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

[simpilotswife]

So exactly how is a Doctor providing treatment to a patient with STDs relevent to that? The Catholics are not saying that it is a sin to treat people who HAVE sinned. They don't place a confession booth at the door and require that everybody have a clean soul before they are allowed to enter.

Mrsltg is saying that there is no sin involved in giving them the drugs to treat STDs or in providing them with other medical care. It is not sinful to treat somebody because they are a homosexual either.

You are very much twisting her words.

The sin involved in the Morning After Pill is that it is possibly ending what they consider to be life, or preventing a life. Even though it is a choice of the patient to take the pill, providing them with the avenue to obtain the pill is a facilitator.

In their eyes it is like having somebody walk into your office, announce to you that they want to kill their spouse, and then requiring you to pull a handgun out of your closet and give it them.

It's relevant in that after treatment, the person will go out and have extramarital sex again. Isn't that facilitating their sin?

 

[chobie]

The victim still must consent to treatment. So in essence and legal-ese, yes, she does have a choice. You may not like the choice, but it is a choice just the same.

Erin

I just love this image of the rape victim waltzing in to the nearest Catholic hospital to demand that they damn themselves to an eternity in hell, just for her own la-di-da convienence. How dare she?

 

[Toby'sFriend]

It's relevant in that after treatment, the person will go out and have extramarital sex again.

How in the world could you (or a Doctor) possibly know they are going to have non-marital sex again?

 

[Alicnwondrln]

If their convictions are going to get in the way of complying with the law and practicing standard medical treatment, they need to get out of the medical business.

That goes double for pharmacists.

i would agree with this.

 

[MosMom]

Say a Jehovas Witness decides to get into the hospital business.....could they run that hospital and not offer blood to people simply because it is against their personal beliefs. Granted, they probably wouldn't get much business...but just for arguments sake, would that be okay?

 

[simpilotswife]

Denying someone health and life would be a sin. Not to mention, the Church doesn't make homesexuals where badges...

No? Funny they don't want them to be priests anymore....

 

[simpilotswife]

How in the world could you (or a Doctor) possibly know they are going to have non-marital sex again?

How could they possibly know if the morning-after pill will be providing an abortion?

 

[mrsltg]

Say a Jehovas Witness decides to get into the hospital business.....could they run that hospital and not offer blood to people simply because it is against their personal beliefs. Granted, they probably wouldn't get much business...but just for arguments sake, would that be okay?

They wouldn't get a license to open because they couldn't provide a lifesaving treatment. There is no threat of death in not providing an oral contraceptive.

Erin

 

[froglady]

Say a Jehovas Witness decides to get into the hospital business.....could they run that hospital and not offer blood to people simply because it is against their personal beliefs. Granted, they probably wouldn't get much business...but just for arguments sake, would that be okay?

There's a difference between someone bleeding to death and needing a transfusion, versus someone who MIGHT get pregnant without a specific treatment.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

No? Funny they don't want them to be priests anymore....

and again, the Catholic Church has every right to dictate the tenents of their own religion without Government influence.

In fact, the Constitution guarantees it.

You don't have to agree with them, I don't have to agree with them. But I sure would never want to live in a Country where somebody had the ability to take that right away from them.

How could they possibly know if the morning-after pill will be providing an abortion?

people have Free Will and the ability to make choices. Drugs do not.

 

[JudicialTyranny]

I don't think that there is anywhere in the constitution that gives religion the right to impose their beliefs on others.

Nor does it do anything to stop them. The Constitution deals with government laws establishing a religion, not the actions of churches, church-run hospitals, or individuals.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'll say it again. They are not "imposing" anything. They are simply saying "we don't have that drug here".

 

[froglady]

How could they possibly know if the morning-after pill will be providing an abortion?

If it isn't given to prevent a possible pregnancy, or possibly facilitate an abortion, then it really isn't needed, is it?

The belief is that ALL contraception is a sin.

 

[simpilotswife]

So your feeling is that it's OK to base a decision that might adversely affect someone's health/emotional well-being on saving money, but not on religious belief? Just so we understand each other. It's OK to withhold treatment if it's too expensive, but not if you feel it's morally wrong.

If the hospital has neither the facilities or the personnel then no they shouldn't. Purchasing a morning-after pill is neither one of those cases. The morality of the pill is subjective and based on personal belief.

 

[mrsltg]

I just love this image of the rape victim waltzing in to the nearest Catholic hospital to demand that they damn themselves to an eternity in hell, just for her own la-di-da convienence. How dare she?

You are looking at this from an emotional perspective and not a legal perspective. Legally it would be uncaonstitutional to force a Catholic hospital to provide a drug to facilitate grave sin. There is nothing else to be said. Whether or not someone is inconvenienced by the legality is not at issue.

Erin

 

[MosMom]

I said for the sake of argument. I'm not talking about whether they could actually do it, I said I doubt they could.

I think treatment is treatment....if you can't offer proper and available treatment to your patients, then you shouldn't run a hospital.

 

[chobie]

and again, the Catholic Church has every right to dictate the tenents of their own religion without Government influence.

In fact, the Constitution guarantees it.

You don't have to agree with them, I don't have to agree with them. But I sure would never want to live in a Country where somebody had the ability to take that right away from them.



people have Free Will and the ability to make choices. Drugs do not.

All they would be "forced" to do is hand the victimized girl the pill. Not force it down her throat. Whether or not she takes it will be her free choice. This would not be the same as forcing a medical practioner to perform the abortion themself.

 

[simpilotswife]

Ok, one more time for the non-believers - providing medication to a sick person is not a sin. Providing a medication that will amount to an abortion in the eyes of the Church is.

Why not? Isn't that facilitating their sin?

And, while I don't the specifics of this young woman's situation, my guess is the school didn't feel she was setting a proper example. That, too, is their perogative. They are not judging whether or not she sinned.

No? You sure about that?

 

[mrsltg]

All they would be "forced" to do is hand the victimized girl the pill. Not force it down her throat. Whether or not she takes it will be her free choice. This would not be the same as forcing a medical practioner to perform the abortion themself.

And that, in the eyes of the Church, puts the doctor in grave sin. You cannot force ANY doctor to perform against their conscience. Many doctors don't perform abortions, and cannot be forced too. They don't even have to learn how to perform an abortion at medical school- it's completely optional. A law addressing the issue would be forcing a religious institution to go against its beliefs. Unconstitutional.

Erin

 

[chobie]

You are looking at this from an emotional perspective and not a legal perspective. Legally it would be uncaonstitutional to force a Catholic hospital to provide a drug to facilitate grave sin. There is nothing else to be said. Whether or not someone is inconvenienced by the legality is not at issue.

Erin

Actually, its the Supreme Court that would decide on the constitutionality of this issue. And if the Catholic hospital takes public money or is licensed through the state then it may very well be deemed legal and constitutional to do this.

And as for emotions, they're on all sides of this issue and in everything. For the love of Christ we are emotional beings and we can't just cast them aside at will, and its specious to suggest otherwise.

 

[chobie]

And that, in the eyes of the Church, puts the doctor in grave sin. You cannot force ANY doctor to perform against their conscience. Many doctors don't perform abortions, and cannot be forced too. They don't even have to learn how to perform an abortion at medical school- it's completely optional. A law addressing the issue would be forcing a religious institution to go against its beliefs. Unconstitutional.

Erin

Again, they are not PERFORMING a procedure they are handing a person a legal medication for that person to swallow or not. And again YOU are not the final say on what is constitutional and what is not.