True bLatch - I was forgetting about the ACLU's involvement in it. Think that further chalks up the "try to get a policy change to happen".
But I don't think they're aiming for the Catholic Church to change, just the messages that they propel. "Stop weighing in on X subject" type things - makes sense in a weird way, since hospitals do have ALOT of state involvement (for obvious reasons) that the Church should be a bit distant from them in all possible ways.
(Under American law murder is unlawful killing, not what your feelings say.)
The law is a product of mankind; mankind is not a product of the law. I would generally encourage you to refrain from anything you believe to be murder, whether the law acknowledges it as such or not.
Where there is a significant disagreement in society, such as there seems to be with regards to abortion, I would caution you to temperance. That is, don't go blowing up abortion clinics or assassinating abortion doctors. But there is certainly no need to participate.
.[/QUOTE]
So killing both the fetus and the mother is better than an abortion and saving the mother? Is that what you REALLY believe? Ideological purity over saving lives isn't just abhorrent, it's what terrorists justify their actions on. The ends justify the means. Would you tell your daughter or your wife to never get an abortion under any circumstance, even if it were to save their lives?
Besides driving, getting pregnant is one of the most risky activities a majority of woman can undertake in her life.
In SOME rural areas. Not lived in any with a monopoly with plenty of rural counties under my belt personally.
When the ambulance will take you to the nearest rural hospital, yes it is a monopoly.
55% of Texans live in rural areas, with many living in counties where the nearest hospital is one or two counties away. Seton holds a monopoly on rural hospitals in Central Texas.
To enforce a prohibition against the consumption of food, you would also have to use force. So that's not analogous. It would be more like refusing to trample over an innocent person in order to get food to another starving person.
No, I think that we could simply explain things to people and pass around their faces and every true human being would let them starve to death.
What they are saying is that they will not commit murder for the sake of murder (as an end), nor in the hopes of saving a life (as a means).
Okay, I realize you desperately want to sympathize with these people.
Let's look at what they did from the point of view that a fetus is full person:
They first chose not to attempt to save a life of person they knew was dying (the baby). Then they chose to let another person (the mother) suffer pointlessly and lied to her about her medical status because doing so might endanger the life person who they had already decided should be left to die. It was later, when she was dying on the floor in front of them, that they decided to murder her unborn child.
I'd like to move on to how we really need to see the world from Charles Mason's perspective now, he's a much more pleasant person.
Let's look at what they did from the point of view that a fetus is full person:
They first chose not to attempt to save a life of person they knew was dying (the baby). Then thy chose to let another person (the mother) suffer pointlessly and lied to her about her medical status because doing so might endanger the life person who they had already decided should be left to die. It was later, when she was dying on the floor in front of them, that they decided to murder her unborn child.
First, I just want to express some disgust in the way you engage people in debate - your insults are really not an appropriate response to an otherwise reasoned discussion.
Second, your above statement is 100% incorrect. First, there was a chance that the fetus could survive. Second, It has been the position of the conference and all of its hospitals that "Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child." I dont know how much clearer I can make that.
They made a mistake, and that somehow makes them monsters? Please. Even if it was a bad decision (and it may have been), or they were negligent in failing to inform the patient of all her options (they were), to characterize them they way you have is ridiculous. If all you're going to do is insult people, there is no point in you posting.
To everyone else, I think I've made my position clear - the benefits of catholic hospitals and the losses sustained from shutdowns precipitating from enforcing something like an abortion mandate FAR outweigh the benefit of the mandate (and for those that dont think this is possible - Cardinal George threatened to shut down all catholic hospitals, clinics, and charities in response to the contraceptive mandate for churches). This is a problem with the system, with people being unable to express their preference in advance. I think that, with the advancement in EMS, we'll get to a point soon where people can specify things like this.
