 more puppies before her body closed up shop. She could be denying life to future babies by stripping their home from her body.

My point here is that you draw your line somewhere between the Morning After Pill and a hysterectomy. You find the Morning After Pill unacceptable and a hysterectomy acceptable.

Is that where you think everyone should draw the line? Because many religious control proponents see hysterectomy as birth control.

Everyone draws the line at a different place. That's why each woman has the right to draw that line for herself. (So far)



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
OFF TOPIC:



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
She could be denying life to future babies by stripping their home from her body.


You almost just made me throw up a little.

It is disgusting the way some of you people throw around terms like "procedure" and "reproductive health care".

If these babies had a chance exit the woman as a rat or a dog or a horse, I would be able to understand you referring to "unwanted pregnancies" and other such terms. As it is, there is only one thing that little mass of flesh is capable of being: a human. In the US, as in the whole world, it is illegal to kill a human

Of course, it isn’t murder of a baby, it is just a procedure, a pill, "reproductive health care."

I would have more respect from abortion supporters if the called it what it is instead of hiding behind politically correct phrases. Never have I heard someone say "people should not be allowed to interfere with a woman’s right to kill her own offspring." It always about the woman’s body.

Just call it like it is and say "I support a woman’s right to choose her childs death to protect her body."



PS - Didn’t I just see some of you posting in a thread about how horrible it is to harm children, some of you abortion supporters even claiming that you cried at the thought of children getting hurt? And you support a mother’s right to kill her baby?

Sick hypocrites


[edit on 11-12-2005 by cavscout]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
ON TOPIC:

These Catholic hospitals, as some of you claim, do not push Catholicism on anyone as a condition of treatment.

My father worked in a Catholic hospital in Oregon for 8 years while I was growing up, and I received all my medical treatment at this hospital, and I didn’t even know that it was Catholic until I was told so by a friend.

The doctors and nurses didn’t wear giant crosses and never asked me if I loved Jesus. They were also not required to be Catholic to work there.

The contention by someone in this thread that Catholicism is a minority is laughable.

Fact is, Catholicism is the single largest religion in the world, even if you don’t include other Christian denominations

Another fact is that if add up all other world religions (to include Protestant Christians as "other religions") they still wouldn’t be as large as the Catholic Church, in membership or finance.

Another thing; everyone keeps throwing around what-ifs about the Church accepting government funds. Not saying they do or don’t, but have any of you even bothered to check if they do or not?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I personally can't imagine anyone refusing to give a hysterectomy to someone who needs one who's not pregnant. That just baffles me. If someone does have uterine cancer and a doctor refuses to treat them, that does sound like a violation of the hippocratic oath to me.

I really don't understand the Catholic Church's stance against all forms of preconception birth control either,...

I can't say about that, as my sister had Endometriosis, not uterine cancer.
The Catholic Church is firmly against any type of birth control or any measures that would knowingly harm the life of the fetus.
Maybe you can't understand it, but that is they way it has always been.
Don't forget this is the same Church that tells us sex is for procreation only.

Not saying I agree...but being a Catholic is like being a member of ATS--you agree to the Terms & Conditions...or leave.


My cousin said that in his ten years working in that hospital there has never been a case that would require choosing the life of a mother over the life of the fetus. The doctors have always tried to save both. I checked with other medical professionals who deal with childbirth and they agree with him. They could remember no case in their careers when the question of choosing the mother’s life during childbirth over the child’s life happened. They did point out there are cases concerning medical treatment on pregnant women that could affect the embryo or fetus. (For example radiation or chemotherapy for cancer would harm the embryo. In these cases there would be a therapeutic abortion or treatment would be delayed. This is not an option in a Catholic hospital.)

home.earthlink.net...



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
These are the same hospitals that will provide Viagra but not contraceptives

Slightly off topic, but health insurance, at leasat Blue Cross, has that same double standard.

