Should Catholic Hospitals be compelled to provide the "morning after pill"?

[BelleMcNally]

But it doesn't save the rape victim's life at that moment to administer the MAP. Ending or preventing a possible pregnancy at that moment is not necessary to stabilize her and save her life.

Not explicitly, no. But why force someone who will have to deal with recovering from rape to deal with recovering from the pain of having an abortion later on because a pregnancy could have been prevented and wasn't?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Government has done that since the founding, prelapsarian myths notwithstanding. The same arguments were asserted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the court had little problem finding that the Commerce Clause permits just such regulation. Earlier than that, the railroads reserved the right to limit what crops they would transport, to no avail. Ditto for Mississippi River commerce even earlier. The Federalists and then the Whigs won these arguments generation ago

I'm still not following how not offering a service or product at all is discriminatory.

The items you describe above are just that or a blocking of commerce. What an INDIVIDUAL business decides to do, does not block commerce.

I'm just picturing the law saying--Publix must legally carry "Wonder" bread.

Heaven forbid a spot inspection on a day the item sold out. Automatic fine for not properly assessing demand.

A private business can determine its inventory--it doesn't block commerce.

Now preventing Wonder trucks from driving on the roads....that would block commerce and that would be illegal. Wonder is entitled to conduct business after all. They cannot bully their way into stores though and say the law permits THEIR bread to be on the shelves b/c other breads are permitted.


Although--these laws may be a good thing. I might actually be able to finally find the products I need at Super Walmert and save me some money.



A small community hospital may not have an ER. They may not have a trauma unit. There lack of a service for business reasons does not make it discrimatory.

How is not offering 1 pill that is NOT a lifesaving measure--discriminatory?

And if it is that important--direct the ambulance or medevac her to a hospital for that treatment just like I would have to do with my child should she sustain a serious brain injury as my hospital can only do so much.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Not explicitly, no. But why force someone who will have to deal with recovering from rape to deal with recovering from the pain of having an abortion later on because a pregnancy could have been prevented and wasn't?

Unlike a lifesaving treatment--if unperformed the patient will die. There is no guarantee that the victim will become pregnant.


I will be very interested to see how this plays out.

The buzzer is ringing and time to clean my home---happy discussion everyone.

 

[BelleMcNally]

How is not offering 1 pill that is NOT a lifesaving measure--discriminatory?

And if it is that important--direct the ambulance or medevac her to a hospital for that treatment just like I would have to do with my child should she sustain a serious brain injury as my hospital can only do so much.

Well, there are all sort of procedures that are performed that aren't lifesaving that we can all agree are necessary: setting a broken leg, for instance? Yes, there's a chance you might die from it but you can't prove that you will, so why bother? And pregnancy is hardly a superficial change to a woman's life and body. Medicine is just as much about preventing and treating pain as it is about saving lives.

Also, the morning after pill can viably be provided at all hospitals--state-of-the-art operating facilities cannot. It's practically a financial and physical impossibility to offer those kind of specialized facilities everywhere. The only thing preventing the morning after pill from being available in every hospital is a collection of individual moral judgments--so I think all of the "my hosptial doesn't have a neo-natology unit" arguments are verging on being red herrings

 

[sheriblanche]

And how is that?

I don't want to pay for medevac--so my hospital should have EVERY single thing I need in case my children are sick or injured. They shoudl be able to heal her on site and save the expense of medevac transport.

I shouldn't have to do things their way and increase my costs.

Right?

It sounds like you believe that you have a right to more than might be so. Do you own this hospital? If not, why do you think you have any right to dictate what they do and don't offer. Understand- so many of you think that "accepting public funding" means that the hospital gets a hand out from the government. Not so- it means that the hospital is allowed to accept medicare and medicaid as form of payment. This, by the way, is what most patients have for "insurance". Where I work the majority of our patients are on some sort of assistance. If the "catholic" hospitals don't care for them they will be forced to provide care only for those who actually have insurance or the means to pay for their care. So- financially the hospitals will benefit. Then, they can close the ER's (which, by the way, are the one department that consistently operates at a lose everywhere), this will eliminate the problem and save them even more money. Finally- they can do all this without any input from you. The laws allow for this since they would be a private hospital no longer accepting "public" money.
You may think you have a RIGHT TO SERVICES- most Americans claim this because they have never had first hand experience with real public healthcare. This would cure you of the idea that you had any actual rights to the services of your choice. (Unless, like so many in public health countries- you chose to pay out of pocket).