As for the "what if the next hospital is 55 miles away" thing, my response is - too bad. Your closest hospital may also be ill equipped for life-saving brain surgery, but we aren't going to mandate that every hospital be able to do that as well, are we? (We shouldn't).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
I think you are neglecting to consider the impact of all of them closing at once*. This wouldn't be one hospital shutting down, it would be hundreds. The system is not set up to absorb that many into any one place at one time.
*Probably not simultaneously but within months of each other is close enough for these purposes.
Oh I see what you're saying, sorry I was misunderstanding.
I'm not sure that would happen, but there is no precedent that I'm aware of for a giant close-out like that, so I can't say for certain. There would definitely be government involvement.
Professionally, I'm okay with it because in reality, the actual need for an abortion in circumstances like this is incredibly rare (as per the ACA guidelines I post a ways back). It's just infuriating that when the need does occur that stuff like this happens.
In SOME rural areas. Not lived in any with a monopoly with plenty of rural counties under my belt personally.
When the ambulance will take you to the nearest rural hospital, yes it is a monopoly.
55% of Texans live in rural areas, with many living in counties where the nearest hospital is one or two counties away. Seton holds a monopoly on rural hospitals in Central Texas.
I'm sure some states are like that but you stated it as an absolute as if it was everywhere.
It depends on what you mean by 'monopoly', or more specifically what your operating area for that monopoly is. I think Battery has it right when he refers to EMS. If there is only one hospital EMS will take you to, or can take you to in a reasonable amount of time, it's essentially a monopoly.
First, I just want to express some disgust in the way you engage people in debate - your insults are really not an appropriate response to an otherwise reasoned discussion.
I'm sorry I don't share other everyone else's fondness for people who endanger the lives of people they are sworn to protect and engage in torture.
Second, your above statement is 100% incorrect. First, there was a chance that the fetus could survive. Second, It has been the position of the conference and all of its hospitals that "Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child." I dont know how much clearer I can make that.
Right and this means that they intentionally allow the patient to become septic before acting, that is how the policy is applied. Are you following here? Their intention, and the policy of the Catholic church, was to endanger her life with no intention of saving her child's life. There are two outcomes to her situation without medical intervention: The fetus is reabsorbed (and dies) or she becomes septic (and the fetus dies). They caused her to suffer and placed her in greater medical danger by denying her knowledge that she needed. They did not to this to benefit her. They did not do this to benefit the fetus. The only thing they did, following the dictates and beliefs of their religion, was repeatedly leave two people to die.
I hold them to the same standards as any other doctor. If a doctor knows you have rabies and decides not to tell you about it until you stop being able to breathe the doctor is a monster. This situation is identical. They, and the Catholic church, should not be allowed to hide behind other people's love of moral relativism.
Try to see this from my perspective for a second: When you intentionally torture and lie to people you're a bad person. I know it's controversial but it's what I believe.
They made a mistake, and that somehow makes them monsters? Please.
They intentionally lied to her about her medical status three times even when she standing in front of them being poisoned by sepsis. It is not negligence to look at a person who is dying and say "Go home, you're fine." it is malice.
As for the "what if the next hospital is 55 miles away" thing, my response is - too bad. Your closest hospital may also be ill equipped for life-saving brain surgery, but we aren't going to mandate that every hospital be able to do that as well, are we? (We shouldn't).
This isn't the same situation, though, they were fully capable for performing the operation. They just didn't feel like it. To use the brain surgeon example: If a black person with brain damage is rushed to the hospital and the brain surgeon says "I don't operate on blacks, bad luck buddy." he should be fired and the people who hired him should be investigated.
EMS for me in Carroll County took me to CCGH and in Frederick County took me to Sshady Grove Adventist.
I know exactly where you are talking about but that's overly specific. Even Carroll County and Frederick aren't that rural compared to, say, Texas. Besides, the driving time from Frederick to Baltimore is only 30 minutes.
I think you are neglecting to consider the impact of all of them closing at once*. This wouldn't be one hospital shutting down, it would be hundreds. The system is not set up to absorb that many into any one place at one time.
*Probably not simultaneously but within months of each other is close enough for these purposes.
