HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Mean ACLU Won’t Let Hospi...

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 12:35 PM

Mean ACLU Won’t Let Hospital Refuse Ladyparts Care For Jesus Reasons

how is that even fair?


Mean ACLU Won’t Let Hospital Refuse Ladyparts Care For Jesus Reasons


image:
62868e6e81a383e0c47f1d5413a77266
probably easier than a lawsuit, honestly

One day, we will make it big and be rolling in money. Haha not from blogging, silly. Dealing drugs, maybe, or trafficking in delicious baby parts. When we do, we are gonna donate so much monies to the good people at the ACLU, which just will not stop suing the living shit out of Catholic hospitals for failing to provide basic reproductive health care to people with lady parts.

On Tuesday, the ACLU of Northern California filed a lawsuit against creepy creepy Dignity Health, a chain of Catholic hospitals based out of San Francisco. Why is the ACLU all up in Catholicism’s business this time? Because their hospital in beautiful Redding, California, Mercy Medical Center, won’t let a perfectly nice lady get a tubal ligation, because of Jesus.
The woman, Rebecca Chamorro, 33, of Redding, has two children and is due to give birth to her third by cesarean section in late January. She and her husband say they have decided not to have more children, and their doctor has agreed to perform the tubal ligation immediately after delivery, when the operation is most commonly carried out.

Mercy Medical Center, the only hospital with a delivery room in at least a 70-mile radius of where Chamorro lives, sent a letter to her doctor in September saying the operation violated the “ethical and religious directives” that govern Catholic hospitals. Ah, yes. The “ethical and religious directives that govern Catholic hospitals.” Let us provide you with a helpful translation: “We don’t care about women even a little bit because we’re basically repulsed by their bodies, unless they are shoving out a baby, in which case, cool.”

Now, why does this lady need to tie off some of her lady parts while she is birthing her baby? Because that is ideally when it is done, stupid.
Chamorro wants her tubal ligation done in the hospital during her scheduled C-section to save the time, cost and potential trauma of a second surgery. […] It’s considered more cost-effective to do the procedure after a C-section, when a woman’s abdomen is open and she’s under anesthesia.
. . . .


Read more at http://wonkette.com/597438/mean-aclu-wont-let-hospital-refuse-ladyparts-care-for-jesus-reasons#Hddle3dwPgef3X0Z.99

56 replies, 5360 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mean ACLU Won’t Let Hospital Refuse Ladyparts Care For Jesus Reasons (Original post)
niyad Jan 2016 OP
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #1
niyad Jan 2016 #2
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #3
rug Jan 2016 #4
niyad Jan 2016 #5
rug Jan 2016 #6
niyad Jan 2016 #7
rug Jan 2016 #9
cleanhippie Jan 2016 #21
jonno99 Jan 2016 #27
rug Jan 2016 #45
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #8
ljm2002 Jan 2016 #14
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #16
ljm2002 Jan 2016 #17
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #19
ljm2002 Jan 2016 #22
pnwmom Jan 2016 #41
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #48
hobbit709 Jan 2016 #43
rug Jan 2016 #10
niyad Jan 2016 #11
sweetapogee Jan 2016 #25
rug Jan 2016 #31
pnwmom Jan 2016 #42
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #49
XemaSab Jan 2016 #56
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2016 #12
jonno99 Jan 2016 #26
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2016 #29
Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #13
rug Jan 2016 #15
NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #24
rug Jan 2016 #32
NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #34
rug Jan 2016 #35
NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #36
jonno99 Jan 2016 #54
NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #55
NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #37
rug Jan 2016 #38
NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #39
rug Jan 2016 #40
NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #47
rug Jan 2016 #50
NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #52
rug Jan 2016 #53
Moral Compass Jan 2016 #18
Humanist_Activist Jan 2016 #20
Moral Compass Jan 2016 #28
xmas74 Jan 2016 #30
Humanist_Activist Jan 2016 #51
rug Jan 2016 #33
Hekate Jan 2016 #23
pnwmom Jan 2016 #44
Hekate Jan 2016 #46

Response to niyad (Original post)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 12:48 PM

1. Tough sell for the ACLU

to force a religious hospital to perform an elective procedure that violates the tenets of the religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 12:58 PM

2. possibly. but it is far past time that the woman-hating catholic church either gets out

of the health care business altogether, or starts actually providing complete health care for ALL its clients (do remember that, in many, many cases, the catholic health care system is the ONLY one available.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:00 PM

3. Agreed

My recommendation would be that they shut down the Catholic hospitals completely. No problem with religious objections then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:02 PM

4. Then everybody will have to drive 70 miles.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:04 PM

5. possibly. or possibly we can get some decent health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:06 PM

6. Do you know why there are no public hospitals in the area?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:07 PM

7. no. do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:10 PM

9. No. Religion aside, that's the fundamental problem.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 04:36 PM

21. I do. It's because they've all been bought up by catholic hospitals.

Because they don't want women to have choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 05:39 PM

27. Well, that is certainly one possible reason (actually, I think it is in their charter).

I wonder if there are other possible reasons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 08:55 PM

45. No. Once again, when it comes to the RCC, he nailed it.

 

They spent millions of dollars per hospital for the sole purpose of denying women choice.



