Religious Freedom Vs. Personal Health

Status
Not open for further replies.
I reviewed the full story regarding the ACLU and the USCCB.

Here's the deal (and I should have done more research ultimately)...

The ACLU is suing the USCCB for not providing the patient with the information that an abortion is an option.
The USCCB acted appropriately. Their position is to uphold Catholic practices within the hospitals under any given diocese. The hospital didn't withhold any sort of prognosis or neglect valid treatment. However, an abortion is not even a possible option within Catholic hospitals as it is in direct violation of Christian practice.

Archbishop Kurtz responded to this lawsuit today... you can read it here.
 
here is what is in the bible .. and a Christian should use scripture as their guide ..

Deu 5:17 ‘You shall not murder.

רָצַח ratsach h7523 = murder
שָׁחַט shachat h7819 = kill


God makes a distinction ..
the shedding of "innocent blood" is what the commandment says ..

personhood in the unborn is shown here:
Jeremiah 1:4-5 & Psalms 139:13-16 & Luke 1:39-41..

Exd 21:22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

Exd 21:23 “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

the unborn life was valued the same as anyone else's ..

I can't change laws nor can I make choices for others ..

but I will give you this ..
the 10 commandments stand for all time, however the Exodus verse is according to the Covenant of Law not the Covenant of Faith (which nullified that penalty, but not the value)

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
Rom 2:15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

Jam 4:17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

for instance .. I may think it is wrong to throw food away .. so if I do it, my conscience tells me I sin ..

a restaurant owner throws food away daily as to insure customer quality, so if he does it, his conscience tells him he did not sin ..

so our conscience is our guide under the Covenant of Faith for those things not explicitly stated ..

my conscience points to these two things on if I think it is sin ..

the 10 Commandments stand for all times ..
personhood is shown biblically in the unborn ..

another persons conscience may not ..
BUT you must really be in touch with your heart ..
because people often do what they feel is wrong in their hearts ..

so if in your heart it is not wrong ..
then only you and God knows what your heart says ..
as well as I do not have the right to judge another's heart ..

I can judge words and deeds of others ..
(explicitly enumerated sin is easy)
but my conscience is not another's conscience in grey areas ..
thus what is in my heart/conscience cannot be used as a measuring stick for your heart/conscience in grey areas ..
 
Last edited:
The woman's water broke when she was only 18 weeks into her pregnancy, and she told the doctors she was in pain. She came back a third time again in extreme pain and with an infection and the doctors were once again preparing to send her home. Only this time, as they were preparing her discharge paperwork, she actually began to deliver. As expected, it was a miscarriage.

From the very first visit, the doctors knew that from a medical standpoint, it was extremely likely that the fetus would not survive and that carrying it endangered the mother's health. But they never told her any of that. The "directives" from religious authorities (the Bishops) mandate that hospital staff cannot inform patients about treatment options inconsistent with those directives even when it puts the patient's health at risk.

If you read the legal complaint (PDF), the suit is not because they didn't perform an abortion. It's because they deliberately withheld vital medical information from the patient, thereby putting her life at risk.

Gripe and complain about the ACLU all you want, but that's just a red herring/ad hominem that doesn't change the facts of the situation. One side of this suit is actually arguing that as medical experts, they are under no obligation to provide patients with vital medical information. I don't see how that can ever be a good thing.
 
I don't believe that account RiverJordan .. as the ACLU would be suing for that also, to bolster their litigation .. did you even read LysanderShapiro's post ???
 
I don't believe that account RiverJordan .. as the ACLU would be suing for that also, to bolster their litigation .. did you even read LysanderShapiro's post ???
 
basically the ACLU is suing because they did not tell her ..
this is a Catholic Hospital and we do not do abortions ???
now why would they tell her we may need to abort if that is not an option ???
what person old enough to have a child doesn't know that ???
and there are 5 other hospitals in the immediate area which shows they are using it as a spearhead case to circumvent the 1st Amendment ..
they did treat her, and must have gave her medical advice as well ..
I would love to know what they did tell her .. my bet is they did suggest another hospital to her which SHE did not act on ..
 
I don't believe that account RiverJordan .. as the ACLU would be suing for that also, to bolster their litigation .. did you even read LysanderShapiro's post ???
Again, trying to attack the ACLU is irrelevant to the facts of the case. If you read the link that Lysander gave, the USCCB isn't even disputing the facts of the case. You would think if the ACLU were making things up about what happened to this woman, that would be the first thing the USCCB would mention.

basically the ACLU is suing because they did not tell her ..
this is a Catholic Hospital and we do not do abortions ???
Nope. Read the complaint I linked to.

they did treat her, and must have gave her medical advice as well
No they didn't. They sent her home two times, and were preparing to send her home a third time when she miscarried.

my bet is they did suggest another hospital to her which SHE did not act on
And that's based on.......what? And why didn't the USCCB mention it?
 