Oh I see what you're saying, sorry I was misunderstanding.
I'm not sure that would happen, but there is no precedent that I'm aware of for a giant close-out like that, so I can't say for certain. There would definitely be government involvement.
Professionally, I'm okay with it because in reality, the actual need for an abortion in circumstances like this is incredibly rare (as per the ACA guidelines I post a ways back). It's just infuriating that when the need does occur that stuff like this happens.
I would assume that any attempt at mass hospital closures would result in the governments affected declaring a medical emergency and appointing their own administrators to run the hospitals until a new legal status is established.
How much power does the Catholic Church actually have over these hospitals? Do they even have the power to order them closed?
I would assume that any attempt at mass hospital closures would result in the governments affected declaring a medical emergency and appointing their own administrators to run the hospitals until a new legal status is established.
Except, the hospitals are private entities. The government can't just appoint administrators to take over. The government (thankfully!) does not have that power.
How much power does the Catholic Church actually have over these hospitals? Do they even have the power to order them closed?
That is the million dollar question. If they don't have enough power to shut them down, then there's also no real way to argue that they have enough power that they should be liable.
The real issue is not the closing of doors entirely, but the pulling of funding and support. The Catholic Hospital systems do rely on the church to stay open and receive sufficient funding, even if they aren't entirely reliant on it. The disruption caused by essentially banning the Catholic Church from participating in the hospital system would be significant and do more harm than any good it could possibly achieve.
I would assume that any attempt at mass hospital closures would result in the governments affected declaring a medical emergency and appointing their own administrators to run the hospitals until a new legal status is established.
The laws around that ability vary by state. In mine, the Secretary of Health has the ability to declare a public health emergency (It's called something different but the name escapes me), but I think the attorneys would have a field day (or a stroke) figuring out whether or not that would apply to a mass hospital closure.
Most likely you're correct, it was my thinking as well. A hospital is perfectly capable of running day-to-day without senior leadership getting involved in the process. They're essentially little cities.
How much power does the Catholic Church actually have over these hospitals? Do they even have the power to order them closed?
The Catholic Church is more like a franchise than a single entity, like most people describe. The non-profits that run these facilities may have been started by the church or have a church affiliation, but there isn't any direct control over the day to day. At best, the affililiation would set (or 'recommend') policies, like in this case.
The Catholic Church is more like a franchise than a single entity, like most people describe. The non-profits that run these facilities may have been started by the church or have a church affiliation, but there isn't any direct control over the day to day. At best, the affiliation would set (or 'recommend') policies, like in this case.
The thing to remember here, though, is that much like any franchise the Church provides significant support to the hospitals, either directly or indirectly. If that support is pulled the Hospital's could continue day - to day operations for a while, but it would need to be replaced (relatively) fast.
We're not talking about turning people in the ICU out on the streets by any means. But, realistically you could see hospitals having to postpone procedures that aren't immediately necessary, and essentially stripping down to bare bones for a significant amount of time.
Plus, then you need someone to fill in the void that the Church left. Which can't really happen instantaneously.
Plus, then you need someone to fill in the void that the Church left. Which can't really happen instantaneously.
I'd have to see how much support they're actually getting from the church, first, but I highly doubt these hospitals aren't at least mostly self-sustaining. Most hospitals can run without a giant backer constantly funneling in money.
Would it be better for the community the hospital operates in if there was no hospitals? I mean a hospital providing health care but not abortions is clearly of no use. God forbid you have to go through the complicated procedure that is condom use or *GASP* stop having sex. What a bunch of tyrants these catholics are.
You know the Catholics are not under any obligation to provide health services they can stop funding such projects if the womans outrage would be bettered in such a way. I'm sure it is impossible to find a non catholic hospital in the US anyway. They clearly have the health care market cornered.
Would it be better for the community the hospital operates in if there was no hospitals? I mean a hospital providing health care but not abortions is clearly of no use. God forbid you have to go through the complicated procedure that is condom use or *GASP* stop having sex. What a bunch of tyrants these catholics are.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Catholic church's official stance on contraception also negative?
