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

[froglady]

Okay! I just thought that since you asked me for a source and not Galahad who tried to make it seem like it almost never happens that you were on that side.

And maybe you should save you for people who think what happened your step mother is not important.

The numbers are from the CDC website, among others, but all that I saw (I only looked at 6 or so) are based on one study done by Holmes et al. I'll try to look up the original study. Knowing why and by whom a study was done is just as important as knowing the results.

The figure represents approximately 4% of all rapes, meaning that 96% do NOT result in pregnancy. So, Galahad was correct in his statement.

Small consulation to any of the 30,000 women who did become pregnant, but still a small percentage of rapes.

 

[chobie]

The numbers are from the CDC website, among others, but all that I saw (I only looked at 6 or so) are based on one study done by Holmes et al. I'll try to look up the original study. Knowing why and by whom a study was done is just as important as knowing the results.

The figure represents approximately 4% of all rapes, meaning that 96% do NOT result in pregnancy. So, Galahad was correct in his statement.

Small consulation to any of the 30,000 women who did become pregnant, but still a small percentage of rapes.

I did not say he was incorrect that it was a small percentage of rapes that ended up in pregnacy. My problem is with the way he presented the numbers. If he had said "and BTW, FWIW, only 30,000 rape victims a year become impregnated through the rape" it would not have had the same effect, would it?

 

[Toby'sFriend]

And maybe you should save you for people who think what happened your step mother is not important.

Where in the world did you ever get the idea that people think rape isn't important.

Catholics Mission hospitals are founded on the very idea that helping sick and injured people in need is an important pillar of God's work. The people in those emergency rooms seeing the women as they come in during what is probably the most desperate moment of their lives -- they are there because they think it is important.

You may not agree with them on this issue, but to imply that they or others who don't agree with you are callous and uncaring to a woman who has been raped is just ridiculous.

 

[simpilotswife]

No. Confession (Penance) is to confess your sins and ask for forgiveness (absolution).

In simple terms, you must be (1) sorry for your sin and (2) intend to not commit it again.

Obviously, if they are routinely giving out "morning after" pills, confession is not going to work because either they are (1) not sorry they are doing it or (2) not intending to stop doing it.

There are many Catholics (including priests) who do just that so what's the problem?

 

[simpilotswife]

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that when it's convenient for Catholics, they seem to be fine looking the other way. But, when it's inconvenient for other people they are just fine throwing around the scripture to fit their own personal agenda.

 

[froglady]

I did not say he was incorrect that it was a small percentage of rapes that ended up in pregnacy. My problem is with the way he presented the numbers. If he had said "and BTW, FWIW, only 30,000 rape victims a year become impregnated through the rape" it would not have had the same effect, would it?

No more effect than saying that of the 750,000 rapes in the US each year, only 30,000 have resulted in pregnancy. Again, no consolation if you're one of the 30,000, but the odds of NOT getting pregnant are certainly in your favor.

 

[froglady]

There are many Catholics (including priests) who do just that so what's the problem?

No problem in this life, lots of trouble in the next. But if you don't believe in sin, and don't believe in judgement, then you have nothing to worry about. You're also not a Catholic as defined by the church.

So, either those priests are damned, unless they have confessed, made atonement, and repented (will never commit that sin again), or they must leave the church and hope that they will still be forgiven somehow.

 

[chobie]

No more effect than saying that of the 750,000 rapes in the US each year, only 30,000 have resulted in pregnancy. Again, no consolation if you're one of the 30,000, but the odds of NOT getting pregnant are certainly in your favor.

Actaully, no matter what words you put before of after the number of 30,000 women made pregnant through rape would have an emotional impact. Most people would not be mislead by the word "only".

 

[froglady]

Point of Information

I am NOT RC, nor am I anti-abortion. I have no personal problem with the morning after pill, and if I were still working, would have no problem administering it. I have no problem with early to mid-term abortions, and have even faced making that choice myself. I have more of a problem with late term abortions, would not have one myself, but will also not work to prevent others from having them. BCPs were a non-issue, as I couldn't tolerate them.

