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

[cardaway]

...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.

Ummm no... the hospital is another hospital. Thankfully the law sees it that way too.

 

[chobie]

Ummm no... the hospital is another hospital. Thankfully the law sees it that way too.

Amen.

 

[froglady]

Ummm no... the hospital is another hospital. Thankfully the law sees it that way too.

Yes in your state, no in mine. Guess where I'm staying? for now.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

Ummm no... the hospital is another hospital. Thankfully the law sees it that way too.

What law? The proposed law? It hasn't even passed from what I understand, much less been declared Constitutional in court.

 

[froglady]

What law? The proposed law? It hasn't even passed from what I understand, much less been declared Constitutional in court.

Believe it or not, some states HAVE declared that they aren't religious institutions, thereby enacting the passage of legislation to force them to go against their beliefs.

 

[cardaway]

Believe it or not, some states HAVE declared that they aren't religious institutions, thereby enacting the passage of legislation to force them to go against their beliefs.

The states that got it right. The church is the church, any business they run is a business.

Most of these medical "institutions" actually directly compete with other businesses, acting like a business, not a "mission". When they are the only game in town, well that is exactly why these kinds of laws are necessary.

Of course some churches are businesses, but that's another topic.

 

[sodaseller]

Let me point out one potential flaw in one of the issues being discussed - the alternative availability of similar services. In most jurisdictions, before a new Hospital can open, it must obtain a "Certificate of Need", showing the area is underserved. There is some debate as to whether the public interest is actually served by that system, but that's the reality for now. As such, the presence of other hospitals usually means others will not open. Thus, the presence of a Catholic Hospital in an area actually makes it less likely that other providers will open. Now this all may be moot, as Hospitals are consolidating and finding it hard to stay open. But this may mean that specialty rape trauma centers will have to open, which may or may not be profitable, may be picketed, and may result in the victim being stigmatized by unwanted exposure. Not sure how that fits in, but just something to consider.

 

[cardaway]

Let me point out one potential flaw in one of the issues being discussed - the alternative availability of similar services. In most jurisdictions, before a new Hospital can open, it must obtain a "Certificate of Need", showing the area is underserved. There is some debate as to whether the public interest is actually served by that system, but that's the reality for now. As such, the presence of other hospitals usually means others will not open. Thus, the presence of a Catholic Hospital in an area actually makes it less likely that other providers will open. Now this all may be moot, as Hospitals are consolidating and finding it hard to stay open. But this may mean that specialty rape trauma centers will have to open, which may or may not be profitable, may be picketed, and may result in the victim being stigmatized by unwanted exposure. Not sure how that fits in, but just something to consider.

As somebody who indirectly works in the hospital businesses, I knew that, but I am glad you pointed that out because many don't know.

There was also a bunch of comparisons thrown out, including gorcery stores. They don't work because until something is limited to one source you really don't know how the community we suffer or respond.

 

[sodaseller]

More food for thought from the ABA EZine update of recent decisions

TEA AND SYMPATHY: HIGH COURT BACKS RELIGION LAW
This Time, Ruling in Religious Drug-Use Case Favors Sacramental Rites

BY DAVID L. HUDSON JR.

The recent feud between Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court over the level of protection for religious practice was stoked by—perhaps more than any other issue—the right to use psychotropic drugs in religious ceremonies.

In 1990, the court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, that two Native American drug counselors could be denied unemployment benefits for their use of peyote. That decision sparked the congressional passage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which imposed a high standard when a law may burden someone’s exercise of his or her religion.

Although other cases have sketched the boundaries of First Amendment free exercise rights, it was another religious drug-use case that this week marked the latest volley. This time, however, the Supreme Court backed Congress, in a decision some hailed as a victory for religious liberty.

In a unanimous ruling Tuesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. affirmed a preliminary injunction preventing the federal government from enforcing a ban on a church’s use of a sacramental tea containing a hallucinogen. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, No. 04-1084.

The ruling was a "thumping victory for religious accommodation laws," says Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel for the Washington, D.C.-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in support of the church. "It’s especially good news for religious minorities," he adds.

However, Marci Hamilton, a law professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, criticizes the court’s decision, calling Congress’ law "an invitation [for courts] to walk through Alice in Wonderland’s looking glass."

The most recent case revolves around a Brazilian-based church with about 130 members in the U.S. Nicknamed UDV for Uniao Do Vegetal, its members receive communion through hoasca, a tea made from two plants, one of which contains dimethyltryptamine, a hallucinogen.