Would it be better for the community the hospital operates in if there was no hospitals? I mean a hospital providing health care but not abortions is clearly of no use. God forbid you have to go through the complicated procedure that is condom use or *GASP* stop having sex. What a bunch of tyrants these catholics are.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Catholic church's official stance on contraception also negative?
"The Catholic Church still officially teaches that the use of contraceptives is always wrong..."
"Moreover, even when condoms can prevent women from being infected with AIDS, Church authorities forbid it..."
Would it be better for the community the hospital operates in if there was no hospitals? I mean a hospital providing health care but not abortions is clearly of no use. God forbid you have to go through the complicated procedure that is condom use or *GASP* stop having sex. What a bunch of tyrants these catholics are.
You know the Catholics are not under any obligation to provide health services they can stop funding such projects if the womans outrage would be bettered in such a way. I'm sure it is impossible to find a non catholic hospital in the US anyway. They clearly have the health care market cornered.
You are essentially saying 'If the baby is going to die and take the mother with it, let her die she shouldn't have had sex'. It's ridiculous. We're not talking about aborting a healthy or viable fetus.
Would it be better for the community the hospital operates in if there was no hospitals? I mean a hospital providing health care but not abortions is clearly of no use. God forbid you have to go through the complicated procedure that is condom use or *GASP* stop having sex. What a bunch of tyrants these catholics are.
You know the Catholics are not under any obligation to provide health services they can stop funding such projects if the womans outrage would be bettered in such a way. I'm sure it is impossible to find a non catholic hospital in the US anyway. They clearly have the health care market cornered.
As someone who was raised Catholic and has a firm grasp of political science, there is a long history of comparativists saying that Catholicism is correlated with authoritarian regimes.
And the Catholic Church encourages people to have sex within the confines of marriage, and produce many babies. To the Church, condoms are the same as an abortion due to the Biblical story of Onan. But the Catholic Church is founded in Tertullian's idea that "every woman is an Eve," that it is the fault of womankind that humanity exists in pain. Is that the kind of hatred that you want in public health?
Would it be better for the community the hospital operates in if there was no hospitals? I mean a hospital providing health care but not abortions is clearly of no use. God forbid you have to go through the complicated procedure that is condom use or *GASP* stop having sex. What a bunch of tyrants these catholics are.
You know the Catholics are not under any obligation to provide health services they can stop funding such projects if the womans outrage would be bettered in such a way. I'm sure it is impossible to find a non catholic hospital in the US anyway. They clearly have the health care market cornered.
As someone who was raised Catholic and has a firm grasp of political science, there is a long history of comparativists saying that Catholicism is correlated with authoritarian regimes.
And the Catholic Church encourages people to have sex within the confines of marriage, and produce many babies. To the Church, condoms are the same as an abortion due to the Biblical story of Onan. But the Catholic Church is founded in Tertullian's idea that "every woman is an Eve," that it is the fault of womankind that humanity exists in pain. Is that the kind of hatred that you want in public health?
Has zero to do with hatred, nice mischaracterization there. Sanctity of life anyone? Bingo.
Catholics don't want to perform abortions, bottom line. Don't go to a Catholic Hospital if your goal is to have one.
People who are anti religious of course have no problem with attempting to dictate actions that go against religious beliefs because they just want what they want and could care less how important someones' beliefs are to them. A world full of Veruca Salts attempting to act morally outraged, hahahaha what a sham.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CAMILLA: You, sir, should unmask.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
And the Catholic Church encourages people to have sex within the confines of marriage, and produce many babies.
Is this really true? The fact that this church requires the priest to have no children and no spouse always gave me the idea that they do value and promote celibacy.
As someone who was raised Catholic and has a firm grasp of political science, there is a long history of comparativists saying that Catholicism is correlated with authoritarian regimes.
As someone who understands statistics... so what? Also, as someone who hasn't seen the data... [needs citation]. "A long history of comparativists saying ...", absent any citation, is roughly equivalent to "well, my Dad told me once that..."