 

[sodaseller]

I'm still not following how not offering a service or product at all is discriminatory.

The items you describe above are just that or a blocking of commerce. What an INDIVIDUAL business decides to do, does not block commerce.

I'm just picturing the law saying--Publix must legally carry "Wonder" bread.

Heaven forbid a spot inspection on a day the item sold out. Automatic fine for not properly assessing demand.

A private business can determine its inventory--it doesn't block commerce.

Now preventing Wonder trucks from driving on the roads....that would block commerce and that would be illegal. Wonder is entitled to conduct business after all. They cannot bully their way into stores though and say the law permits THEIR bread to be on the shelves b/c other breads are permitted.


Although--these laws may be a good thing. I might actually be able to finally find the products I need at Super Walmert and save me some money.



A small community hospital may not have an ER. They may not have a trauma unit. There lack of a service for business reasons does not make it discrimatory.

How is not offering 1 pill that is NOT a lifesaving measure--discriminatory?

And if it is that important--direct the ambulance or medevac her to a hospital for that treatment just like I would have to do with my child should she sustain a serious brain injury as my hospital can only do so much.

Government has always dictated what must be carried - still does under common carrier regulations. Congress has plenary authority under Commerce Clause to regulate Interstate Commerce, and does so, in the case of common carriers (and hospitals would fall under this) under the doctrines of necessity and market power, and under the Civil Rights Act, to prevent discrimination. All the same arguments were extended on behalf of restaurants, hotels etc. that wished to deny service on the basis of race. We came up with a corollary to the antitrust "essential facilities doctrine", whose name escapes me presently because it is dominated by antitrust ruminations. And if restaurants and motels are too essential to deny on a discriminatory basis, the same reasoning could apply to hospitals, although their provision of services is not discriminatory.

But all of this is beside my point. There is a large element of incitement in the current political zeitgeist, trying to froth the faithful that we lived in a utopian libertania before FDR and LBJ, when the reality is just the opposite. Like the radical imams with the additional cartoons, they whip up hatred with these false tales. It just ain't true. Change it if you like, but debate it honestly, not as some dangerous new development, but as something we have recognized the necessity of throughout the history of the Republic.

If it makes you feel any better, or maybe more scared, am providing input to the Congressionally mandated Antitrust Modernization Commission on analogous laws, and we are recommending that they be more difficult to enact. But no one pretends they're unknown or unthinkable, because history is replete with thousands of counterexamples

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It sounds like you believe that you have a right to more than might be so. Do you own this hospital? If not, why do you think you have any right to dictate what they do and don't offer.

I don't.

The post you quoted was sarcasm and not an actual expectation that on demand my hospital do things they don't feel is in the best interest of the patient or they are not as capable of doing as another hospital.


Sorry--just stepping back in to clarify. Back to what I should be doing instead.

 

[Galahad]

If they have the facilities and personnel, sure.

Really? Required? So if they have one surgeon and team experienced in a particular procedure, they must offer it?

All but the largest hospitals have quite a large number of services they don't offer - even if they have personnel qualified to provide it.

Nice comparison. A rape victim being giving a pill to prevent her from facing even more health risks then the ones she has already been subjected to from being raped....as compared to a *** job.

No. The point is what is important enough to require by law that a healthcare provider offer and what isn't? You could have a building full of OB/GYNs none of whom do elective abortions. So what do you do - take away their license to practice medicine if they refuse. Who pays the higher costs when there is suddenly a shortage of providers.