I'm not even comfortable with women using abortion as a form of birth control ("I'm not going to worry; if I get pregnant, I can always have an abortion.) But I also don't want to back to the days when the doctor of a woman having complications had to go before a hospital board and plead his case. So protecting the rights of one group of pregnant women means protecting the rights of all.

But I will continue to fight for the right of faith-based institutions to follow the laws of their faith WITHIN THOSE INSTITUTIONS ONLY. If you have a problem with them accepting government funds in any way, shape, or form,and not acting the way non-believers wish, then cut off the funds. If you don't agree with their stance, don't use them. If they're the only game in town, either move or ask government, or others who agree with you, for an alternative.

I am just as opposed to faith based groups going to health clinics, etc and demanding that THEY change THEIR "mission." And I object to the government telling doctors in ANY setting how to practice medicine, and telling them that they MUST prescribe certain drugs. Yes, the morning after pill is less invasive than an abortion, but it is NOT 100% harmless...NO drug is. Adverse reactions are pretty rare, but that's small consolation to the women who have them. It is also 98% effective, which means that 2% of women might have a pregnancy anyway.

 

[chobie]

I think that the state's interest in protecting peoples' health is more important then protecting various religion's various interpretations on their various "holy" books.

And the state does do this. For instance, the state can and will intervene when parents deny their children medical care because of their religious beleifs.


Some things are more important then freedom of religion.

 

[chobie]

Point of Information

I am just as opposed to faith based groups going to health clinics, etc and demanding that THEY change THEIR "mission." And I object to the government telling doctors in ANY setting how to practice medicine, and telling them that they MUST prescribe certain drugs. Yes, the morning after pill is less invasive than an abortion, but it is NOT 100% harmless...NO drug is. Adverse reactions are pretty rare, but that's small consolation to the women who have them. It is also 98% effective, which means that 2% of women might have a pregnancy anyway.

Since your so enanamored of statistic -- statistically the MAP is much safer then a surgerical abortion, which is much safer then giving birth.

 

[cardaway]

But I will continue to fight for the right of faith-based institutions to follow the laws of their faith WITHIN THOSE INSTITUTIONS ONLY. If you have a problem with them accepting government funds in any way, shape, or form,and not acting the way non-believers wish, then cut off the funds. If you don't agree with their stance, don't use them. If they're the only game in town, either move or ask government, or others who agree with you, for an alternative.

IMO that argument doesn't hold water. They chose to get a busines license and act like, and in many places compete with, public hospitals. They can't expect exceptions when they don't like the laws written to apply to all hospitals.

I can see them trying though...

 

[froglady]

Since your so enanamored of statistic -- statistically the MAP is much safer then a surgerical abortion, which is much safer then giving birth.

Of course it's safer. I never said it wasn't! I just mentioned that it is neither 100% safe nor 100% effective. And abortion IS safer than giving birth. How strange that women willingly go through pregnancy when it is so dangerous.

Again, I have no problem with a woman getting the MAP. I just have a problem with FORCING a religious institution by law to give it to her against her its and in violation of its religion. BTW, many (45%...another statistic for you ) Catholic hospitals have decided to give it, so apparently they have DECIDED that the patient is more important than their faith, and they will deal with their soul later. BUT they made that choice, they were not forced.


The state intervenes on the part of CHILDREN if their parents' religious beliefs threaten the child's life. It has to be demonstrated that it is more likely than not that if the child doesn't get a specific treatment that he/she will be harmed. In rape cases, no life is in immediate danger, except for the possible fetus. And statistically, it is more likely than not that a pregnancy will not occur. If the facility chooses to make the MOP available, wonderful. If not, I feel they have to abide by the guidelines set by other cases where religious rights were overridden in favor of someone else's rights to medical care.

 

[chobie]

Of course it's safer. I never said it wasn't! I just mentioned that it is neither 100% safe nor 100% effective. And abortion IS safer than giving birth. How strange that women willingly go through pregnancy when it is so dangerous.