I'm not attacking the ACLU -- sometimes I think they are right. In this case, they are wrong. They're neglecting the position of Catholic teaching which is that directly killing the infant (or anyone for that matter) is a violation of Church teaching. There was no option in order to preserve all life -- the only option was to directly end one.

Directly killing one life in order to save another is not a valid reason. If one life dies indirectly from a procedure, that's a different story, but that is not what is on the table.
 
the 1st Amendment states the Gov shall make NO LAW restricting religion .. they cannot force them to offer an abortion .. PERIOD ..
 
Last edited:
the story as given made it look like there was no other hospitals available .. thus misleading .. therefore to assume that account is correct as to what actually transpired and was said at those 3 visits may also be misleading .. for you to accept it as Gospel truth to me shows bias .. as the ACLU also has a history of suing the Christian community ..

this version of the visits is a media version as well ..
and I for one do not trust MSM journalism ..
 
Last edited:
I'm not attacking the ACLU -- sometimes I think they are right. In this case, they are wrong. They're neglecting the position of Catholic teaching which is that directly killing the infant (or anyone for that matter) is a violation of Church teaching. There was no option in order to preserve all life -- the only option was to directly end one.

Directly killing one life in order to save another is not a valid reason. If one life dies indirectly from a procedure, that's a different story, but that is not what is on the table.
But read the actual complaint. They're suing because the medical staff deliberately withheld vital information, thereby putting the woman's health at risk.
 
But read the actual complaint. They're suing because the medical staff deliberately withheld vital information, thereby putting the woman's health at risk.

I have read the complaint, RiverJordan. The complaint was that the hospital withheld the option of terminating the life. It also withheld the information that it would not do so.

If the hospital made a poor judgement call on sending her home, that was poor choice from the medical professionals. But the case for 1) not telling her that abortion was an option and 2) not telling her that the hospital doesn't perform abortions is not disrupting patient rights. Deliberately lying to her would have, as would refusing to tell her anything after she demands answers. That wasn't the case. Any given patient had the right to ask and find out what could have been done, and the hospital would have provided the information. However, a Catholic hospital abiding by diocese practices would not have offered it as an option, even outside of their facilities. This doesn't mean they would have physically forced her or lied to her, but they wouldn't suggest nor condone the direct killing of anyone.
 
I just keep thinking, abortion or not, something could have been done to at least provide safety and comfort to the mother. Surely they could have at least kept her there for "observation" just to ensure she doesn't come to harm. Even if we take a strict anti-abortion stance, then there is a moral obligation to protect both the mother and the child. In this case, the staff protected neither. They helped neither. They are BLAMING the rule, but the rule didn't dictate that they withhold potentially life-saving medical assistance. The policy doesn't prevent them from tending to the patient. In fact, by sending her home unaware, they are putting the child in a greater danger than they would if they had kept her. It's not the belief or the rule that potentially harmed the mother and ended the child's life, it was the staff choosing to ignore a potentially confrontational matter. To me, if they are doing so in protest to the rule, then it would stand that THEY should be that much more liable.
 
I agree. It will be interesting to see how this case is resolved.

it will .. and I'm assuming will affect a lot of other cases .. if it is a matter of a 1st Amendment right, most likely it will see a couple courtrooms ..

it reminds me of the Sanda Fluke ordeal .. which obviously was politically motivated as someone in law school can afford tuition and not BC ???
 
Last edited:
I just keep thinking, abortion or not, something could have been done to at least provide safety and comfort to the mother. Surely they could have at least kept her there for "observation" just to ensure she doesn't come to harm. Even if we take a strict anti-abortion stance, then there is a moral obligation to protect both the mother and the child. In this case, the staff protected neither. They helped neither. They are BLAMING the rule, but the rule didn't dictate that they withhold potentially life-saving medical assistance. The policy doesn't prevent them from tending to the patient. In fact, by sending her home unaware, they are putting the child in a greater danger than they would if they had kept her. It's not the belief or the rule that potentially harmed the mother and ended the child's life, it was the staff choosing to ignore a potentially confrontational matter. To me, if they are doing so in protest to the rule, then it would stand that THEY should be that much more liable.

I don't think there isn't a lawsuit. It's possible that Means could sue for negligence or malpractice, but this wouldn't be relevant to the USCCB's case for hospital practices. The USCCB is not a league of doctors.
 
I just keep thinking, abortion or not, something could have been done to at least provide safety and comfort to the mother. Surely they could have at least kept her there for "observation" just to ensure she doesn't come to harm. Even if we take a strict anti-abortion stance, then there is a moral obligation to protect both the mother and the child. In this case, the staff protected neither. They helped neither. They are BLAMING the rule, but the rule didn't dictate that they withhold potentially life-saving medical assistance. The policy doesn't prevent them from tending to the patient. In fact, by sending her home unaware, they are putting the child in a greater danger than they would if they had kept her. It's not the belief or the rule that potentially harmed the mother and ended the child's life, it was the staff choosing to ignore a potentially confrontational matter. To me, if they are doing so in protest to the rule, then it would stand that THEY should be that much more liable.

yes but we don't know if she declined ..
and we don't know if they suggested another hospital to her ..
 
yes but we don't know if she declined ..
and we don't know if they suggested another hospital to her ..

No we don't, but if they did make a suggestion or she declined, then there really isn't much grounds for a lawsuit.
 
RiverJordan said:And that's based on.......what? And why didn't the USCCB mention it?

You really have a problem with the Catholic Bishops, and it is transparent, and you like the Left media, keep on blaming those that are innocent of the charges... ask yourself why the ACLU does not go further and sue God Himself for giving us all humans his mandate that a child is very important and that the mother's life does not trump the life of the child. You also missed reading my information posted which specified by medical doctors that even though a woman breaks her water does not mean she must necessarily be induced to give birth especially since the child is not ready for birth... did you read this River...?

Three years later... she was 18 weeks not ready to give birth ... she had 2 previous pregnancies and has 2 children hence she had to know something about pregnancies ... there are other hospitals in the area which she chose not to go... she did not call her own personal doctor ... she could not be that ignorant, could she...? This article just bothers me as a woman that anyone can be that naive, ignorant, of what is going on with her body and she does not call her own doctor... ??? Yet, the leaders of the church, Bishops, get sued... does anyone realize where the ACLU is going with this and where they are headed in terms of any other denomination...??? If they are actually able to sue and win against Catholic Bishops then there is no holds barred the rage they will inflict on all other church leaders and will be successful as in China to muzzle, to silence, to intimidate, to force people of faith especially the leaders in what they can say, what they can preach, and what they can believe...
 
It's hard to say there isn't an agenda here or that the ACLU is a red herring. First, the report cited was linked directly to the ACLU blogs, written by the deputy legal director for the ACLU. Second, in that blog, it's tagged as "war on women" and "Using religion to discriminate". To say that the source is unbiased would be like linking to the Vatican and claiming to be completely unbiased.

The reality is, abortion is highly discriminatory behavior. It's also auxiliary to the entire lawsuit. First, abortion is discriminating against the child, and in many, many cases against the father of the child. In other cases, it's even discriminating against the parents of the mother, especially if she's a minor. Then, we can take a look at abortion statistics. Where are the Planned Parenthood clinics? Are they even distributed throughout poor/rich, white/minority areas? I don't keep track of all of them, but the three I know of in my normal driving radius all all in neighborhoods with a pretty significant minority populace. Reviewing the statistics, According to the CDC about 23% of pregnancies end in abortion. While the "rape and incest" argument is nearly always brought up, the fact is that represents significantly less than 1% of abortions in the U.S. Medical need represents about 3%. Finances are the number one reasons, and lack of personal responsibility is a close second. All together, that means that 96% of abortions are because the mother decided that a child would be an inconvenience to her lifestyle. CNN claims that 51% of abortions are white or hispanic. I found that statistic odd because those two groups aren't usually combined like that. It seemed obvious that they were trying to buffer the 42% abortion rate in the black community, so I went to Operation Rescue to see if I could get an idea of how their numbers matched. Interestingly enough, they claim only 37% of abortions are from African American women. But, they separate out the white and hispanic communities, leaving 22% hispanics and 8% other. Understanding that there are biases on both sides here, I think we can still make a relatively clear picture that if (at least) 51% are white and hispanic, and (at most) 22% are hispanic, and between 37% and 42% are black, that roughly 70%-75% are minorities, with only about 4% of that number being medically necessary. So the most conservative numbers I could come up with still means that AT LEAST 2/3 of all abortions are given to minorities without a medical need. In my mind, if someone institutes a program that kills 2/3 of minorities before they are even born, they are a very successful racist. Religion isn't waging a war on women, Planned Parenthood is!

All of that is basically a rabbit trail from the central issue in this case. What this is about is some doctors who either acted unethically and are trying to use a hospital policy to protect themselves, or it is about some people trying to attack the Church because they originated the policy. This is something that people should be concerned about. As I've said before, I'm not Catholic. I'm not even a particular fan of the Catholic Church, though I do think the current Pope appears to be one of the most Christlike people I've ever seen. This isn't a Catholic issue. This is a people issue. This should be a concern for Christians. This is a society that is attacking our right to believe what we believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top