And, back on topic, I don't really see a double standard here.
If the purpose of marriage is a children, then viagra is allowed so the man can perform his husbandly duties and impregnate his wife..
Contraceptives are against the rules of the Church.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by FredT
These are the same hospitals that will provide Viagra but not contraceptives

... I don't really see a double standard here.
If the purpose of marriage is a children, then viagra is allowed so the man can perform his husbandly duties and impregnate his wife..
Contraceptives are against the rules of the Church.


I agree. They are not saying that all sex is bad or not to be enjoyed, just the death of a baby. Seeing as Viagra can help create a baby ...

In fact, I realy dont see a conection at all.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
we are targeting not the woman that can afford to pay a private doctor but the needy and poor that can not pay to even feed their own born children.


Well, in that case there is always Catholic Charities. Only partly kidding.


BTW, this excuse is pretty lame. I am 25 and the oldest of my children is 10 (you do the math; I'm a statistic) Today, that 10 year olds mother and I are happily married and we have never been on any form of government assistance. We are both highly paid (finally) professionals who are able to provide our children with a 3000 sf house to romp around in.


I sure am glad we decided not to kill our children just because we were poor at the time and made minimum wage.


We are actually thinking about adopting another one. All this from such meager beginnings. And to think how we almost killed two of them before we even met them.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
My younger sister needs a hysterectomy but was still of a
childbearing age. She could not get the operation done
unless she went to another town close by, to a secular hospital.


That's very odd. I had my hysterectomy done while I was still
of 'child bearing age' ... at a CATHOLIC hospital. No problem.
Also - it was due to endometriosis ... same as your sister.

Perhaps her doctor didn't deem her endomentriosis bad enough
to warrent surgery, whereas a different doctor was more than
happy to jump on surgery for her and make some $$$?

Obviously we don't know the whole story on that.

Also - D & C's are allowed at Catholic Hospitals. No problem.

When something crosses the line and goes into areas that the
Catholic faith doesn't believe in, then that procedure isn't allowed.

People DO have a right in this country to go to hospitals that follow
their religious beliefs. The government has no business telling
people that they are not allowed to have hospitals that practice
their religious beliefs. Freedom of Religion ... constitutionally
garunteed ... also includes freedom of your religion to provide
medical care as it deems fit to do so. If at any time the person
doesn't like that medical care (or lack of care) then they are free
to LEAVE and go to a different medical facility.



[edit on 12/11/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What constitutes a "Catholic Hospital"? What's the
difference between that and a regular secular hospital?


Catholic hospitals answer to more rules that follow Catholic
teaching. You won't find abortions performed in a Catholic
hospital. D&Cs are allowed as medically necessary, but
abortions which kill the unborn child are not allowed. My
GYN is at a Catholic Hospital. In the past I was offered
birth control from her, but I didn't want it and didn't need it.
Catholic hospitals have a priest in the hospital. They are
connected to the local churches and notify them when one
of their parishoners come in so that Eucharistic Ministers
may come to administer Communion. The Catholic Hospital
that I use has a morning prayer first thing and an evening
prayer at the end of the day before 'lights out'. This is
over the intercom. I LIKED that very much when I was there
for my hysterectomy. I also liked having a priest in the building
when I was in surgery .. just incase something went wrong I
would have Last Rites instantly available. I was VERY happy
to have my operating room one that didn't commit
abortions. It was an operating room that wasn't connected
to the culture of death.

Does that help with a 'flavor' of a Catholic hospital?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I personally can't imagine anyone refusing to give a hysterectomy to someone who needs one who's not pregnant.

But Dj, this woman could still breed!


If this person had endometriosis so badly that she needed surgery,
then she was definately NOT capable of having children. So no,
BH, she was not able to 'still breed'. If the hospital refused her
a hysterectomy, it was for other reasons, NOT because of her
ability to breed. At this point she can't and the hospital knows it.


There had to be other reasons ... like she really didn't have
endometriosis that bad, or there was insurance problems,
or other reasons. NOT because someone thought she could
still have children so they were forcing someone to keep a
womb to do so.

I had endomentriosis. I had a hysterectomy. It was at a
Catholic hospital. I know many other women who have had
hysterectomies ... many at Catholic hospitals.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join