So, you’re going to close down all the Catholic hospitals? Or I guess prevent them from accepting Medicare/Medicaid funding?
I’m not defending the hospital in this particular case (and neither is the hospital itself), but, push comes to shove, if you force a Catholic hospital to choose between its ethics and closing, I’d put it 75% that it will close.
Yeesh … last trip the the ER was $350 for some stitches … ten years ago … prices have gone up that much?
Thanks for answering …
No way … hospitals are cash cows for the Church … these are Catholics remember …
You realize that these are two different policies?
The word “additionally” was used.
Also relevant: Three gospels tell of Jesus and the bleeding woman By Jewish law she was “unclean”–and had been so for 12 years. Touching his garment healed her–and he was not offended when he heard her story.
The hospital needs to educate anyone allowed to admit patients. But the idiotic doctor was not an “employee.”
Gender discrimination? What, on the grounds that they would have removed the IUD had she been a man? 
What would constitute a “real cite”? Vatican.com?
Without looking up the original article, they posited that the hospital wouldn’t have turned away a man with vasectomy problems. However, I don’t think there’s any basis to their contention; just a wild accusation.
Why couldn’t she go back to the doctor she got the IUD from? I didn’t see anything in the story about that.
He didn’t have the benefit of counsel from modern lawyers who could advise him on restraint-of-trade liability issues.
Maybe had that advantage at the trial, he got a suspended sentence!
Too soon?
Nice catch … just something about this story that screams spin … I find it very hard to believe a Catholic hospital would refuse services to a woman miscarrying her baby, refuse to try and save the pregnancy … that makes no sense at all … think of all the profit they’d make rigging her up with Mag Sulfate …
There’s nothing in the article to indicate she was pregnant.
The OB that placed the IUD might not have been a surgeon capable of repairing the damage that was causing the the bleeding.
And who knows - the OB may well have been retired/vacationing/out of office hours. People see different doctors all the time for normal reasons.
Yes, it’s a huge problem that the Catholic Church is so involved in public hospitals. 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 don’t really care how the Catholic Church responds to it. I don’t care if they sell off the hospitals or start hocking some Michaelangelos to pay for the hospitals without public funds (as if). It would be disaster in the short term, and of course, endless talking heads about Hillary hating on Christians, but unfortunately, it’s necessary to get religion out of our medical decisions.
Hopefully, by the time those laws reach the Supreme Court, Hillary would have been able to seat a couple new Justices. (And honestly - it’s time to stop nominating Catholics to the Supreme Court, at least until the balance evens out some.)
Wanna bet?
Woman Denied Miscarriage Care at Catholic Hospital Fights Back
Lawsuits Target Catholic Hospitals For Refusing To Provide Emergency Miscarriage Management
There Are Nearly 550 Catholic Hospitals That Can Deny Women Emergency Reproductive Care
Miscarriage? Don’t Go to A Catholic Hospital
This Catholic Hospital Failed Women Who Were Suffering Miscarriages
Abortion ban linked to dangerous miscarriages at Catholic hospital, report claims
From the last link:
That’s not a description of civil liability.
Liability can generally come about in two ways: in tort and in contract.
Contract law covers those situations in which two parties have a contractual agreement and one breaches that agreement. Violating the terms of the agreement generally gives rise to liability – we say, in effect, that the one who breached the terms of the contract is required to fix whatever damages arose from his breach.
Tort law covers civil wrongs arising from negligent or intentional breaches of duty done by one party to another.
Not every “employee fuck up” creates civil liability in tort, or in contract.
This particular incident may, but as yet, I have not heard anyone identify what it might be.
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?
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.
One possible theory is that the failure to provide urgent medical care violates the the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. Assuming the statute applies to this facility (which is likely), it requires proof that the hospital failed to provide “for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition.” They can also transfer the patient under some circumstances, but that appears not to have happened here.
I think the key issue there would be whether the pain and bleeding were considered an emergency medical condition, which is defined in relevant part as "a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy; (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions; or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.
From the opinion dismissing the suit (internal citations omitted):
The heartless fuckwads had the law on their side.
All is right with the world.