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

[chobie]

But a grocery store is not required to sell alchohol if it conflicts with its religious beliefs. It's not required to open on the Sabbath. If it chooses to stock certain items, it does. It's not forced by law to carry food, it chooses to.

And a grocery store owned by Native Americans could not stock peyote even though it is a part of their religion. Stores can be forced to not do things.


And if the store is licensed through the state, the state may well be able to force certain items to be stocked. Just because they have not does not mean the state can't.


States can regulate for the public welfare, health and saftey.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

And not allowing someone the choice of the drug as an option is a violation of one of the tenets of the Catholic faith which is Free Will and Choice.

I'm glad to know that. All churches (catholic and otherwise) should just close up shop then.



It is not forcing beliefs--they don't offer it.

How is that forcing anything?

Omission is not force.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

States can regulate for the public welfare, health and saftey.

So you are saying that they have mandatory inventory?


That Wonder bread must be in stock at all times.

That even though oranges are out of season, they must import them from California?

That I like Organic milk (for my kids--I hate milk personally) that they MUST keep that in stock b/c I feel it is better for their health?

What law dictates minimum inventory requirements?

My health food store chooses to not stock items made with articifical ingredients. Can they be forced to stock Koolaide and Little Debbies?

Absolutley NOT. You cannot tell a store what they MUST have in stock.


As far as illegal items they are not permitted to have in stock--that is actually a separate thing all together as we aren't associating the topic of discussion with permitting illegal items.

 

[simpilotswife]

I'm glad to know that. All churches (catholic and otherwise) should just close up shop then.

Well the Catholic ones could certainly. Just think how many altar boys and girls would heave a sigh of relief.

It is not forcing beliefs--they don't offer it.
How is that forcing anything?
Omission is not force.

Not allowing someone to have something is forcing them to do things your way.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Well the Catholic ones could certainly. Just think how many altar boys and girls would heave a sigh of relief.

.

wow

 

[chobie]

So you are saying that they have mandatory inventory?


That Wonder bread must be in stock at all times.

That even though oranges are out of season, they must import them from California?

That I like Organic milk (for my kids--I hate milk personally) that they MUST keep that in stock b/c I feel it is better for their health?

What law dictates minimum inventory requirements?

My health food store chooses to not stock items made with articifical ingredients. Can they be forced to stock Koolaide and Little Debbies?

Absolutley NOT. You cannot tell a store what they MUST have in stock.


As far as illegal items they are not permitted to have in stock--that is actually a separate thing all together as we aren't associating the topic of discussion with permitting illegal items.

I think that a state could probably force grocery stores, if licensed by the state and/or taking public funds, to stock certain items under the public welfare and it would be constitutional. Just because it has not be done does not mean it can't be done.

As for the illegal argument, a state could probably pass a law saying grocery stores must stock certain items and the it would be illegal not to. Just like thery are laws that force restaurants to serve people even if they don't want to.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

Sure they are. What if the victim has to be hospitalized for an extended period of time and that is the only hospital around for miles? How can you claim that they have a choice?
.....
Not allowing someone to have something is forcing them to do things your way.

So let me get this straight? It is your belief that it is the duty of the Catholic Faith to provide alternatives to their services? They should build the "other hospitals" and hire the "other Doctors" so people have an easy and convient access to alternatives... and a failure of the Cathoics to do so is not allowing somebody a choice?

Shouldn't those duties be the responsibility of the Government, not the Catholics?

Given your apparent hatred of the faith, I'm kind of surprised that you seem to be advocating that they should be responsible for so much of the Public Healthcare system.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Not allowing someone to have something is forcing them to do things your way.

And how is that?

I don't want to pay for medevac--so my hospital should have EVERY single thing I need in case my children are sick or injured. They shoudl be able to heal her on site and save the expense of medevac transport.

I shouldn't have to do things their way and increase my costs.

Right?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I think that a state could probably force grocery stores, if licensed by the state and/or taking public funds, to stock certain items under the public welfare and it would be constitutional. Just because it has not be done does not mean it can't be done.

OKay--fair enough.

And department stores should be obligated to sell plus size clothing?

