Posted on 11/03/2021 6:59:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up a case involving a Catholic hospital in California that is being sued for refusing to perform a hysterectomy on a trans-identified patient.
In a list of orders published Monday, the Supreme Court denied “the petition for a writ of certiorari” in the case of Dignity Health v. Minton, Evan. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neal Gorsuch would have granted the appeal.
The case goes back to state court for further proceedings as the high court's decision lets stand an appellate court ruling allowing the plaintiff to proceed with a lawsuit against the hospital.
The lawsuit was filed in April 2017, one year after Mercy San Juan Medical Center in the Sacramento suburb of Carmichael, California, refused to perform a hysterectomy on Evan Minton, a trans-identified female.
The hospital, one of six medical centers operated by its parent company, Dignity Health, concluded that performing the procedure would violate the ethical and religious directives for Catholic Health Care Services.
The directives document was published by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and features guidance for “institutionally based Catholic health care services.”
The directives assert that “direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution.” However, the directives permit Catholic hospitals and healthcare providers to perform “procedures that induce sterility” if “their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available.”
The original lawsuit filed argued that the refusal to perform Minton’s hysterectomy "constitutes discrimination" based on gender identity. Although the Catholic hospital refused to perform the procedure, Minton secured a hysterectomy at another Dignity Health-affiliated hospital 30 miles away four days after the scheduled hysterectomy was canceled.
The Mercy San Juan initially agreed to perform the hysterectomy, a procedure commonly done for medical reasons, until finding out that the hysterectomy was part of a gender transition process, not an effort to alleviate a “present and serious pathology.”
The hospital then informed the doctor scheduled to perform the hysterectomy that she could not do so. Minton learned that the hysterectomy was canceled the day before the procedure was set to take place, a development that resulted in “great anxiety and grief.”
While a judge at the federal district court level sided with Mercy San Juan Medical Center, an appellate court ruled in September 2019 that “Dignity Health discriminated against Minton” in violation of California civil rights law. The appellate court’s decision sent the case back to the California Supreme Court for San Francisco County “to enter a new and different order.”
In a petition for a writ of certiorari filed in March 2020, the hospital asked the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court decision. The petition warns that “this case poses a profound threat to faith-based health care institutions’ ability to advance their healing ministries consistent with the teachings of their faith.”
Minton took to Twitter to cheer the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal.
“For the first time in a year, I can feel my heart start to relax,” Minton stressed. “At times today, I danced. I notoriously never celebrate ‘the moments,’ so this was huge.”
“In closing, the fight for justice can be long, it can be arduous, the future will always be (and is) uncertain, but the fight so far has been worth every tear and drop of sweat.”
While the nation’s high court declined to hear the case, the justices issued a decision in another case Monday that is favorable to Catholic nuns and other Christian employers seeking exemption from a New York state law requiring employer-sponsored healthcare plans to cover the cost of abortions.
The court vacated a lower court decision against religious groups and remanded the case back to the New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division in light of its ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The June ruling found that the city of Philadelphia could not exclude a Catholic charity from its foster program because the organization upholds policies that don't allow children to be placed with same-sex couples.
The debate about whether or not faith-based organizations should be forced to take actions that violate their religious convictions has intensified in recent years as Congress has debated the Equality Act, which would codify nondiscrimination protections for the LGBT community into federal law.
Critics of the legislation warn of its implications for religious liberty, specifically that it could force religious organizations to fund abortion healthcare coverage and violate their beliefs about gender, marriage and sexuality.
The bill has passed the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives but stalled in the evenly divided Senate because of opposition from both Democrats and Republicans.
Hard to follow.
I think that a physically healthy woman, who wanted to be a man, expected a hospital to perform a hysterectomy, so that the woman could be more like a man. The hospital declined to do so. She is suing the hospital, and the Supreme Court, at this time, is not stepping in to block the lawsuit.
Is that about right?
Yes, you summarized the article in one paragraph perfectly.
There’s also the issue of whether it was optional surgery or there was some physical medical reason (not psychological) for it.
Clearly there wasn’t an urgent health issue, since the patient found another hospital to do the desired mutilation (er, surgery) within a few days.
So a hospital can refuse to perform procedures on me if I’m not jabbed, but if I id as transsomthing they better jump when I say hop.
This was back in 2017. Surely by now she has had an addadicktome.
” Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neal Gorsuch would have granted the appeal.”
Translation: Kav and Barrett are the latest in a long line of GOP strike-outs as SCOTUS appointees. Let’s face it. We were betrayed... again.
Is this a guy or a gal ???
Trans anything doesnt tell me just what it is ...
Thaaaatttt’sss what I THIIIINK this is about.
Even a “Christian Post” refused to state exactly what was going on here!
How the hell am I supposed to know what a “trans female” is?
I have to ASSUME it’s a female who wants to be a male, because of “gender transitioning surgery” of hysterectomy.
OTOH, usually “trans female” means it’s a MAN, BABY! But that would imply the dude is playing female and insisting they do surgery on something that doesn’t exist...
...I hate these insane people! AND IT *IS* INSANE! Proves they should be treated as such!
Additionally, perhaps face it, that Trump is not so brilliant.
If you concede that they are “bad”. I think overall they’re OK but the high profile cases do seem to be liberal-leaning for them.
Fair enough. Even Reagan batted 1 out of 3 on SCOTUS picks (Scalia).
Kav and Barrett have proven to be establishment hacks.
Yeah, it’s true.
But sometimes they’re better “behind the scenes” when the media don’t report on it.
PS. Is GOPee just claiming victory for last night or are the sending lawyers to unfix the fixed outcome in NJ?
What was SHE afraid of? Getting pregnant?
The hospital is right. There is no medical reason to perform the procedure.
The left wants to force all hospitals to do this, sex-”change”, abortions, and mercy killing or be closed.
No, that's not the correct translation. You have to look at the procedural status of the case, not just the result. This case has not yet gone to trial, and there is no verdict. The Supreme Court only very rarely ever takes case before there is a final judgement, for the very simple reason that the complaining party may win and trial, and the whole thing vanish.
Given that the Court receives nearly seven thousand applications for review every year, and actually hears only 100+, they have to very selective about which cases they take, and taking a case that isn't even a final order is generally considered a waste of resources.
Wait until there is a verdict, see who wins, and then at that point you start the normal appeal process.
PS. Is GOPee just claiming victory for last night or are the sending lawyers to unfix the fixed outcome in NJ?
I don’t know about NJ but some Republicans sound like they want to lose so a huge win over an ogre like McAwful depresses them.
It’s time to stop putting forward Ivy League nominees. I don’t care how “conservative” they pretend to be, they are just too unreliable.
Also gotta love the “discrimination” angle.
Yeah, just like we DISCRIMINATE against any other silly thing.
The great insight I got was to learn that the typical route for election is to go to state U and join the political club. Both Ds and Rs party together. Obviously it is a career path for ambitious Ds. Rs? Well as near as I can tell they get to party with the D girls, drink beer and hang out. And the Ds needs someone to run in R districts who won't make to much trouble so why not someone who liked to party.
And so it goes. Reliable Rs are only supposed to win indisputably R districts. They aren't supposed to try to win very much for their constituents. It's ok for them. They had no ambition anyway, and hard work was something for fools
All of which is why my opinion of Kavanaugh is pretty down there right now. He could try to shape up, but that is probably too hard for someone who likes hanging out and drinking beer.
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.