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

[Caradana]

Then you buy an OTC pregnancy test that can be used as early as possible, and IF it is positive, you travel to the nearest abortion provider, or continue with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. OR you raise the child.

You still have choices; they're just not as convenient.

They're also more traumatic, more expensive, more intrusive, more dangerous, less private, less dignified, unnecessary and avoidable.

 

[chobie]

Then you buy an OTC pregnancy test that can be used as early as possible, and IF it is positive, you travel to the nearest abortion provider, or continue with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. OR you raise the child.

You still have choices; they're just not as convenient.

Right and when it comes to rape victims we don't want to make their medical choices convenient for them! Really, they probably asked for it anyway.


The compassion is overwhelming.

 

[Puffy2]

As a Catholic and someone who pretty much is pro life, YES - if the Catholic hospital accepts ANY public funds, absolutely, they should be required to provide the morning after pill.

 

[BuckNaked]

I was thinking more along the lines of not following other laws in place for businesses. Equal opportunity laws for example. If you're going to go into business, you have to obey the laws, right?

Not necessarily - religious organizations are indeed exempt from some anti-discrimination laws, specifically as they apply to religious discrimination.

 

[jennobrn01]

No! Of course not! It seems like a nonissue anyway. The majority of people in the U.S. know the Catholic church's stance on abortion. Therefore, they would not go to a Catholic Hospital asking for an abortifacient.

This proposed bill reeks of someone with an agenda trying to stir up mess.

 

[punkin]

Right and when it comes to rape victims we don't want to make their medical choices convenient for them! Really, they probably asked for it anyway.


The compassion is overwhelming.

Compassionate Conservatism at its best.

 

[chobie]

No! Of course not! It seems like a nonissue anyway. The majority of people in the U.S. know the Catholic church's stance on abortion. Therefore, they would not go to a Catholic Hospital asking for an abortifacient.

This proposed bill reeks of someone with an agenda trying to stir up mess.

Do you really think the first thing on a rape victim's mind is the religious beleifs of the nearest hospital?

 

[froglady]

Right and when it comes to rape victims we don't want to make their medical choices convenient for them! Really, they probably asked for it anyway.


The compassion is overwhelming.

As someone who grew up in a time when there were NO choices, I'm gratified that a rape victim has ANY choices, even if inconvenient. So no, it's not ideal that a rape victim should be futher traumatized because she lives in a rural area and the closest hospital is Catholic and she can't get the morning after pill (which is the only instance that my post was addressing) so she has to wait to see if she's pregnant, and THEN deal with it IF she is.


And if she lives in an area with a choice of hospitals, I would hope that the paramedics (if she calls 911) would take her to a hospital where she COULD get the morning after pill, or that she doesn't go to a Catholic hospital for treatment. I support a rape victim's choice to take the morning after pill, if that's her wish. I'm just uncomfortable in forcing an institution that considers it "murder" or a mortal sin to administer it.

 

[chobie]

As someone who grew up in a time when there were NO choices, I'm gratified that a rape victim has ANY choices, even if inconvenient. So no, it's not ideal that a rape victim should be futher traumatized because she lives in a rural area and the closest hospital is Catholic and she can't get the morning after pill (which is the only instance that my post was addressing) so she has to wait to see if she's pregnant, and THEN deal with it IF she is.


And if she lives in an area with a choice of hospitals, I would hope that the paramedics (if she calls 911) would take her to a hospital where she COULD get the morning after pill, or that she doesn't go to a Catholic hospital for treatment. I support a rape victim's choice to take the morning after pill, if that's her wish. I'm just uncomfortable in forcing an institution that considers it "murder" or a mortal sin to administer it.

I'm more concerned about the rape victim.

 

[BuckNaked]

I'm more concerned about the rape victim.

People and organizations have a Constitutional right to practice their religion, do they not? Or does that right somehow "not count"?

 

[Caradana]

No! Of course not! It seems like a nonissue anyway. The majority of people in the U.S. know the Catholic church's stance on abortion. Therefore, they would not go to a Catholic Hospital asking for an abortifacient.

I would disagree with that - I don't think most Americans realize this, nor would I expect a rape victim or a scared woman to think in these terms. Also, your abortificient is my preventative measure, and medical professionals overwhelmingly agree with the latter.

 

[froglady]

I'm more concerned about the rape victim.

A rape victim who may or may not become pregnant, vs someone who will be forced by law to deny his/her faith and face eternal damnation (according to her/his religious belief) for giving that victim the morning after pill so that said victim will not have to be further traumatized, suffer indignity, and expose herself to a riskier and more expensive procedure.

