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

[JudicialTyranny]

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.

Why would you think the Catholics are "withholding" the condoms? Do you think they have stacks and stacks of them in the hospital basement and are saying "nah-nah, you can't have them"?

Since when did it become one person's or group's responsibility to supply someone else with a condom?

Next I guess you'll want a new Constitutional amendement - "Everyone shall have a right to a free condom on demand, paid for by who ever they think should pay for it."

 

[JudicialTyranny]

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?

Yawn... I'm tired of the "only solution for miles" thing. If it's such a big problem for some people, then they should raise money to build a non-religious hospital or petition the state to build one so they can have an alternative.

It's a two way street - you think the Catholic hospital is trying to "impose" their beliefs on you, but they'd say you are trying to do the same to them....

(And in fact, they are not trying to "impose" anything - they are simply saying, "we don't do that here". )

 

[HaleyB]

Actually, I think it should be an on demand drug. No Doctor needed. That would solve the entire issue in my eyes.

 

[MrsKreamer]

Simple answer- No

You don't want Christianity(in this instance the Catholic Church) to force its beliefs on you, and in return they expect the same.

 

[yeartolate]

I guess I do not think they should have to offer it.

But (and that is a huge hairy butt) I believe they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

A woman coming in following rape getting a morning after pill is not getting an abortion. It is preventing fertilization. The longer you wait the surer the fertilization will go on to implantation and pregnancy. So essentially they will be pushing women towards abortion rather than away from it.

 

[simpilotswife]

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

They certainly CAN be had in a Catholic hospital if the hospital carried them.

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

How is providing someone with a drug inhibiting their religious freedom? After all no one is making them take the drug are they?

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

It is important as long as it does not impose its will upon others. Tell me would you be okay with a religion sacrificing babies?

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?

How are they throwing out their beliefs. No one is forcing members of the Catholic Church to use condoms now are they?

 

[simpilotswife]

Why would you think the Catholics are "withholding" the condoms? Do you think they have stacks and stacks of them in the hospital basement and are saying "nah-nah, you can't have them"?

Since when did it become one person's or group's responsibility to supply someone else with a condom?

Next I guess you'll want a new Constitutional amendement - "Everyone shall have a right to a free condom on demand, paid for by who ever they think should pay for it."

What I mean by that is they are telling people that are Catholics that they are not allowed to use them as a means of protecting themselves against infection.

If you are going to be in the country obstensibly to help wouldn't it be better to help prevent the spread of disease? Instead they are telling Catholics that they are not allowed to use condoms or refuse sexual relations with their infected spouses.

 

[simpilotswife]

And in fact, they are not trying to "impose" anything - they are simply saying, "we don't do that here".

If they are going to provide medical care then they should provide medical care. Not "I'll give you what I think you should have" care.

 

[In a hurry]

Yawn... I'm tired of the "only solution for miles" thing. If it's such a big problem for some people, then they should raise money to build a non-religious hospital or petition the state to build one so they can have an alternative.

Good grief. Have you ever lived in a rural/poor area? Believe it or not, hospitals are expensive and doctors don't want to work with the poor. Such myoptic thinking.

 

[BuckNaked]

Actually, I think it should be an on demand drug. No Doctor needed. That would solve the entire issue in my eyes.

I totally agree.

How is providing someone with a drug inhibiting their religious freedom?

Because as you know, to the Catholic church, facilitating a sin is considered a sin as well.

It is important as long as it does not impose its will upon others.

They aren't imposing their will on others - women can go elsewhere to get the drug. Again they aren't saying "You can't have it", they're saying "You can't have it here".

Tell me would you be okay with a religion sacrificing
babies?

Of course not, but that would be forcing their beliefs on others. Refusing to provide a pill to someone is not forcing their beliefs on anyone, just saying "not here".

And funny you should mention the sacrifice of a child as a religious act - that's how the Catholic church sees handiing out this drug.

How are they throwing out their beliefs. No one is forcing members of the Catholic Church to use condoms now are they?

Again, you know the beliefs of the Catholic church on facilitating what they see as a sin.

 

[froglady]

If they are going to provide medical care then they should provide medical care. Not "I'll give you what I think you should have" care.

But hospitals do this ALL the time! The hospital nearest to me does not have a pediatric ward. If I were to bring my child to its ER, he would have to go to another hospital to continue treatment. It doesn't have a neonatal unit. If I gave birth there, and my baby had problems, he would be transferred to another hospital for treatment.

This is a decision made by this hospital for economic reasons. Providing these services would be too expensive, and they can be obtained elsewhere. Perhaps the medical care of some children and babies has been compromised by this economic decision. Some may even have died during the move.