They must carry all shoe sizes in existence?


We all need to be clothed.

I'll be sure to write my legislators that inventory control should be mandated and request that we change the type of society we are where the individual cannot make business decisions and the state mandates what you must sell.

 

[chobie]

OKay--fair enough.

And department stores should be obligated to sell plus size clothing?

They must carry all shoe sizes in existence?


We all need to be clothed.

I'll be sure to write my legislators that inventory control should be mandated and request that we change the type of society we are where the individual cannot make business decisions and the state mandates what you must sell.

If the government can some how make a convincing commerce clause or public welfare argument justifying those laws, then yes, it can be done.

 

[froglady]

I think that a state could probably force grocery stores, if licensed by the state and/or taking public funds, to stock certain items under the public welfare and it would be constitutional. Just because it has not be done does not mean it can't be done.

As for the illegal argument, a state could probably pass a law saying grocery stores must stock certain items and the it would be illegal not to. Just like thery are laws that force restaurants to serve people even if they don't want to.

It just hasn't been done in THIS country...yet. It certainly has been done in others. So far, our rule of law has prevented it, but there seem to be enough people around who feel that the government should provide everything, and control all businesses and institutions, that it very well may come to pass some day.

 

[sodaseller]

This is a difficult issue. As noted by one poster, Catholic Hospitals arose to serve what was then in effect a ghettoized community. Plainly, that does not apply any longer,and Catholic hospitals now provide services to those of all beliefs (consistent with Catholic dogma), and health care in general has become a public issue in the interim.

This is the latest chain in a series of legal skirmishes over the Church's right to stay true to its beliefs within the public sphere, and this is the first instance I have had any pause in supporting the Church, due to the unique circumstances. Certainly I supported the Church's right in California not to offer benefit plans to its employees that paid for services the Church found immoral. (to be clear, the issue of the Church imposing its beliefs as to civil marriage are far different, IMO, and I do not support that)

But this is a harder question, for all the reasons far more eloquently laid out by others. Interestingly, Benedict XVI, in his recent (and only) Encyclical (Deus Caritas Est - "God is Love") reiterated the long held Catholic teaching that charity is provided for it's own sake, not proselytize, a point of departure with some of our Protestant brethren, notably Franklin Graham. The Church believes that it borders on immorality to condition the receipt of any charitable initiative upon the acceptance of evangelization. That is antithetical to the concept of charity. Employing analogous reasoning, it would be evil to exploit this issue in the name of hate, as is evidenced by the Outer Hornerite OP.

But the Church also believes that the provision of any abortifacient is the antithesis of charity, and does harm to the recipient spiritually. So maybe this question is resolved by resort to medical ethics - the prime directive - Primum non Nocerum - "First, do no harm". While that directive plainly is meant to apply to medical conditions primarily, certainly a healer is to take no action s/he reasonably believes to be injurious to the recipient, and the Church believes that any abortion does just that. So it would be violating medical ethics to take that action.

At the same time, I have always felt the Church was on shaky ground contending that morally protectible life begins at conception, and not at some later point in the pregnancy. The issue of ensoulment arises. Given that very reasonable people can disagree on that point, this would seem to be an issue of prudent doubt, to use the theological term, though current dogma would never admit to such a possibility.

 

[jgmklmhem]

It just hasn't been done in THIS country...yet. It certainly has been done in others. So far, our rule of law has prevented it, but there seem to be enough people around who feel that the government should provide everything, and control all businesses and institutions, that it very well may come to pass some day.

Yet when govt might even think about controlling something about an individual the world is coming to an end. When govt starts taking over businesses and their decisions it is just a hop skip and jump to taking over individual decisions as well.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It just hasn't been done in THIS country...yet. It certainly has been done in others. So far, our rule of law has prevented it, but there seem to be enough people around who feel that the government should provide everything, and control all businesses and institutions, that it very well may come to pass some day.

But that wouldn't be right.

It sounds like communism or socialism (as best I can recollect from that world history class a loooooooooonggggg time ago).