Someone who is an innocent victim, vs someone who intentionally commits a crime against another soul and her/his God. (According to his/her beliefs)

If you don't share those religious beliefs, the answer is perfectly clear. If you do, it becomes more difficult.

 

[nwdisgal]

I believe in separation of church and state, so my answer is no, they are a private religious organization and should not have to provide the pill.

 

[simpilotswife]

I understand the religious stance (even though I personally disagree with it), but at some point compassion needs to take the place of doctrine.

The Catholic church is not well known for that, at least not in Africa, although I am sure that there are some priests who could disagree.

 

[simpilotswife]

People and organizations have a Constitutional right to practice their religion, do they not? Or does that right somehow "not count"?

Sure they do but when they are the only solution for many miles do they then have the right to impose their religious beliefs on their patients?

 

[RachelEllen]

While I am normally quite libertarian in my feelings, I guess I don't see this as a simply 'their business, their rules' situation.

As a medical professional, my first duty is to serve my patient. Not to impose my moral system on them. It's what we call the principle of autonomy. That part of my job is to inform the patient to the best of my ability and allow them to make the decisions regarding their own person. I certainly agree that this should be balanced with my rights not to do anything morally repugnant to me. However, when someone places themselves in your care, they are giving you a very special sort of trust. This is not just a theoretical concern, it's something that has to be put into practice on a daily basis.

So, as a health care provider, I believe I have a duty to inform my patient of every alternate means of treatment. I also have a duty to give them the information they need to get that treatment if they wish and a duty not to hinder that.

In the case of the morning after pill, which frankly doesn't work all that well at baseline, the efficacy sharply decreases the longer its administration is delayed. So I think when appropriate, the physician has a duty to inform the patient it exists, ascertain if they want it, and get them as quickly as possible under the care of someone who will dispense it if they so wish. Not mentioning it is deceptive. Delaying it's administration or hindering a patient's obtaining it is a manipulation of someone who has entrusted their care to you. It's not wrong for the doctor to adhere to their own beliefs, it is wrong to use deceptive or manipulative means to force the patient to adhere to those beliefs as well.

To give a really personal example, almost 60 years ago my grandmother went to a doctor in order to terminate a pregnancy. She was given a placebo, and by the time she figured that out it wasn't safe to use another method. Even though if she had gotton her wish, I wouldn't exist, I still find what the doctor did abhorant.

 

[simpilotswife]

And if she lives in an area with a choice of hospitals, I would hope that the paramedics (if she calls 911) would take her to a hospital where she COULD get the morning after pill, or that she doesn't go to a Catholic hospital for treatment. I support a rape victim's choice to take the morning after pill, if that's her wish. I'm just uncomfortable in forcing an institution that considers it "murder" or a mortal sin to administer it.

Even if she lives in an area with a choice of hospitals, ambulances are generally required to go to the closest one.

And what happens if the ambulance driver is Catholic and doesn't want the victim to have access to the morning-after pill so they go to the Catholic hospital?

 

[BuckNaked]

Sure they do but when they are the only solution for many miles do they then have the right to impose their religious beliefs on their patients?

I would say yes, they do. You see it as them imposing their beliefs, I see it as them having a Constitutional right to practice their beliefs. They aren't forcing those beliefs on anyone else, they're just saying they aren't going to compromise those beliefs

And I don't believe that the right to freely practice one's religion should be taken away for the convenience of someone else that believes differently.

 

[simpilotswife]

I would say yes, they do. You see it as them imposing their beliefs, I see it as them having a Constitutional right to practice their beliefs. They aren't forcing those beliefs on anyone else, they're just saying they aren't going to compromise those beliefs

And I don't believe that the right to freely practice one's religion should be taken away for the convenience of someone else that believes differently.

Absolutely they are forcing their beliefs on someone and I don't believe that they should have that right.

I also don't believe that they should be withholding condoms from AIDS infested regions of Africa or counseling women that they should have unprotected sex with their husbands. In some areas they are the only game in town and in withholding condoms and counseling these women as they are, they are guilty of murder pure and simple.

 

[BuckNaked]

Absolutely they are forcing their beliefs on someone

How are they forcing their beliefs on anyone else? They aren't saying the drugs can't be had, they're saying they can't be had in a Catholic hospital

and I don't believe that they should have that right.

So then you don't believe they have a right to freely practice their religious beliefs, as guaranteed in the Constitution?

I also don't believe that they should be withholding condoms from AIDS infested regions of Africa or counseling women that they should have unprotected sex with their husbands.

So, is it fair to assume that religious freedom isn't something you consider to be important?

In some areas they are the only game in town and in withholding condoms and counseling these women as they are, they are guilty of murder pure and simple.

So again, because other groups don't want to go in and help these people, the Catholic church should be obligated to toss out their beliefs?