Most rural hospitals do not have certain specialists and treatments available due to the cost, so patients have to suffer by being transported elsewhere to receive proper care.

So I guess it's acceptable for hospitals to make decisions based on money, but unacceptable to make them based on religious principles.


As someone mentioned, the hospital is denying contraceptive treatment to every woman, regardless of race, religion, or financial status.

 

[VSL]

I think that, in the UK, you can get contraceptives and the morning after pill for free and without a doctor (at Family Planning Clinics). It could be an idea that they provide something like that in the US... locally to everyone.

 

[froglady]

I think that, in the UK, you can get contraceptives and the morning after pill for free and without a doctor (at Family Planning Clinics). It could be an idea that they provide something like that in the US... locally to everyone.

I also agree. But the argument has been that the rape victim should not have to go anywhere else, and should be given the contraceptives in the ER/hospital. Even if she could get them for free someplace else, she shouldn't have to wait until that someplace is open and make a special trip there. The religious hospital will be FORCED by law to go against its religious ban against contraception.

People have tried to muddy the waters by saying "What if there is no place within 100 miles to get the pills?" "What if she isn't told that the treatment even exists?" "What if the ambulance driver decides that he doesn't want her to get this treatment?"

I think the law should require the hospital to tell the victim that there is a treatment to prevent pregnancy, and give her a list/directions to a provider. I think that should be ALL they are forced to do.

 

[BuckNaked]

It's a given that there are going to be situations where the government has a compelling interest in curtailing religious freedom (human sacrifice, as mentioned earlier in this thread as an extreme example). But when it's going to happen, it should be for a truly compelling reason - I don't consider someone else's personal convenience to be such a reason.

 

[castleview]

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.

Problem is a rape victim has no control over where an ambulance takes her (assuming an ambulance was called). I live in CT and have a few friends who are nurses in Catholic hospitals. If a rape victim comes in, many times they pull them aside and tell them to check themselves into the crosstown hospitals...which the victims are on their own to do. They feel like crap since that's the only thing they can do to help a rape victim.

 

[elan]

I don't consider someone else's personal convenience to be such a reason.

Since the rape victim has already been inconvenienced why would anyone want to make things easier.

Yes, they should provide the assistance mandated by law.

 

[JudicialTyranny]

Good grief. Have you ever lived in a rural/poor area? Believe it or not, hospitals are expensive and doctors don't want to work with the poor. Such myoptic thinking.

You have the "myoptic" thinking - if the Catholics were not there providing health care at all, then how bad off would those people be? The Catholic Church is not "required" to build a hospital anywhere - they apparently did in whatever area you are talking about (care to be specific?) for charitable purposes. Now you want to look a gift horse in the mouth.

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.

 

[Galahad]

If they are going to provide medical care then they should provide medical care. Not "I'll give you what I think you should have" care.

Should a hospital that has surgical services be required to provide cosmetic surgery or bariatric surgery?

 

[simpilotswife]

Because as you know, to the Catholic church, facilitating a sin is considered a sin as well.

Oh NOW it's a sin.....alrighty then

They aren't imposing their will on others - women can go elsewhere to get the drug. Again they aren't saying "You can't have it", they're saying "You can't have it here".

You're sure of that are you? What if they can't?

Of course not, but that would be forcing their beliefs on others. Refusing to provide a pill to someone is not forcing their beliefs on anyone, just saying "not here".

Sure it is. If I tell someone that they can't smoke in my house because I don't want them to smoke it's forcing my beliefs on them.

And funny you should mention the sacrifice of a child as a religious act - that's how the Catholic church sees handiing out this drug.

So causing the death of millions in Africa = Okay. Giving a pill to someone who has been horribly traumatized by one violation so another doesn't occur = not Okay

Again, you know the beliefs of the Catholic church on facilitating what they see as a sin.

Do I? I wonder if that guy Law does?

 

[simpilotswife]

This is a decision made by this hospital for economic reasons. Providing these services would be too expensive, and they can be obtained elsewhere. Perhaps the medical care of some children and babies has been compromised by this economic decision. Some may even have died during the move.

Most rural hospitals do not have certain specialists and treatments available due to the cost, so patients have to suffer by being transported elsewhere to receive proper care.

So I guess it's acceptable for hospitals to make decisions based on money, but unacceptable to make them based on religious principles.

It is when making that decision subjects them to your religion.

As someone mentioned, the hospital is denying contraceptive treatment to every woman, regardless of race, religion, or financial status.

Is that supposed to make a rape victim feel better? Funny I don't think it would assuage me much.