In 1999, federal agents raided the New Mexico home of a church member who had three drums of the tea. The officials seized the tea and threatened prosecution, saying the tea contained material prohibited by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The church sued the U.S. attorney general and other federal law enforcement officials, contending that the application of the federal drug laws to the religious use of their sacramental tea violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Congress passed the law in response to Employment Division v. Smith, in which the court ruled that generally applicable regulations, such as drug laws, that do not target religious practices do not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

RFRA requires the government to meet a high standard when it applies a law that may substantially burden the exercise of a person’s religion: The government must show a compelling interest that limits religious liberty in the least restrictive means.

In the UDV case, the government asserted that enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act furthered three such compelling interests: protecting the health and safety of the church members, preventing the diversion of the tea from church usage to general recreational usage, and ensuring compliance with a 1971 treaty on regulating psychotropic drugs.

The government contended that it did not have to meet RFRA’s strict-scrutiny test at the preliminary injunction stage. However, a federal district court in New Mexico granted the injunction, which was affirmed by the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in divided three-judge and en banc rulings. The government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Roberts and the other justices upheld the lower courts, saying that the "burdens at the preliminary injunction stage track the burdens at trial."

Wrote Roberts: "Congress’ express decision to legislate the compelling interest test indicates that RFRA challenges should be adjudicated in the same manner as constitutionally mandated applications of the test, including at the preliminary injunction stage."

The government also argued that it needed uniform application of the Controlled Substances Act and that a religious exception would create a slippery slope that could lead to more exceptions. However, Roberts said, "The government’s argument echoes the classic rejoinder of bureaucrats throughout history: If I make an exception for you, I’ll have to make one for everybody, so no exceptions."


Roberts also pointed out that the 1994 American Indian Religious Freedom Act amendments created a "peyote exception" from the Controlled Substances Act to all members of recognized Indian tribes.

"If such use is permitted … for hundreds of thousands of Native Americans practicing their faith, it is difficult to see how those same findings alone can preclude any consideration of a similar exception for the 130 or so American members of the UDV who want to practice theirs," he wrote.

"RFRA makes clear that it is the obligation of the courts to consider whether exceptions are required under the test set forth by Congress," Roberts explained.

The court also reasoned that the government did not satisfy its burden with respect to its argument that granting the exception would have negative consequences with regard to the treaty on psychotropic drugs.

"At the present stage, it suffices to observe that the government did not even submit evidence addressing the international consequences of granting an exception for the UDV," Roberts wrote (emphasis in original).

Becket Fund president Picarello says, "Religion-specific accommodations—like a statute that provides a day off for Christmas—help only those religious groups with the political clout to get them passed through the legislature. But broad religious freedom protections like RFRA tend to protect majority and minority religions alike. So when they are enforced vigorously—especially in a case involving a religious minority—it’s good news for people of all faiths.

"Also, the decision all but dooms constitutional challenges to RFRA as applied to the federal government," Picarello adds. "These have been rarer and weaker as time has passed, but there are still some out there, and this pretty much finishes them off."

John Boyd of Albuquerque, N.M., one of the attorneys for the church, says he is delighted that the decision was unanimous.

"The decision makes clear that the Supreme Court has taken Congress at its word," he says. "The statute means what it says, and the government will have to actually prove a compelling interest and the adoption of least restrictive means whenever it interferes with religious conduct. The religious groups who weighed in on our side see this decision as important because it rejects the view of the executive that there are certain areas of government regulation that should be beyond the reach of the RFRA balancing test."

However, Hamilton, who wrote an amicus brief in the case arguing that RFRA is unconstitutional, says RFRA "forces courts into second-guessing legislatures. And it does so in arenas Congress never even contemplated when it passed RFRA. It never occurred to the members of Congress that it was opening the door for religious groups to violate the Controlled Substances Act, beyond the Native American church’s use of peyote. Now, the courts are supposed to assess whether the government has a compelling interest and engaged the least restrictive means with respect to a religious practice it did not even know existed when it enacted the generally applicable, neutral law."

Hamilton, who successfully convinced the court in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments, stresses that the ruling was at the preliminary injunction stage, not on the final merits.

"As a procedural matter, this case was a preliminary judgment motion, not a final ruling on the merits," she says. "Nothing in the decision forbids a lower court from being persuaded by the government once it has engaged in discovery and taken depositions."

