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.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Khaleesi
did you look at the link?? did you read the bill that is up for consideration in florida, do you doubt that the intent on it's makers is more to cater to the christian crowd with their we don't like gays, we don't like abortions, we don't like birth control and we have a religious right to not have to participate in providing it to anyone....
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DelMarvel
rowan co.
the couple live in Lexington
I can not remember their names but if you google their names they both live in Lexington which is not in rowan co.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DelMarvel
going a bit of memory
this made headlines a few yrs back and there are existing threads on it but I can not find.
originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: dawnstar
Should these men have accepted a job knowing it required something against their religion or should a company be required to accommodate every religion?
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Khaleesi
Even so, it's my understanding the Employers in this case didn't try to accommodate. If they had, and failed the commission would have probably ruled the other way. Like the did with the Muslim stewardess who didn't want to serve alchohol.
Although we were originally a country of the people and for the people, we are more of a country of the corporations and for the coporations and well when it comes to this particular subject, they are very lenient with the businesses usually.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: deadeyedick
she denied anyone and everyone who wanted to get married a license for months. are you saying that none of them that wanted to apply were living in that county?? I find that hard to believe!!!
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: deadeyedick
why, christians go throught the trouble and expense of getting the training to become pharmacists and then expect to not have to fill perscriptions for birth control!!!
Expansion of Catholic hospital systems is accelerating around the country, partly by acquiring non-Catholic hospitals. This trend is posing an increasing threat to access to care in two major areas—reproductive services and end-of-life care. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (the ERDs) are being enforced by the bishops more vigorously in many parts of the country, holding their employed physicians to strict adherence to the ERDs or loss of employment. Meanwhile patients in many locations, especially rural areas, are finding it increasingly difficult to gain access to essential care.
pnhp.org...
These are some of the ERDs restricting common needs of women in their childbearing years: (2)
“Catholic hospitals may not promote or condone contraceptive practices.” (Directive 52)
“Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted.” (Directive 45)
“In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.” (Directive 48)
“Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution.” (Directive 53)
“The free and informed health care decision of the person. . . is to be followed so long as it does not contradict Catholic principles.” (Directives 28 and 27).
“Catholic health care services must . . . require adherence to [the Directives] within the institution as a condition for medical privileges and employment.” (Directive 5)
Other ERDs prohibit abortion even in cases of rape or incest (Directive 45), and in-vitro fertilization (Directives 37, 38, 39) (3)
The following cases in two parts of the country indicate how extreme and harmful strict adherence to the ERDs can be:
Sierra Vista is a rural community about 80 miles southeast of Tucson, AZ with one hospital serving a three-county area. The local hospital had been secular until purchased in 2010 by the Carondelet Health Network, a member of Catholic-sponsored hospitals. ERDs were to be followed at the time of transfer of ownership. Shortly thereafter, a woman presented to the Emergency Room 15-weeks pregnant with twins after miscarrying one of the twins at home. The remaining twin had a heart beat. The attending physician concluded that any attempt to continue the pregnancy would pose high risks of loss of the child as well as hemorrhaging and infection for the mother. As he and the staff were preparing to complete the miscarriage, a hospital administrator intervened and ordered the patient transferred to another hospital 80 miles away, where she did receive necessary care. The medical staff felt misled since they had previously been assured that they could provide appropriate care for miscarriages. (4)
A woman 18 weeks along in her pregnancy came to Mercy Health Partners, a Catholic-sponsored hospital in Muskegon, Michigan, where it is the only hospital with two campuses in the community. Her water had broken at home and contractions had started. She was told that she had premature rupture of the membranes (PROM), that nothing could be done, and to go home. She was not informed that there was almost no chance that the fetus could survive and was not counseled about risks of non-treatment to herself. She returned to the hospital the following morning with painful contractions, bleeding and an elevatedtemperature. Her contractions were monitored and she was given Tylenol. She was again sent home after the temperature came down. Later that same night, she returned to the hospital again in severe distress. While the staff was preparing to send her home, she delivered a very premature son, who died within hours. She soon developed infection that had developed after her membranes ruptured. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit contending that “a young woman in a crisis situation was put at risk because religious directives were allowed to interfere with medical care. . . Patients should not be forced to suffer because of a hospital’s religious conviction.” (5)