And the Catholic Church encourages people to have sex within the confines of marriage, and produce many babies. To the Church, condoms are the same as an abortion due to the Biblical story of Onan.
No, to the Church, Condoms are a sin due to a long history of Church teaching and traditions that includes but is not limited to the story of Onan. Abortion is also a sin, but to say that the church considers abortion and condom use *the same* is factually wrong. They are both sins, yes, but they are not the same sin. Any more than lying is the same sin as sex outside of marriage.
But the Catholic Church is founded in Tertullian's idea that "every woman is an Eve," that it is the fault of womankind that humanity exists in pain. Is that the kind of hatred that you want in public health?
I'm fairly certain that if you look at actual Church teachings, instead of Jack Chick [or whatever the secular version of his view on Catholicism would be], you'd find its quite a fair bit more nuanced than that.
Would it be better for the community the hospital operates in if there was no hospitals? I mean a hospital providing health care but not abortions is clearly of no use. God forbid you have to go through the complicated procedure that is condom use or *GASP* stop having sex. What a bunch of tyrants these catholics are.
You know the Catholics are not under any obligation to provide health services they can stop funding such projects if the womans outrage would be bettered in such a way. I'm sure it is impossible to find a non catholic hospital in the US anyway. They clearly have the health care market cornered.
Wow... Have you even tried to read the OP and the rest of the post, or did you see the title and just thought: "What the hell, I'll make an (un)educated guess"?
It was a medically necessary abortion, she was brought to that hospital because it's a medical emergency and thus she had no time to go to another one. Now read the thread and then post again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
But I don't think they're aiming for the Catholic Church to change, just the messages that they propel. "Stop weighing in on X subject" type things - makes sense in a weird way, since hospitals do have ALOT of state involvement (for obvious reasons) that the Church should be a bit distant from them in all possible ways.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
The law is a product of mankind; mankind is not a product of the law. I would generally encourage you to refrain from anything you believe to be murder, whether the law acknowledges it as such or not.
Where there is a significant disagreement in society, such as there seems to be with regards to abortion, I would caution you to temperance. That is, don't go blowing up abortion clinics or assassinating abortion doctors. But there is certainly no need to participate.
.[/QUOTE]
So killing both the fetus and the mother is better than an abortion and saving the mother? Is that what you REALLY believe? Ideological purity over saving lives isn't just abhorrent, it's what terrorists justify their actions on. The ends justify the means. Would you tell your daughter or your wife to never get an abortion under any circumstance, even if it were to save their lives?
Besides driving, getting pregnant is one of the most risky activities a majority of woman can undertake in her life.
When the ambulance will take you to the nearest rural hospital, yes it is a monopoly.
55% of Texans live in rural areas, with many living in counties where the nearest hospital is one or two counties away. Seton holds a monopoly on rural hospitals in Central Texas.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
No, I think that we could simply explain things to people and pass around their faces and every true human being would let them starve to death.
Okay, I realize you desperately want to sympathize with these people.
Let's look at what they did from the point of view that a fetus is full person:
They first chose not to attempt to save a life of person they knew was dying (the baby). Then they chose to let another person (the mother) suffer pointlessly and lied to her about her medical status because doing so might endanger the life person who they had already decided should be left to die. It was later, when she was dying on the floor in front of them, that they decided to murder her unborn child.
I'd like to move on to how we really need to see the world from Charles Mason's perspective now, he's a much more pleasant person.
First, I just want to express some disgust in the way you engage people in debate - your insults are really not an appropriate response to an otherwise reasoned discussion.
Second, your above statement is 100% incorrect. First, there was a chance that the fetus could survive. Second, It has been the position of the conference and all of its hospitals that "Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child." I dont know how much clearer I can make that.
They made a mistake, and that somehow makes them monsters? Please. Even if it was a bad decision (and it may have been), or they were negligent in failing to inform the patient of all her options (they were), to characterize them they way you have is ridiculous. If all you're going to do is insult people, there is no point in you posting.