Could not be any other possible reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:10 PM

8. Oh well n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:48 PM

14. No, it is not a tough sell...

...hospitals serve the public. Either the hospital only admits believers, in which case their bottom line will suffer, or they treat everyone with the most complete health care available.

They don't get to force their religious beliefs on others.

If Catholic women wish to have their choices limited, let them go to Catholics-only hospitals, that are clearly labeled such and that turn away non-believers at the door. I could accept that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 02:52 PM

16. That's why I think

The Catholic hospitals should all just close and let the communities they currently serve find healthcare elsewhere.

Alternatively, they could refuse to accept Medicaid, Medicare and Tricare, and then the "but they accept government funding" argument would be gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 03:11 PM

17. Agreed...

...but if they do want to continue to exist, then if they let in only the believers as I suggested, then they would not be allowed to accept any government money either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 04:32 PM

19. My point about the goverment money

which is really just insurance payments from Medicaid, Medicare & Tricare for services rendered, is that they could then continue to operate and serve at least some of the local population.

But the best thing overall would probably be to just shut down and not provide care to anyone. I'm sure there are other entities that would be willing to take over the hospital and provide care to the locals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 04:39 PM

22. Yes and your point is well taken...

...this stuff just makes me so mad!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 08:45 PM

41. As a Catholic I will say that any hospital taking their position

shouldn't get a dime of Federal or state funds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 09:46 PM

48. And that's a valid position

Just keep in mind that those funds are in the form of payment for services rendered to Medicaid, Medicare and Tricare patients.

As I said before, the hospital should either forego patients receiving Medicaid, Medicare and Tricare or simply shut down altogether and let the local population find healthcare elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 08:53 PM

43. Does the hospital take government money? If it does it should comply with government rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Original post)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:13 PM

10. Here's the Complaint:

 

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/12-28-chamorro-complaintfs

Paragraph 4 lays out the legal basis for the suit: the hospital receives state funds. The hospital will lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:15 PM

11. thank you for that information. yes, the hospital should lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 05:29 PM

25. why stop at women's reproductive services?

Insist that every hospital that receives state funds should offer level 1 trauma services. Trauma is generally not elective treatment.
There should be a hospital within a five minute drive to every citizen in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sweetapogee (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:17 PM

31. No argument here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sweetapogee (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 08:50 PM

42. You think we should put a trauma hospital within a 5 minute drive to every citizen?

You've got to be kidding.

This is why we have 911 and paramedics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 09:52 PM

49. Exactly

Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sweetapogee (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 12:10 AM

56. LOLWUT?

There are three hospitals in the county, and the county's twice the size of Delaware.

If you're within 45 minutes of a hospital, you're doing alright.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Original post)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:43 PM

12. Applying religous law to medicine is like using Holy Water for waterboarding.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 05:33 PM

26. Wow - can I borrow this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:12 PM

29. Feel free.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Original post)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:46 PM

13. Sorry, which was the Gospel verse where Jesus denounced tubal ligations?

Anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:54 PM

15. Psalm 127:3-5

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 05:08 PM

24. Psalm's are not gospel. They hold no theological value other than they are beautiful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:18 PM

32. Sorry, I'm not a red letter guy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:33 PM

34. Not sure what you mean by red letter guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:37 PM

35. It's the Bible that prints all of Jesus' words in red type.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:39 PM

36. Haven't run across those. I usually stay with NIV.

I specifically avoid the King James versions - worst translation ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #36)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 11:47 PM

54. Some would argue that it was considered pretty good in it's day...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 12:05 AM

55. It was actually written in an out-of-date style for even the 1600s.

This was of course done on purpose to make it seem old and authoritative (even in 1611), but is really bad today as people really don't understand the text given that no one speaks like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:50 PM

37. I guess we got off topic.

I'm curious what you mean in the context of Psalms. At the end of the day, Christianity is about following the teachings of Christ, not that of some unknown poet who lived long before him. It's no different than the letters that Paul wrote also have no real theological direction - Paul wasn't Christ and was afflicted with the normal biases of his time. He was also contradictory a lot, telling each group different things, mainly because he never thought his letters would be publicly read by everybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 08:09 PM

38. That quote from Psalms is the basis for the Quiverfull (Duggars) movement.

 

It was a response to the post.

