That’s not how I read it - I thought they nailed him!
Anyway, you silly Americans - GO SINGLE PAYER ALREADY! You’ll avoid all this “out of network” crap.
They contributed to her suffering by withholding care. The fact that this was in violation of their own rules makes it that much worse.
If they insist on inflicting their religious beliefs on their patients…then, yes. That kind of theocracy must not be permitted.
I wasn’t commenting that the hospitals were breaking laws – watchwolf49 said that he didn’t believe a Catholic hospital would refuse to help a woman having a miscarriage. I provided cites where this has indeed occurred. I never said what they did was illegal. However, even if it’s legal, you cannot, in good conscience, tell me it’s ethical. Can you? :dubious:
That’s horribly bigoted. Should we stop nominating Jewish people or African-Americans too?
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 flies in the face of my understanding of ethics, yes.
I make no claim that my understanding of ethics is universally applicable.
I know, right. Next thing, there’ll be a Catholic president, and then the whole country will be answering to Rome!
Their race is immaterial. Their beliefs are not.
Tell me, would you favor appointing a Supreme Court justice who believes in Sharia law?
WRT why the woman may not have gone back to the doctor who placed the IUD, it is possible that she had moved or changed insurances since it was placed. She could live thousands of miles away.
It also may be that her insurance would cover an ER visit but since all of its participating hospitals were catholic, the only way she could get care would be to go out of network and pay full price for a secular ER-if she could even find one.
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.
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.
After a little digging, it looks like this did not qualify as a medical emergency, so I think that claim is out.
It looks like she probably doesn’t have a legal cause of action in court. I guess she might have a sex discrimination claim under PPACA, if she can show that this ethical directive is sex discriminatory. Arguable, I think, but not something any administrative panel is likely to accept for political reasons.
By making their appointment conditional on vowing to not follow their religion (when it conflicts with current law), you gave them a religious test.
ETA: And recent experience shows that candidates for the SC don’t always do what they say they’ll do during their hearings.
I tried to edit the following into my previous post, but got the dreaded five-minute buzzer when I hit Submit.
I agree that religious tests are unconstitutional, but I disagree with that line of the Constitution. So we need an amendment. But an amendment about that would never fly. So we’re fucked.
But why should an odious belief not be cause for rejection, just because it’s religious? If a nominee said that he believed in Hitler’s theory of a master race, he’d be immediately rejected. Where’s the line between that, and a belief that abortion for any reason is a crime, or that homosexuality or adultery or even consensual premarital sex should be a capital crime? IMO, a stupid belief is a stupid belief, whether it’s in the Bible or not.
Agreed.
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.
My mother’s a very devout Catholic and SHE favors abortion rights.
And obviously an “odious belief” should be rejected, whatever inspires it, religion or not. However, the statement, “well, we can’t have any more Catholics (or whatever group) on the court, because they’ll vote this way”, is insane. It violates the religious test law and I believe it would violate the Civil Rights Act as well. There’s a damned good reason for those laws.
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 …
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.
=≠=≠=≠=
Catholics hold a hard line on abortion … they believe the very weakest of us are entitled to the most protection … so killing an unborn baby electively is never an option to them.
They are within their rights to believe this … but I sure as hell don’t think they should be able to present themselves to the general public as a hospital unless they provide services normally expected by the general public. I’m not saying Catholics need to get out of the hospital business, they just need to leave their Catholicism out of their for-pay services.
I admit being unclear on how removing an IUD would run afoul of Catholic dogma. 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 can see why they would decline to insert the device, of course.
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?
Great, that makes two (living). There are millions who don’t. And there is an indeterminate percentage of them who are willing to sit before a Senate committee and lie about how they’ll behave if appointed.
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.
I’ve already acknowledged it violates the religious test law, and I’ve already acknowledged that there is no chance my religious test (which is, “Are you religious? If so, thanks for playing.”) would ever be enacted. It’s still my opinion that the law should be administered by people uninfluenced by religion, and I will agree to disagree with the world on that.
I’d be okay with it - if I perceived the greater integrity of a man who understood that his religious beliefs had no place in the functions of his particular job, and maintained that separation despite personal temptation to break it.
If one can’t leave one’s irrelevant beliefs “at the door”, then you could probably find grounds to recuse most any judge on most any case. 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.