To everyone else, I think I've made my position clear - the benefits of catholic hospitals and the losses sustained from shutdowns precipitating from enforcing something like an abortion mandate FAR outweigh the benefit of the mandate (and for those that dont think this is possible - Cardinal George threatened to shut down all catholic hospitals, clinics, and charities in response to the contraceptive mandate for churches). This is a problem with the system, with people being unable to express their preference in advance. I think that, with the advancement in EMS, we'll get to a point soon where people can specify things like this.
As for the "what if the next hospital is 55 miles away" thing, my response is - too bad. Your closest hospital may also be ill equipped for life-saving brain surgery, but we aren't going to mandate that every hospital be able to do that as well, are we? (We shouldn't).
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Oh I see what you're saying, sorry I was misunderstanding.
I'm not sure that would happen, but there is no precedent that I'm aware of for a giant close-out like that, so I can't say for certain. There would definitely be government involvement.
Professionally, I'm okay with it because in reality, the actual need for an abortion in circumstances like this is incredibly rare (as per the ACA guidelines I post a ways back). It's just infuriating that when the need does occur that stuff like this happens.
It depends on what you mean by 'monopoly', or more specifically what your operating area for that monopoly is. I think Battery has it right when he refers to EMS. If there is only one hospital EMS will take you to, or can take you to in a reasonable amount of time, it's essentially a monopoly.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I'm sorry I don't share other everyone else's fondness for people who endanger the lives of people they are sworn to protect and engage in torture.
Right and this means that they intentionally allow the patient to become septic before acting, that is how the policy is applied. Are you following here? Their intention, and the policy of the Catholic church, was to endanger her life with no intention of saving her child's life. There are two outcomes to her situation without medical intervention: The fetus is reabsorbed (and dies) or she becomes septic (and the fetus dies). They caused her to suffer and placed her in greater medical danger by denying her knowledge that she needed. They did not to this to benefit her. They did not do this to benefit the fetus. The only thing they did, following the dictates and beliefs of their religion, was repeatedly leave two people to die.
I hold them to the same standards as any other doctor. If a doctor knows you have rabies and decides not to tell you about it until you stop being able to breathe the doctor is a monster. This situation is identical. They, and the Catholic church, should not be allowed to hide behind other people's love of moral relativism.
Try to see this from my perspective for a second: When you intentionally torture and lie to people you're a bad person. I know it's controversial but it's what I believe.
They intentionally lied to her about her medical status three times even when she standing in front of them being poisoned by sepsis. It is not negligence to look at a person who is dying and say "Go home, you're fine." it is malice.
This isn't the same situation, though, they were fully capable for performing the operation. They just didn't feel like it. To use the brain surgeon example: If a black person with brain damage is rushed to the hospital and the brain surgeon says "I don't operate on blacks, bad luck buddy." he should be fired and the people who hired him should be investigated.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I know exactly where you are talking about but that's overly specific. Even Carroll County and Frederick aren't that rural compared to, say, Texas. Besides, the driving time from Frederick to Baltimore is only 30 minutes.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
But true New England/MD rural isn't quite the same as Midwest rural.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I would assume that any attempt at mass hospital closures would result in the governments affected declaring a medical emergency and appointing their own administrators to run the hospitals until a new legal status is established.
How much power does the Catholic Church actually have over these hospitals? Do they even have the power to order them closed?
Except, the hospitals are private entities. The government can't just appoint administrators to take over. The government (thankfully!) does not have that power.
That is the million dollar question. If they don't have enough power to shut them down, then there's also no real way to argue that they have enough power that they should be liable.
The real issue is not the closing of doors entirely, but the pulling of funding and support. The Catholic Hospital systems do rely on the church to stay open and receive sufficient funding, even if they aren't entirely reliant on it. The disruption caused by essentially banning the Catholic Church from participating in the hospital system would be significant and do more harm than any good it could possibly achieve.