I don't think you can discount the Old Testament when discussing Christ. The Gospel last week was about Jesus as a child amazing the elders in the Temple with his knowledge of the Law (while Joseph and Mary were pulling their hair out looking for him.) He was very much an observant Jew of his time. The trick is to reconcile the entire book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 08:34 PM

39. He also broke from contemporary Jewish law in his teachings.

But aside from that, even Jews do not consider the Psalms to be rules to follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #39)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 08:43 PM

40. Religion is a way to live not a rule to follow.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 09:31 PM

47. You practice a religion by following its rules.

Unless ones faith is no faith at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 10:41 PM

50. You are describing magic or chemistry.

 

There are no incantations or rituals that circumscribe the supernatural. But there are precise formulae to manipulate elements.

The measure of a religion is how one lives, not how well one follows the rules, although they are not mutually exclusive.

Here are some red letters from Matthew (NIV):

Matthew 23

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 10:49 PM

52. Not what I was talking about at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 10:51 PM

53. For me, the good thief on the cross is what religion boils down to.

 

Not to take away from its guidelines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Original post)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 03:52 PM

18. St. John's in St. Louis (now Mercy Hospital)

Catholic hospital in St. Louis 23 years ago refused to do a tubal ligation for my wife.

At the time we just let it roll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moral Compass (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 04:33 PM

20. This is part of the reason why my fiancee and I, when we do try for a child, are going to...

Barnes-Jewish, even after her OB-GYN's office was folded into Mercy recently.

ON EDIT: We are well aware that a pregnancy will be high risk as a default, so we would prefer to go somewhere where women are treated as patients, not incubators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 06:16 PM

28. That's why we let it go

My wife's pregnancy was high risk and my youngest almost didn't make it. But the care was expert (before the birth and in the NICU) and I have a wonderful, beautiful, brilliant daughter.

I did not agree with their position and if not for the outcome might have gone to the ACLU myself.

Instead, I got a vasectomy a few years later.

It is a grotesque violation of medical ethics in my view.

It was over reproductive rights and contraception specifically I left the Church at 13.

Even though Pope Francis is a really great guy and the world loves him he has not changed Catholicism's anti-feminine, anti-sex dogma. A dogma not rooted in the teachings of Christ but in the twisted prudery of old bitter men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:14 PM

30. I've heard nothing but good about Barnes-Jewish.

I knew someone years ago who had their kidney transplant there. I visited back then and I absolutely adored the staff. Professional but courteous and fantastic bedside manner.

Two years later a coworker found out she had brain cancer. Instead of going to MU (which would have been closest to where we all lived at the time) she chose to Barnes-Jewish. We had driven up together to visit the other coworker and she loved it. Her soon lived in St Charles at the time so she had someplace to stay after each treatment.

I'd use them in a heartbeat if they weren't clear on the other side of the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xmas74 (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 10:45 PM

51. Yeah, my fiancee is going to go there in a couple of weeks for hip surgery...

Washington University's/BJC Orthopedic center is one of the best in the country, and her surgeon is one of the top ones there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:22 PM

33. Interestingly, the Jewish hospital systems were a reaction to anti-semitism in the hospital industry

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Original post)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 04:59 PM

23. It was 1957. Our family GP was also Mom's OB/GYN. And Catholic.

She had an obstetrical history that made the good doctor encourage her to quit after the current pregnancy, and since he was concerned she might have to have a C-section (my brother was sideways), he suggested tubal ligation.

But he was Catholic. His solution to the strictures of his religion was this: he would deliver the baby, then turn his back while a colleague performed the tubal ligation.

Fortunately my brother turned head down at the last minute and was able to be delivered vaginally. My Dad had a vasectomy. The hospital was a non-religious institution.

This is part of the family lore I was raised with, and I took several lessons from it. The first and foremost was that doctors don't have to be stupid and they know more about medicine than priests.

I have nothing against Catholic hospitals per se, but the older I get the more I see the truth of what was written down in novels well over a century ago: Don't send your pregnant wife or daughter to a Catholic hospital, because in case of complications, they will sacrifice the mother to save the child. Add to that: Nor will they help you with contraception even in case of rape.

As far as I am concerned, THE biggest problem with hospital closures and consolidations is how it leaves women with no options other than traveling an hour or more to find a non-religious hospital. I give the Catholics props for keeping hospitals open at all, but we sure need more options available.

Oh, and any entity that accepts federal and state money needs to abide by state and federal regulations. "Conscience clauses," my rosy Irish ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 08:53 PM

44. Great post, Hekate. Thanks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 09:14 PM

46. You are welcome. I believe that if we don't tell the stories of our mothers and ourselves...

...not only will the stories be lost, but younger and younger women will have nothing to counter the toxic propaganda of the anti-women's health crusaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread