Wis. DOJ: Catholic hospitals can't deny abortion providers admitting privileges

Aug 7, 2013 Read more: Star Tribune 140

Three Catholic hospital systems can't deny abortion providers admitting privileges, the Wisconsin Department of Justice said in a legal filing.

Read more
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#1 Aug 7, 2013
Well l guess the catholic brainiacs and the rest of the religious zealots didn't see this coming??? Backed themselves right into a corner....but of course they will expect to be given special rights along with having their hand out for federal funding.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#2 Aug 7, 2013
We have a right to practice our religion, if it means no abortion services, then so be it, no abortion services. The govt can't force a religious inst to do anything against their religious beliefs.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3 Aug 8, 2013
Corgi lover wrote:
We have a right to practice our religion, if it means no abortion services, then so be it, no abortion services. The govt can't force a religious inst to do anything against their religious beliefs.
No one is telling them to do abortions, Moron. Learn to read.

The laws says the physicians must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, just in case of an emergency. What the DOJ said is that a Catholic hospital cannot deny a physician privileges just because they also do abortions somewhere else.

People who are supposed to care about "all life", you would think they'd be willing to help a woman with a medical emergency. I guess not.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#4 Aug 8, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is telling them to do abortions, Moron. Learn to read.
The laws says the physicians must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, just in case of an emergency. What the DOJ said is that a Catholic hospital cannot deny a physician privileges just because they also do abortions somewhere else.
People who are supposed to care about "all life", you would think they'd be willing to help a woman with a medical emergency. I guess not.
We will not help anyone have an abortion, ever. Even cleaning up after an bortion is a mortal sin. We have our rights, this Country is founded on freedom of religion, freedom of practicing our religion.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5 Aug 8, 2013
Corgi lover wrote:
<quoted text>We will not help anyone have an abortion, ever. Even cleaning up after an bortion is a mortal sin. We have our rights, this Country is founded on freedom of religion, freedom of practicing our religion.
You've just proven that you are not pro-life at all. Your lack of compassion proves how ugly you are inside. You are the worst excuse for a human being it has ever been my displeasure to encounter.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#6 Aug 8, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You've just proven that you are not pro-life at all. Your lack of compassion proves how ugly you are inside. You are the worst excuse for a human being it has ever been my displeasure to encounter.
He certainly sounds bad if one accepts at face that abortion constitutes a medical emergency.

That's how you framed it.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#7 Aug 8, 2013
The Wis. DOJ can make all the filings they want. Until they make one that sticks that magically nullifies First Amendment protections, they will likely lose on this one.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#8 Aug 8, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
Well l guess the catholic brainiacs and the rest of the religious zealots didn't see this coming??? Backed themselves right into a corner....but of course they will expect to be given special rights along with having their hand out for federal funding.
They already have "special rights", Morgana. Same ones everyone has.

First Amendment rights.

Thanks

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9 Aug 8, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
He certainly sounds bad if one accepts at face that abortion constitutes a medical emergency.
That's how you framed it.
Since the point of having admitting privileges (and the supposed purpose of the law) is to assure continuity of care IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY (you know, for the SAFETY of women having an abortion, which is what the law is supposedly doing), that would cover complications from an abortion, yes?

If the only hospital in range is a Catholic hospital, what would YOU suggest when the hospital refuses to grant them?

And how is allowing the doctor in the hospital to help the woman any kind of an infringement on the religion of ANYONE?

Or will you people finally admit that the real purpose of such laws is to close abortion clinics?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#10 Aug 8, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the point of having admitting privileges (and the supposed purpose of the law) is to assure continuity of care IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY (you know, for the SAFETY of women having an abortion, which is what the law is supposedly doing), that would cover complications from an abortion, yes?
If the only hospital in range is a Catholic hospital, what would YOU suggest when the hospital refuses to grant them?
And how is allowing the doctor in the hospital to help the woman any kind of an infringement on the religion of ANYONE?
Or will you people finally admit that the real purpose of such laws is to close abortion clinics?
As of late 2010, Catholic hospitals in Wisconsin handled 30 percent of all admissions.

http://ncronline.org/news/catholic-hospitals-...

That leaves a lot of non-Catholic hospital admissions to choose from.

Extending admitting privileges to an abortion doctor would mean the Catholic hospital would be aiding a procured abortion, which is against their religion. So, it's their religion at issue.

I don't think that they can be forced to do that. We'll see, I guess.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#11 Aug 8, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
As of late 2010, Catholic hospitals in Wisconsin handled 30 percent of all admissions.
http://ncronline.org/news/catholic-hospitals-...
That leaves a lot of non-Catholic hospital admissions to choose from.
Extending admitting privileges to an abortion doctor would mean the Catholic hospital would be aiding a procured abortion, which is against their religion. So, it's their religion at issue.
I don't think that they can be forced to do that. We'll see, I guess.
The law in question clearly states "at nearby hospitals". Again, the part you ignored, what if the only hospital nearby was a Catholic one?

No, allowing the doctor to offer continuity of care, which is SUPPOSED to be the purpose of these laws, you know for women's safety, is not "aiding" the abortion. It would be aiding a patient with a medical emergency, and assuring her continuity of care.

And are you suggesting that a Catholic hospital wouldn't help a woman with an emergency due to complications from an abortion, even with their OWN staff? Seriously? Because if so, that proves my point about a lack of compassion, don't you think?

Or will you people finally admit that the real purpose of these laws has nothing to do with "continuity of care" or "safety", but is to close abortion clinics?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#12 Aug 8, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The law in question clearly states "at nearby hospitals". Again, the part you ignored, what if the only hospital nearby was a Catholic one?
No, allowing the doctor to offer continuity of care, which is SUPPOSED to be the purpose of these laws, you know for women's safety, is not "aiding" the abortion. It would be aiding a patient with a medical emergency, and assuring her continuity of care.
And are you suggesting that a Catholic hospital wouldn't help a woman with an emergency due to complications from an abortion, even with their OWN staff? Seriously? Because if so, that proves my point about a lack of compassion, don't you think?
Or will you people finally admit that the real purpose of these laws has nothing to do with "continuity of care" or "safety", but is to close abortion clinics?
What's "nearby"?

They think it's aiding in a procured abortion. It doesn't matter what your or I think is aiding a procured abortion-it's what they think it is.

Remember, they don't think abortion is health care.

Theoretically, a Catholic hospital can assist to save the mother in an ectopic pregnancy, as its an indirect abortion.

"the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_...

The Catholic hospitals don't have any interest in ensuring the availability of something they believe is a moral evil.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#13 Aug 8, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"What's "nearby"?"

That was a lame deflection. Seriously. How far would YOU think was too far if you were having a medical emergency?

"They think it's aiding in a procured abortion. It doesn't matter what your or I think is aiding a procured abortion-it's what they think it is.
Remember, they don't think abortion is health care.
Theoretically, a Catholic hospital can assist to save the mother in an ectopic pregnancy, as its an indirect abortion.
"the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_... ;

So, what you are saying is that they wouldn't give emergency care to a woman who was experiencing complications from an abortion. I'm sorry, but all hospitals, by law, are obligated to stabilize anyone who comes into their ER. That is a fact.

"The Catholic hospitals don't have any interest in ensuring the availability of something they believe is a moral evil."

By you people, I didn't mean the Catholic hospitals. But I think you knew that already, and are simply deflecting again.