That is where the problem is with these mandates--of legally requiring a business to do something it doesn't want to do reeks of those other "isms". Mandating that a Religious institution MUST go against its doctrine to perform a non-lifesaving measure is imposing the governments stance into a place it shouldn't be.

And technically..no matter how you spell it--anything can kill us be it heart disease, an automobile, an illness, or pregnancy.

But it doesn't save the rape victim's life at that moment to administer the MAP. Ending or preventing a possible pregnancy at that moment is not necessary to stabilize her and save her life.

 

[froglady]

At least a couple of people caught my drift.

 

[BelleMcNally]

Well the Catholic ones could certainly. Just think how many altar boys and girls would heave a sigh of relief.

Comments like that certainly don't help your cause...

 

[sodaseller]

Yet when govt might even think about controlling something about an individual the world is coming to an end. When govt starts taking over businesses and their decisions it is just a hop skip and jump to taking over individual decisions as well.

Government has done that since the founding, prelapsarian myths notwithstanding. The same arguments were asserted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the court had little problem finding that the Commerce Clause permits just such regulation. Earlier than that, the railroads reserved the right to limit what crops they would transport, to no avail. Ditto for Mississippi River commerce even earlier. The Federalists and then the Whigs won these arguments generation ago

 

[punkin]

Government has done that since the founding, prelapsarian myths notwithstanding. The same arguments were asserted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the court had little problem finding that the Commerce Clause permits just such regulation. Earlier than that, the railroads reserved the right to limit what crops they would transport, to no avail. Ditto for Mississippi River commerce even earlier. The Federalists and then the Whigs won these arguments generation ago

Yes, but the same arguments seem to resurface every generation and sometimes, the solutions get reworked.

 

[BelleMcNally]

But the Church also believes that the provision of any abortifacient is the antithesis of charity, and does harm to the recipient spiritually. So maybe this question is resolved by resort to medical ethics - the prime directive - Primum non Nocerum - "First, do no harm". While that directive plainly is meant to apply to medical conditions primarily, certainly a healer is to take no action s/he reasonably believes to be injurious to the recipient, and the Church believes that any abortion does just that. So it would be violating medical ethics to take that action.

And this raises and very interesting question that diverges, somewhat, from the realm of legality: assume, for the moment, that the oath refers primarily to a doctors influence over a patient's physical well-being (psychiatrists and the like are, obviously, a different case)--which takes precedence: the physician's oath or her profession of faith? If it can be proven that medical harm could occur from a physician's refusal to provide certain services to her patients, does her responsibility to her own soul override the oath she took when we vested her with a doctor's power?

I'm guessing most people will say, yes, her responsibility is to her own conscience--and with almost any other profession, I would agree, wholeheartedly. But when it comes to the case of doctors...it gives me pause. I realize people might tear into me about this ("Why shouldn't doctors be able to follow their own religious beliefs, yadda, yadda, yadda") and I know it's a flimsy little stance that I have...but I see the physician's oath as being somewhat sacred in its own way. I mean...these people are our healers. We place the trust of our bodies in their hands...that's pretty heavy, if you ask me.

 

[sodaseller]

And this raises and very interesting question that diverges, somewhat, from the realm of legality: assume, for the moment, that the oath refers primarily to a doctors influence over a patient's physical well-being (psychiatrists and the like are, obviously, a different case)--which takes precedence: the physician's oath or her profession of faith? If it can be proven that medical harm could occur from a physician's refusal to provide certain services to her patients, does her responsibility to her own soul override the oath she took when we vested her with a doctor's power?

I'm guessing most people will say, yes, her responsibility is to her own conscience--and with almost any other profession, I would agree, wholeheartedly. But when it comes to the case of doctors...it gives me pause. I realize people might tear into me about this ("Why shouldn't doctors be able to follow their own religious beliefs, yadda, yadda, yadda") and I know it's a flimsy little stance that I have...but I see the physician's oath as being somewhat sacred in its own way. I mean...these people are our healers. We place the trust of our bodies in their hands...that's pretty heavy, if you ask me.

All very good points, and additional evidence of the danger of soundbite reasoning. In fact, we already consider doctors differently than other industries - that's why they are self-regulating and set their own standard of care