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

The Ct. Legislature is considering a bill that would force all hospitals, including the Catholic Hospitals to provide the "morning after pill" to rape victims. Since the Catholic Church has always had a firm and consistant stance on birth control and abortion, should they be forced to violate their religious convictions to comply with this law? There are other hospitals that rape victims can be treated.

I'm not even going to read the 10 pages of response before answering this. Absolutely not!!!! They are a hospital based on religious beliefs. I agree that there are other places to obtain this. Abortion of any sort is a huge no no in their eyes. To me this goes right along the lines of "forcing" a Jehovas's Witness to accept blood products. If they are willing to not accept gov. money for not following a bill, thats their right. Maybe we should just start letting girls into the boyscouts and allowing refillable mugs.

 

[VSL]

If they are willing to not accept gov. money for not following a bill, thats their right.

But what if they are accepting government money? Does that change your stance at all?

 

[BuckNaked]

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.

Yes, when the child's life is in danger. Not the same situation in any way, shape or form.

 

[chobie]

Yes, when the child's life is in danger. Not the same situation in any way, shape or form.

Oh, but what about freedom of religion? You don't have the right raise your children according to your religion? Granted the state has more of a right to interevene on the behalf of children, but they also have a right to intervene on behalf of the health and welfare of adults as well.

You may not agree with it, but that does not make it unconstitutional.

 

[Papa Deuce]

I haven't read a single post other than the OP.


My opinion is "no", however they need to realize, and probably do, that if they don't provide it, they lose a chance to make money on patients that go somewhere else.

Now, if these same hospitals are in any way subsidized with public money, then I think they MUST provide it.

 

[froglady]

I haven't read a single post other than the OP.


My opinion is "no", however they need to realize, and probably do, that if they don't provide it, they lose a chance to make money on patients that go somewhere else.

Now, if these same hospitals are in any way subsidized with public money, then I think they MUST provide it.

The argument has been raised that these are not patients who will (or should be forced to) go someplace else (rape patients) and are being further traumatized because the hospital is not offering the MAP, so the state must intervene and force the hospital to do so, regardless of their religious restriction against it.

And according to some posters Medicare/Medicaid insurance payments= public money subsidization.

 

[BuckNaked]

Oh, but what about freedom of religion? You don't have the right raise your children according to your religion? Granted the state has more of a right to interevene on the behalf of children, but they also have a right to intervene on behalf of the health and welfare of adults as well.

The state can intervene when there is a compelling interest. Saving a child's life is a compelling interest. Providing convenient birth control is not.

You may not agree with it, but that does not make it unconstitutional.

Very true, although my opinion is that it is unconstitutional to force any religion to violate their beliefs simply for the convenience of others.

 

[cardaway]

The state can intervene when there is a compelling interest. Saving a child's life is a compelling interest. Providing convenient birth control is not.

Maybe not for you, but there are certainly enough in favor to call it a compelling interest.

Very true, although my opinion is that it is unconstitutional to force any religion to violate their beliefs simply for the convenience of others.

When they pass a law that affects their religion I agree it will be a problem. So far I only see things that affect peoples jobs and businesses.

 

[chobie]

Maybe not for you, but there are certainly enough in favor to call it a compelling interest.



When they pass a law that affects their religion I agree it will be a problem. So far I only see things that affect peoples jobs and businesses.

And providing MAP to a RAPE victims is not about convienence is about providing the best medical care, which is a compelling interest. There is nothing convienent about being RAPED. It is much safer and and better to prevent a pregnancy in the case of a VIOLENT ATTACK, the to have an abortion or a birth. Especailly if the RAPE victim has suffered other injuries from the ATTACK

 

[Pin Wizard]

NO! Go to another hospital.

 

[yeartolate]

I know this seems unrelated - but I am curious about a situation that came up a number of years back.

Our neigbor was several months pregnant when she found out she had breast cancer . She was a devout Catholic. Her doctor inisisted that treatment begin ASAP. The treatment would have undoubtably caused fetal death. I know she was tormented over this but the doctor made it clear that if she waited 7 months to carry the baby to term she would likely end up with severely metastastized cancer which would possibly (probably) not be curable. (she was willing to stay pregnant and take chances but her husband and the rest of theri family begged her to seek treatment)

So my question is would a Catholic hospital allow her to persue a treatment that would "probably" save her life and undoubtably cause fetal demise?