# Citing Catholic Rules, Doctor Turns Away Bleeding Woman With Dislodged IUD **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 28, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325 "2016-08-28T19:34:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/81 "2016-08-30T03:57:56Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > And there are plenty who don’t. And if there’s one thing you want in a Supreme Court Justice, it’s integrity. How much integrity does a man have who can leave his religious beliefs at the door when he goes to work? . . . To my way of thought, that demonstrates his integrity. He knows which sphere of his life his religious beliefs apply to…and which they do not apply to. He has faith in God…but when he’s making legal rulings, he doesn’t let that religious belief overrule his understanding of the law. This is a good thing! ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/82 "2016-08-30T05:02:39Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > No, we’re not “fucked”. There are plenty of politicians out there who have no problem putting their personal beliefs aside to follow the law. John Kerry and Joe Biden are both Catholic and they support abortion rights. Ted Kennedy was Catholic and he supported abortion rights. Also [Mario Cuomo](http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm). > [@TonySinclair](#): > > I’m sure your mother is one of the finest women who ever lived, but that statement is self-contradictory. If she were very devout, she would follow the teachings of the Church. Please note that I think it’s great that she doesn’t. Noted, but I am highly dubious about that claim. Piety and devotion doesn’t necessarily involve a lawyerly or phariseetic dedication to every crossed t or dotted i of church doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/83 "2016-08-30T18:00:20Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > As much as I usually disagree with **D’Anconia** , he’s correct. Religious tests for office are unconstitutional, IIRC. If a Muslim justice vowed to uphold the current law as it is, then there should be no reason whatsoever to block his/her nomination. Same as a Catholic justice. While I agree with you, that excluding a adherents of a specific religion from serving on the Supreme court is a very bad thing, I do think that there is an advantage to having a diverse selection of judges on the Supreme court. While I have nothing against, Catholic or Jewish perspectives, I think that fact that of the 9 Justices currently are members of the court (I’m still counting Scalia until a replacement if found), 6 are Catholic and the remaining 3 are Jewish is problematic. By the same token that I feel that there is an advantage to having a black justice or a “wise Latina” I think that there would be an advantage in having Scalia’s replacement come from a non-Catholic, non-Jewish background. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/84 "2016-08-30T19:18:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You understand that such laws don’t exist now, though. > > And you understand that for such laws to be passed, both the House and Senate must approve them by majority vote, right? Of course. I never suggested otherwise. > [@](#): > > The limiting factor to such laws isn’t the Constitution. Congress can pass the law with a paragraph that says, “The RFRA doesn’t apply to this law.” In other words, it’s not the Supreme Court that’s your problem; it’s the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. When I said " I would absolutely vote in favor of laws saying that Church-run hospitals can’t use their religious beliefs as an excuse for providing a full range of care, if they take public funds.", I was hypothetically proposing a hypothetical law that would specifically counteract the RFRA (among other things). If it makes you feel better, you may also assume that, in my hypothetical, I have already voted in favor of ditching the RFRA. I bet if you were to read up on the subjunctive mood, it would help you relax more. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That’s horribly bigoted. Should we stop nominating Jewish people or African-Americans too? Ask me again when African American judges occupy 7 of the 9 chairs. But to elaborate on my response - I don’t have a problem with Catholic Supremes in general, I just want a broad range of backgrounds and philosophies to be represented in their discussions. I would not want a Court that was unbalanced towards Jewish or African American judges, either. I think it’s healthy that we’re moving to a better balance of men and women. I think it would be healthier if we had a broader range of religious experience, including athiest and agnostics. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/85 "2016-08-30T22:59:52Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Technically, there’s only four citations, the fifth is just a duplicate of the fourth. Did you read them? Each of the four _specifically_ said the hospital would not _induce_ labor. Do you know the difference between inducing labor and _preventing_ labor. Here’s a clue, they are opposites. See, that makes your citations a complete strawman, I said rig the woman up with Mag Sulfate, which when given as an IV prevents labor … all your citations about failure to induce labor are meaningless in context. > > See … “try and save the pregnancy” is actually quite different than preforming an abortion … try again … You also said, and I quote, “refuse services to a woman miscarrying her baby”. Which is exactly what they did. Don’t try and move the goalposts now. And as for trying to save the pregnancy, they didn’t try that either, now did they? They simply turned them away. > [@](#): > > The second strawman is that you say I don’t believe … I said I find it hard to believe … so I win that bet … English must be hard for you, finding something hard to believe does imply it is, in fact, believed … it’s just difficult to admit it or it was a difficult path to come to that belief. Split hairs much? ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/86 "2016-08-30T23:03:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Heck, Trump would be right about Curiel, if we assume Curiel couldn’t have integrity _unless_ he let his Mexican heritage be a factor in his decisions. Trump would be right about Curiel, if Curiel was not only a life member of an organization proclaiming that God favored Mexicans, but believed that his chances for eternal life were directly proportional to the depth of that belief and adherence to its tenets, and took part in a weekly ritual where he ate the flesh and drank the blood of some Mexican hero, in the belief that it made him a better person. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/87 "2016-08-30T23:28:52Z")
> [@Icerigger](#): > > It is serious concern, Catholic hospitals imposing their doctrine on patients instead of medical care. I don’t understand how the law allows a medical facility to bring theology into a standard of care. Unfortunately the problem seems to be growing. I would never under any circumstances recommend to a women in my family to come anywhere near a Catholic hospital in matters of reproductive health or related issues, such as treatment after a sexual assault or dealing with an ectopic pregnancy. > > [http://www.salon.com/2016/08/05/its-a-sin-womens-lives-at-risk-thanks-to-holier-than-thou-catholic-hospitals/](http://www.salon.com/2016/08/05/its-a-sin-womens-lives-at-risk-thanks-to-holier-than-thou-catholic-hospitals/) I have to agree. I hate to disparage the holy orders that first set up these hospitals, but considering they’ve turned into rather more secular corporations I can feel more comfortable being a prick about this. The Catholic Church has to be substantially driven out of the USA’s health care. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/88 "2016-08-30T23:33:40Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You don’t know what you are talking about. This is not pain and suffering, under the law. Why? Because the physician didn’t actively dislodge her IUD himself, so was not responsible for her injury? Isn’t negligence on the part of a physician still a kind of responsibility? OK, say we buy that. How about fraud, or failure to deliver services? On the part of the insurer, hospital, physician–any or all of them. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/89 "2016-08-31T00:05:10Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That’s horribly bigoted. Should we stop nominating Jewish people or African-Americans too? Why not? We have after all stopped nominating Protestants, which indicates some kind of weird problem. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/90 "2016-08-31T00:18:41Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Trump would be right about Curiel, if Curiel was not only a life member of an organization proclaiming that God favored Mexicans, but believed that his chances for eternal life were directly proportional to the depth of that belief and adherence to its tenets, and took part in a weekly ritual where he ate the flesh and drank the blood of some Mexican hero, in the belief that it made him a better person. I didn’t know integrity had such exacting standards or fast-moving goalposts. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/91 "2016-08-31T00:27:29Z")
> [@psychobunny](#): > > That said, I don’t know why health care plans are not mandated to disclose in big black letters that they only contract with catholic providers and that therefore care will be limited by catholic doctrine. They should make patients sign a statment that they understand this as part of the contract. That would probably get some overheated responses in certain quarters. Cries of “anti-Catholic bigotry,” namely. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > As much as I usually disagree with **D’Anconia** , he’s correct. Religious tests for office are unconstitutional, IIRC. If a Muslim justice vowed to uphold the current law as it is, then there should be no reason whatsoever to block his/her nomination. Same as a Catholic justice. If I were a US Senator, and I refused as a personal policy to vote for the confirmation of any Roman Catholic to a given panel which was already majority Roman Catholic, on the theory that the Church is overrepresented, how would I be in violation of the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/92 "2016-08-31T00:50:02Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > That would probably get some overheated responses in certain quarters. Cries of “anti-Catholic bigotry,” namely. > > If I were a US Senator, and I refused as a personal policy to vote for the confirmation of any Roman Catholic to a given panel which was already majority Roman Catholic, on the theory that the Church is overrepresented, how would I be in violation of the Constitution? What is this panel about? Are religious beliefs relevant? Otherwise, I imagine that the [No Religious Test Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause) would apply. And it _might_ violate the Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on religious beliefs. Perhaps someone more familiar with legal matters could offer a better answer. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/93 "2016-08-31T01:55:30Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > . . . If I were a US Senator, and I refused as a personal policy to vote for the confirmation of any Roman Catholic to a given panel which was already majority Roman Catholic, on the theory that the Church is overrepresented, how would I be in violation of the Constitution? Real Senators might very well hold this view and vote that way…but would be savvy enough not to admit it publicly! “The nominee doesn’t have the depth of judicial experience necessary” instead of “There are already too many Catholics on the bench.” But if a Senator did openly say such a thing…what remedy is there? Could someone conceivably sue, because the “no religious test” clause was violated? Extremely unlikely. It would be nice if the Senate censured him for bad conduct, but even that isn’t to be counted on. (And, alas, his constituents back home might just as likely agree with him as to vote him out of office because of it.) ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/94 "2016-08-31T02:00:14Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > What is this panel about? Let’s say, an appellate court. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/95 "2016-08-31T02:36:43Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > To my way of thought, that demonstrates his integrity. He knows which sphere of his life his religious beliefs apply to…and which they do not apply to. He has faith in God…but when he’s making legal rulings, he doesn’t let that religious belief overrule his understanding of the law. > > This is a good thing! The issue I have with this interpretation is that there are rarely any defined spheres in religion. The expectation in Christianity is that you will be a good Christian at your job. However, despite popular belief, Christianity doesn’t teach that you can force others to follow your religion. You’re supposed to preach. When someone chooses to sin, that is their issue, not yours. There is no rule saying “You must not allow abortion to become the law of the land” for example. It is my understanding that most religions are like this. The few that aren’t, I’m okay with not taking office. Not because of some religious test, but because their religion would effectively forbid them from doing the job. If they choose to do the job, then they aren’t a devout follower of that restrictive religion. In other words, a Catholic judge is still being a perfectly good Catholic when he upholds the law on abortion. He is free to not participate in it himself, but he is not compelling the other person to have an abortion just because the law allows it. And I apologize if this was a tangent. I just had a thought and wanted to post it. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/96 "2016-08-31T02:46:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It flies in the face of my understanding of ethics, yes. > > I make no claim that my understanding of ethics is universally applicable. I understand that. But, speaking as a Catholic, do you think that it is ethical by Catholic standards? That’s the issue I have with you treating ethics as being personal. It’s also institutional. You have ethics you follow as a lawyer, and you have ethics you follow as a Catholic. You talk about the former, so I think you could talk about the latter. What I’ve read before suggests that Catholicism teaches a duty to treat a dying patient. There may be some exceptions if the patient themselves doesn’t want to be treated, depending on what I read. But that’s it. For example, this from [the Catholic Health association](https://www.chausa.org/publications/health-progress/article/june-1993/care-of-the-dying-a-catholic-perspective) appears to say that there is a requirement to treat due to the sanctity of life. Only those acts which add increased suffering are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/97 "2016-08-31T03:10:44Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Let’s say, an appellate court. Not that familiar with it, so I’ll decline this one. However, I _imagine_ it would violate the Religious Test clause. Again, perhaps someone with more legal expertise could answer. ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/98 "2016-08-31T10:15:14Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Piety and devotion doesn’t necessarily involve a lawyerly or phariseetic dedication to every crossed t or dotted i of church doctrine. Sorry for this hijack, but is “phariseetic” really the adjectival form of Pharisee(s)? I find it oddly intriguing… ---
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/99 "2016-08-31T11:25:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yup, that’s the standard, from 42 USC § 1395dd(e)(1)(A). Although they can discharge her if she is “stablized,” meaning that “no material deterioration of the condition is likely, within reasonable medical probability, to result from the transfer of the individual from [the hospital].” 42 USC § 1395dd(e)(4)(B). > > I don’t know enough about the world of IUDs to understand whether the symptoms mentioned here are covered by the conditions listed above. It depends, and can’t be determined without an exam. But it is possible. However, I would hazard to say that if a guy were bleeding from his penis, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because they aren’t baby factories, and OH MY GOD BLEEDING FROM THE PENIS! ETA: > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What if the woman had declared “I’ve seen the light and accepted Jesus and want the devil’s pogo stick taken out forthwith!” I am going to refer to my IUD as “the devil’s pogo stick” from now on. Well done, sirrah! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/100 "2016-08-31T13:55:29Z")
> [@chorpler](#): > > Sorry for this hijack, but is “phariseetic” really the adjectival form of Pharisee(s)? I find it oddly intriguing… You’ll have to ask Phyllis Stein. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325.md?page=6)