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.
They'd probably make the five Catholic justices recuse themselves.
Be happy nonetheless, we've outlived our 200 year life expectancy, just enjoy watching the downfall for it's entertainment value, although I understand that this will be more difficult for all you parents out there.
Well, at that point the logical reaction for the hospitals is to simply shut down their ER’s.
The logical reaction for the hospitals is to simply shut down their ER’s.
“Shutting them down right away will only hurt the people they are legitimately giving care to, as well as all of the employees who earn their living at these facilities.”
I think you’re missing the point. By being unwilling to use all the tools at your disposal, you essentially cede ground to the opposition. The legislature in this case realizes that it will not get Catholic hospitals to perform what are in effect abortions. But it will get the hospitals to refer patients to abortuaries or other infanticide providers. Which was probably the intent all along.
So we make another little compromise with evil and console ourselves with the idea that we saved people’s jobs and might save one or two people. For now. Until the next little compromise comes along. Probably a bill mandating assisted euthanasia or some such.
The road to hell is still paved with good intentions.
Daniel Debicella — A fine Senator with principles and guts! Keep your eyes on him.
I recall he single-handedly derailed the “dicount college tuition to illegals” bill with a fillibustering of sorts in the CT senate.
From an email update from LifeSite News yesterday (please let me know your thoughts....):
US Catholic Bishops in Wisconsin and Connecticut Drop Opposition to Abortion-Causing Emergency Contraception
The Pontifical Academy for Life has opposed provision of the morning after pill for any reason
by John-Henry Westen
HARTFORD, April 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Bishops Conferences of Wisconsin and Connecticut have dropped opposition to provision of the abortifacient morning after pill at Catholic hospitals for rape victims. Laws in both states are going forward to mandate such use of the morning after pill in all hospitals, Catholic ones included.
The decision is more controversial in Wisconsin where legislators who have previously opposed such measures have dropped their opposition seeing that the Catholic Church has come out as unopposed to the legislation. In Connecticut however the proposed law, as it stands, does not require a pregnancy test before the administration of the morning after pill and thus the Bishops conference is maintaining its opposition to the legislation.
The drug acts both to halt ovulation, if that has not yet occurred, and also to cause an abortion, if fertilization has taken place, by making the lining of the uterus unable to sustain pregnancy.
The bishops are basing their decisions on an interpretation of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops document: Ethical and Religious Directives (E.R.D.) for Catholic Health Care Services which states at no. 36 with regard to a woman who has been raped: “If after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation the process by which spermatozoa in the ampullary portion of a uterine tube become capable of going through the acrosome reaction and fertilizing an oocyte.” However, the document adds: “It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.” (see the document: http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml )
The only public Vatican statement on the morning after pill condemns its use outright. The Pontifical Academy for Life states that “the absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it.” (see the full Vatican statement here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html )
The problem lies not so much in theology but in science. What the US Conference document is aiming at is preventing conception after rape, rather than abortion. However, pregnancy occurs not at implantation of the unborn child in the uterus, but at fertilization which can occur within minutes after intercourse. Further, normal pregnancy tests based on a hormone known as hcG is accurate only if a woman is at least one week pregnant by the time of the test, since the body’s chemical changes resulting from pregnancy which are picked up by the devices must be at a detectable level. This takes at least five days rather than minutes or hours.
Should a woman have been impregnanted by the rape, a pregnancy test would likely not detect it within the first couple of days after the rape, thus taking the morning after pill in such a scenario would cause an abortion even though the pregnancy test had shown no pregnancy.
In testimony before the Wisconsin Senate Committee, the Wisconsin Catholic Conference noted that Catholic hospitals were in fact already administering the morning after pill with the use of pregnancy tests. Kim Wadas, Associate Director for Health Care at the Conference, told the committee, “Catholic hospitals in Wisconsin can and do treat victims with emergency contraception.” (see the full testimony here: http://www.wisconsin.nasccd.org/bins/wisconsin/content/pages/Advocacy/Testimony/sb129tst-EC%20treatment.pdf?_resolutionfile=ftppath|pages/Advocacy/Testimony/sb129tst-EC%20treatment.pdf )
Dr. John Shea M.D., who has for some years specialized in researching and reporting on life issues, is the medical consultant to LifeSiteNews.com. He notes that since the administration of abortifacient drugs may place an innocent human life at stake, surety is required that the woman in question is not yet pregnant. That absolute certainty cannot be provided by science, he says. He compares the doubt about whether the woman is already pregnant to the classic example of the hunter’s doubt about whether a movement behind a bush is caused by deer or a human being. “You can’t shoot unless you’re certain it’s a deer,” he says.
Famed Catholic moral theologian Msgr. William Smith, who teaches at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie, New York, concurs. “It’s wrong to say, you can use anything that has abortifacient properties. Emergency contraception is double talk ... it’s what I call ‘verbal engineering’. Catholic hospitals are not free to prescribe or provide anything with abortifacient properties without contradicting their witness.”
However, with Bishops Conferences and theologians differing so widely on these matters of life and death, pro-life Catholics are being urged to contact the Pontifical Academy for Life for clarification on these vital points.
To politely request that the Pontifical Academy for Life clarify the situation write:
pav@acdlife.va
So since alot of folks rely in Medicaid you think it is OK for the government to take over health care? Hmmmm, definately not a government shrinker. Hope these hospitals simply shutdown operations. Private schools also under attack, hope they shut down too. Dido private business.
I agree there shouldn't be any compromises, but shutting the hospital down altogether isn't the only course of action.
So we make another little compromise with evil and console ourselves with the idea that we saved people’s jobs and might save one or two people.
If said hospital refers patients to other hospitals, I agree, that would be an unfortunate and unacceptable compromise.
Refusal to comply on BOTH points (distribution of Plan B AND referrals) while continuing legitimate services is the best course of action. When the inevitable and very public showdown occurs, THEN the Church can reasonably say, "We kept our doors open as long as we could so innocent people would not be harmed. But now the law compels us to violate our moral foundation, and without recourse. We have no choice but to close our doors."
But you're right - if they continue referrals, it's kind of pointless. Like calling a cab to take someone to the abortion clinic.
Secular atheism is going to dominate entertainment and literary media, because they're going to figure out that most Americans aren't really sure God exists at all.
I'm telling you, it's coming. Catholics are going to be persecuted first (because we're institutionally tied to Rome), then maybe even simulataneously the Evangelicals, then Christians in general. It was just one little political cartoon in the Philadelphia Inquirer, but, in my opinion, it was no less than the starter gun in the race to finally remove Christ from this nation.
Hey again noobie. Now you listen and maybe YOU'LL get it. The "PEOPLE" can go somewhere else.
Oh my gosh, the Home Depot closed, therefore home improvement is doomed!!
I've got all day grace. Let's go...
There should not be any Medicaid or Medicare. Paying people’s medical bills isn’t the job of the federal government (or IMO, the state government, though depending on how they raised the revenue, that decision could properly be left up to the individual states). But under established law, any institution receiving taxpayer funding may be subjected to all the regulations that would apply if the institution was completely public. No reason why Catholic hospitals should get a pass.
Applying the law rigorously will encourage more voters to understand why the socialist welfare state is antithetical to freedom, and to vote for candidates who will dismantle it. But I have no sympathy for the Catholic Church or its affiliated institutions, since they have actively promoted the expansion of the socialist welfare state. They made their own bed, and I don’t want to hear them whining about having to lie in it.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The government is not forcing scientists to violate any beliefs or perform procedures that they have ethical disagreements with, where they would be with the Catholic hospitals.
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.
Except "government funds" is very loosely defined. You seemed to be referring to medicare itself as government funding.
Yes, Medicare is government funding. It’s (along with Medicaid) the hook that’s used to apply all sorts of government regulations to doctors and hospitals. Just like Guaranteed Student Loans and other federal student financial aid programs are the hook that’s used to force PRIVATE colleges and universities to comply with all sorts of idiotic government regulations that end up turning the campuses into pits of leftist ideology. Why is it so hard for people on FR, of all places, to grasp that ALL government funded programs that provide benefits to private citizens are bad. Public schools are bad — they confiscate hardworking people’s money and then use it to run schools in way that many of the people who are paying the tab disapprove of — the only way you can get back what you paid in is to have your children and grandchildren attend the schools where they government teaches them whatever IT wants to. No way should Catholic hospitals get a pass on the sort of freedom-robbing regulations that every other institution that gets a penny of government money has to submit to. The Church has eagerly supported all this socialist welfare state stuff — it’s high time they got a harsh lesson in why it’s bad.
Preventing scientists from pursuing research that they believe to be beneficial to humankind is certainly an example of government forcing its beliefs on unwilling citizens. These scientists pay taxes too, and shouldn’t have to abandon putting their beliefs into practice through their profession in order to get their fair share of the money back. If the solution for the scientists is supposed to be “Just go work for an institution that only uses private money”, then that solution is fine for the medical staff of Catholic hospitals too.
And it should never rain on Sunday, but it does and there is. Your arugments are obsolete. Want to end socialist programs? End the progressive income tax, until that ends socialist programs are a fact, jack. And you might get more then two people to vote for (real) tax reform.
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.