You can't admit here what everyone knows to be true, such laws have only one purpose, to close abortion clinics, and all their talk about "continuity of care" and ensuring the "safety of women" is just that, talk.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#14 Aug 8, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"What's "nearby"?"
That was a lame deflection. Seriously. How far would YOU think was too far if you were having a medical emergency?
"They think it's aiding in a procured abortion. It doesn't matter what your or I think is aiding a procured abortion-it's what they think it is.
Remember, they don't think abortion is health care.
Theoretically, a Catholic hospital can assist to save the mother in an ectopic pregnancy, as its an indirect abortion.
"the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_... ;
So, what you are saying is that they wouldn't give emergency care to a woman who was experiencing complications from an abortion. I'm sorry, but all hospitals, by law, are obligated to stabilize anyone who comes into their ER. That is a fact.
"The Catholic hospitals don't have any interest in ensuring the availability of something they believe is a moral evil."
By you people, I didn't mean the Catholic hospitals. But I think you knew that already, and are simply deflecting again.
You can't admit here what everyone knows to be true, such laws have only one purpose, to close abortion clinics, and all their talk about "continuity of care" and ensuring the "safety of women" is just that, talk.
I just wondered how "nearby" is defined.

An ectopic pregnancy is a complication from pregnancy, isn't it?

They'd provide care-they may not allow for an abortion.(That's "may not", as I don't set hospital policy anywhere). They're compliant with the law in that regard.

I wasn't deflecting. We were speaking of Catholic hospitals.

RE: my opinion (which you seem to need)-Wouldn't bother me personally if all abortion clinics closed tomorrow. That's not going to happen, and these laws aren't going to close clinics, so it's not really important what I think personally about it. Projecting about the laws as you do here isn't terribly useful either. It's rhetoric in place of a discussion.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#15 Aug 8, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"I just wondered how "nearby" is defined."

Uh huh.

In point of fact, the Wisconsin law DOESN'T specify, which is ridiculous. Other states have said 30 miles.

"An ectopic pregnancy is a complication from pregnancy, isn't it?
They'd provide care-they may not allow for an abortion.(That's "may not", as I don't set hospital policy anywhere)."

The DOJ is not asking them to allow for abortion. And I didn't say complications from pregnancy What are talking about?

"They're compliant with the law in that regard."

Then if a woman come in with comes into the ER in an emergency situation the result of an abortion, they are ALREADY treating her. How is having her doctor do so any different?

"I wasn't deflecting. We were speaking of Catholic hospitals."

Uh huh.

"RE: my opinion (which you seem to need)-Wouldn't bother me personally if all abortion clinics closed tomorrow."

And I didn't ask if you wanted clinics to close.

"That's not going to happen, and these laws aren't going to close clinics, so it's not really important what I think personally about it."

Really? And how will they be able to stay open if the only hospital nearby won't allow admitting privileges to the doctor? By the way "these laws" have already closed clinics in other states. You know this.

"Projecting about the laws as you do here isn't terribly useful either. It's rhetoric in place of a discussion."

Discussing the likely outcome (which is the objection being expressed) of the law in question is pertinent on a thread where the fate of the law, and how it affects both local hospitals, and abortion clinics.

I understand. I really do. You can't admit that women's safety is not the point of the law, but the excuse used to make it as difficult as possible for abortion clinics to stay open, in the hope that they will be forced to close.

I get it.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#16 Aug 8, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"I just wondered how "nearby" is defined."
Uh huh.
In point of fact, the Wisconsin law DOESN'T specify, which is ridiculous. Other states have said 30 miles.
"An ectopic pregnancy is a complication from pregnancy, isn't it?
They'd provide care-they may not allow for an abortion.(That's "may not", as I don't set hospital policy anywhere)."
The DOJ is not asking them to allow for abortion. And I didn't say complications from pregnancy What are talking about?
"They're compliant with the law in that regard."
Then if a woman come in with comes into the ER in an emergency situation the result of an abortion, they are ALREADY treating her. How is having her doctor do so any different?
"I wasn't deflecting. We were speaking of Catholic hospitals."
Uh huh.
"RE: my opinion (which you seem to need)-Wouldn't bother me personally if all abortion clinics closed tomorrow."
And I didn't ask if you wanted clinics to close.
"That's not going to happen, and these laws aren't going to close clinics, so it's not really important what I think personally about it."
Really? And how will they be able to stay open if the only hospital nearby won't allow admitting privileges to the doctor? By the way "these laws" have already closed clinics in other states. You know this.
"Projecting about the laws as you do here isn't terribly useful either. It's rhetoric in place of a discussion."
Discussing the likely outcome (which is the objection being expressed) of the law in question is pertinent on a thread where the fate of the law, and how it affects both local hospitals, and abortion clinics.
I understand. I really do. You can't admit that women's safety is not the point of the law, but the excuse used to make it as difficult as possible for abortion clinics to stay open, in the hope that they will be forced to close.
I get it.
Sorry. Misread you.