The laws around that ability vary by state. In mine, the Secretary of Health has the ability to declare a public health emergency (It's called something different but the name escapes me), but I think the attorneys would have a field day (or a stroke) figuring out whether or not that would apply to a mass hospital closure.
Most likely you're correct, it was my thinking as well. A hospital is perfectly capable of running day-to-day without senior leadership getting involved in the process. They're essentially little cities.
The Catholic Church is more like a franchise than a single entity, like most people describe. The non-profits that run these facilities may have been started by the church or have a church affiliation, but there isn't any direct control over the day to day. At best, the affililiation would set (or 'recommend') policies, like in this case.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The thing to remember here, though, is that much like any franchise the Church provides significant support to the hospitals, either directly or indirectly. If that support is pulled the Hospital's could continue day - to day operations for a while, but it would need to be replaced (relatively) fast.
We're not talking about turning people in the ICU out on the streets by any means. But, realistically you could see hospitals having to postpone procedures that aren't immediately necessary, and essentially stripping down to bare bones for a significant amount of time.
Plus, then you need someone to fill in the void that the Church left. Which can't really happen instantaneously.
I'd have to see how much support they're actually getting from the church, first, but I highly doubt these hospitals aren't at least mostly self-sustaining. Most hospitals can run without a giant backer constantly funneling in money.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You know the Catholics are not under any obligation to provide health services they can stop funding such projects if the womans outrage would be bettered in such a way. I'm sure it is impossible to find a non catholic hospital in the US anyway. They clearly have the health care market cornered.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Catholic church's official stance on contraception also negative?
"The Catholic Church still officially teaches that the use of contraceptives is always wrong..."
"Moreover, even when condoms can prevent women from being infected with AIDS, Church authorities forbid it..."
http://www.churchauthority.org/living/contraception.asp
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
You are essentially saying 'If the baby is going to die and take the mother with it, let her die she shouldn't have had sex'. It's ridiculous. We're not talking about aborting a healthy or viable fetus.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
As someone who was raised Catholic and has a firm grasp of political science, there is a long history of comparativists saying that Catholicism is correlated with authoritarian regimes.
And the Catholic Church encourages people to have sex within the confines of marriage, and produce many babies. To the Church, condoms are the same as an abortion due to the Biblical story of Onan. But the Catholic Church is founded in Tertullian's idea that "every woman is an Eve," that it is the fault of womankind that humanity exists in pain. Is that the kind of hatred that you want in public health?
Has zero to do with hatred, nice mischaracterization there. Sanctity of life anyone? Bingo.
Catholics don't want to perform abortions, bottom line. Don't go to a Catholic Hospital if your goal is to have one.
People who are anti religious of course have no problem with attempting to dictate actions that go against religious beliefs because they just want what they want and could care less how important someones' beliefs are to them. A world full of Veruca Salts attempting to act morally outraged, hahahaha what a sham.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
Is this really true? The fact that this church requires the priest to have no children and no spouse always gave me the idea that they do value and promote celibacy.
As someone who understands statistics... so what? Also, as someone who hasn't seen the data... [needs citation]. "A long history of comparativists saying ...", absent any citation, is roughly equivalent to "well, my Dad told me once that..."
No, to the Church, Condoms are a sin due to a long history of Church teaching and traditions that includes but is not limited to the story of Onan. Abortion is also a sin, but to say that the church considers abortion and condom use *the same* is factually wrong. They are both sins, yes, but they are not the same sin. Any more than lying is the same sin as sex outside of marriage.
I'm fairly certain that if you look at actual Church teachings, instead of Jack Chick [or whatever the secular version of his view on Catholicism would be], you'd find its quite a fair bit more nuanced than that.
Wow... Have you even tried to read the OP and the rest of the post, or did you see the title and just thought: "What the hell, I'll make an (un)educated guess"?
It was a medically necessary abortion, she was brought to that hospital because it's a medical emergency and thus she had no time to go to another one. Now read the thread and then post again.