Again, I have no problem with a woman getting the MAP. I just have a problem with FORCING a religious institution by law to give it to her against her its and in violation of its religion. BTW, many (45%...another statistic for you ) Catholic hospitals have decided to give it, so apparently they have DECIDED that the patient is more important than their faith, and they will deal with their soul later. BUT they made that choice, they were not forced.


The state intervenes on the part of CHILDREN if their parents' religious beliefs threaten the child's life. It has to be demonstrated that it is more likely than not that if the child doesn't get a specific treatment that he/she will be harmed. In rape cases, no life is in immediate danger, except for the possible fetus. And statistically, it is more likely than not that a pregnancy will not occur. If the facility chooses to make the MOP available, wonderful. If not, I feel they have to abide by the guidelines set by other cases where religious rights were overridden in favor of someone else's rights to medical care.

A hospital that is licensed to practice medicine in a given state is not a church. The state has a duty and obligation to oversee its medical practioners and they can and should force them to not withhold medical treatment based on their "beliefs".

 

[froglady]

IMO that argument doesn't hold water. They chose to get a busines license and act like, and in many places compete with, public hospitals. They can't expect exceptions when they don't like the laws written to apply to all hospitals.

I can see them trying though...

For the last time, they did not get a business license when they were founded. The government did not regulate them when they were founded. And they HAVE been changing to abide by laws over the years, just as secular hospitals have been doing, but this is a law that dictates how they must practice medicine, and is in direct violation with freedom of religion...a fundamental right supposedly guaranteed by our constitution, so this is (for many hospitals) the line in the sand.

And for the record, I've already posted that I think this law is wrong for ALL hospitals. NO hospital should be told that you MUST provide this or any other medication, procedure, etc. If they choose to do so to remain competitive (or protect themselves from malpractice suits, keep their standing with medical groups, attract better and more employees, etc) then fine. But they should not be forced to do so.

 

[chobie]

For the last time, they did not get a business license when they were founded. The government did not regulate them when they were founded. And they HAVE been changing to abide by laws over the years, just as secular hospitals have been doing, but this is a law that dictates how they must practice medicine, and is in direct violation with freedom of religion...a fundamental right supposedly guaranteed by our constitution, so this is (for many hospitals) the line in the sand.

And for the record, I've already posted that I think this law is wrong for ALL hospitals. NO hospital should be told that you MUST provide this or any other medication, procedure, etc. If they choose to do so to remain competitive (or protect themselves from malpractice suits, keep their standing with medical groups, attract better and more employees, etc) then fine. But they should not be forced to do so.

No guarantee in the constitution is absolute. It all is and has been open to interpretation and your opinion on what is and is not constitutional is simply that...an opinion.

 

[froglady]

A hospital that is licensed to practice medicine in a given state is not a church. The state has a duty and obligation to oversee its medical practioners and they can and should force them to not withhold medical treatment based on their "beliefs".

It is a religious institution, just as a church is, just as a private religious school is. Instead of being built by the church for worship or education, it was built by the church to provide health care.

 

[froglady]

No guarantee in the constitution is absolute. It all is and has been open to interpretation and your opinion on what is and is not constitutional is simply that...an opinion.

Well, duh. Just as is everything else you or I (and most eveyone else on this board) have said.

Even the Supreme Court only hands down opinions. Informed, and with the force of law and the state to back them, but still opinions.

 

[chobie]

Well, duh. Just as is everything else you or I (and most eveyone else on this board) have said.

Even the Supreme Court only hands down opinions. Informed, and with the force of law and the state to back them, but still opinions.

Well duh

But that hasn't stopped you and others from stating as if you were THE expert on what IS constitutional and IS not.

 

[froglady]

Well duh

But that hasn't stopped you and others from stating as if you were THE expert on what IS constitutional and IS not.

When has it ever stopped ANYONE on this forum?

Didn't you know that on this forum, whoever can present his/her opinion most authoratively, and with the most conviction, wins?