Yeah, they'd help someone who was suffering from complications from an abortion. Why wouldn't they? The botched abortion didn't take place there. She can receive care from someone other than an abortion doctor.

More rhetoric. Catholics hospitals aren't all that's out there.

Women's safety is the point of the law. Enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the state, not of the hospitals. Some hospitals won't grant admitting privileges to abortion doctors. Most will.

Every business has to adapt to changes in environment. They can and will close some clinics and open new ones in other locales.

It's kind of disingenuous to complain about the law now when the same legal system allowed abortion in the first place. Sometimes it goes the way you want, sometimes not.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#17 Aug 8, 2013
Corgi lover wrote:
We have a right to practice our religion, if it means no abortion services, then so be it, no abortion services. The govt can't force a religious inst to do anything against their religious beliefs.
The government makes the laws. Do as you please without the assistance of federal dollars.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#18 Aug 8, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
What's "nearby"?
They think it's aiding in a procured abortion. It doesn't matter what your or I think is aiding a procured abortion-it's what they think it is.
Remember, they don't think abortion is health care.
Theoretically, a Catholic hospital can assist to save the mother in an ectopic pregnancy, as its an indirect abortion.
"the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_...
The Catholic hospitals don't have any interest in ensuring the availability of something they believe is a moral evil.
So you admit they will not provide a woman a life saving abortion, such as the case in Ireland, correct?

The government can disqualify them for federal funding. Problem solved.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#19 Aug 8, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_...
Yes, we are well aware of the fact that the CC and their male hierarchy prefer to slice and dice a woman as opposed to providing her with Methotrexate to end an ectopic pregnancy. They use to enjoy burning women at the stake too.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#20 Aug 8, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Sorry. Misread you.
Yeah, they'd help someone who was suffering from complications from an abortion. Why wouldn't they? The botched abortion didn't take place there. She can receive care from someone other than an abortion doctor."

Why?

"More rhetoric. Catholics hospitals aren't all that's out there."

Not rhetoric. Are you going to claim that there aren't places where a Catholic hospital is the only hospital within a distance close enough to make a difference in an emergency? Really?

"Women's safety is the point of the law. Enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the state, not of the hospitals. Some hospitals won't grant admitting privileges to abortion doctors. Most will."

Then those that won't, don't really care about women's "safety".

"Every business has to adapt to changes in environment. They can and will close some clinics and open new ones in other locales."

Every business. Then the Catholic hospitals can adapt to the changes in law that mean they will have to allow admitting privileges for providers of abortion in case of an emergency.

"It's kind of disingenuous to complain about the law now when the same legal system allowed abortion in the first place. Sometimes it goes the way you want, sometimes not."

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that because there are laws I agree with, that I should complain about ones I don't agree with? Do you hold yourself to that same standard? So, we won't be hearing any more from you about birth control mandates, huh?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wisconsin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ban on Gay Marriage in Wisconsin (Nov '06) Apr 16 Sneaky Pete 24
News Labor faces a moment of truth (Feb '11) Apr 13 Almost amish 20,668
News Wisconsic Agency Bans Talk of Climate Change Apr 11 SpaceBlues 2
News Scott Walker Appointee Suggests Volcanoes Might... Apr 10 SpaceBlues 1
News Steven Walters: E-cigarette popularity lights u... Mar 31 gravytrain 2
News 5Wisconsin's bar-to-grocery store ratio puts th... (May '14) Mar 30 Almost amish 7
News Scott Walker's gloomy pitch for the presidency Mar 30 Lamer 26
More from around the web