My point is, Requiring a service be provided by law has very far reaching consequences, especially when you are talking about a commodity that most people can't do.

BTW, FWIW, the incidence of pregnancy from rape is extraordinarily low. I agree that the "morning after pill" is SOP after a sexual assault and it should be, but statistically few rape victims become pregnant.

 

[BelleMcNally]

BTW, FWIW, the incidence of pregnancy from rape is extraordinarily low. I agree that the "morning after pill" is SOP after a sexual assault and it should be, but statistically few rape victims become pregnant.

Statistically very few women have abortions--what's your point?

Also, by anyone's estimations, rape statistics are terribly skewed because it's thought that the majority of rapes go unreported...

ETA: I still don't really know where I stand on this issue, just trying to get all sides out there.

 

[chobie]

BTW, FWIW, the incidence of pregnancy from rape is extraordinarily low. I agree that the "morning after pill" is SOP after a sexual assault and it should be, but statistically few rape victims become pregnant.

Yes, only about 30,000 or so a year. A mere drop in the bucket; hardley worthy of consideration.

 

[In a hurry]

Yes, only about 30,000 or so a year. A mere drop in the bucket; hardley worthy of consideration.

Source? That is a much higher rate than I've ever seen quoted.

 

[malibuconlee]

BTW, FWIW, the incidence of pregnancy from rape is extraordinarily low. I agree that the "morning after pill" is SOP after a sexual assault and it should be, but statistically few rape victims become pregnant.

My best friend is Godmother to a little girl whose mother was date raped at 17.

I don't know the statistics, but it was very traumatic for everyone involved.

 

[chobie]

Source? That is a much higher rate than I've ever seen quoted.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm

That is just one that has the number around 30,000. But your only going to believe "your" statistics anyway, aren't you?

And besides, would it make it better if it were only 20,000 rape victims forced to have their rapists' children?

 

[simpilotswife]

Comments like that certainly don't help your cause...

How will I ever console myself?

 

[simpilotswife]

Really? Required? So if they have one surgeon and team experienced in a particular procedure, they must offer it?

All but the largest hospitals have quite a large number of services they don't offer - even if they have personnel qualified to provide it.

Why wouldn't they offer it if they have the facilities and personnel who can do it?

 

[BelleMcNally]

How will I ever console myself?

Chill! If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that my comments could be used to back up many of your positions...I just hate to see such "below the belt" ammo used in a discussion that was really interesting, if heated, on both sides.

 

[simpilotswife]

Chill! If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that my comments could be used to back up many of your positions...I just hate to see such "below the belt" ammo used in a discussion that was really interesting, if heated, on both sides.

Sorry but I don't consider the truth to be "below the belt".

Considering the vile things that the church did in covering up what happened to those children, I think that they have a lot of nerve withholding medication because they don't want to facilitate sin.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

*puts on his boots and wades into the frenzy*

I'm one of those weird people. I'm not religious, but still republican. at the same time, I'm pro-abortion. a rape victim is transported to a catholic hospital after the attack and treated. if she desires the RU487, why not just transport her to another hospital after she's stabilized for the pill and bill the catholic hospital for the transport charges?

my wife had the unfortune of suffering a miscarriage AND being ambulanced to a catholic hospital. the religious BS we had to face was horrible.

 

[BuckNaked]

I have a question about facilitating sin.....

If a Catholic hospital can withhold the morning-after pill because it's against their religion, what's to prevent them from deciding to withhold treatment for venereal disease is single? What's to prevent them from withholding treatment to homosexuals? After all, that'd be facilitating a sin (according to the Catholic faith) right?

Not the same thing at all. Providing treatment to someone that is seen to have sinned is not the same as helping that person sin. Providing treatment for an STD is no different in the eyes of the church than providing counseling to women who have had abortions. Both are seen as ways to help healing, one physical, one emotional.

 

[BuckNaked]

I say (as a Catholic) that the cardinals and bishops get some guts and simply close the hospitals in the states that require them to go against their religious beliefs. Problem solved.

I agree.