Wis. DOJ: Catholic hospitals can't de...

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

There are 140 comments on the Star Tribune story from Aug 7, 2013, titled Wis. DOJ: Catholic hospitals can't deny abortion providers admitting privileges. In it, Star Tribune reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Star Tribune.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#87 Aug 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
If their objection is based only upon the fact that the doctor does abortions without regard to whether they fall in with all other criteria? Yes.
Still, what does this have to do with you saying I was telling you it was the hospitals responsibility to see that they followed the law, when I never said or implied such a thing?
And it has even LESS to do with what I actually DID say regarding Catholic hospitals, a point you have yet to address.
That position is where I got the impression that it was up to the hospitals somehow to help the abortion providers be compliant-by overriding their objection to issuing admitting privileges to abortionists. That forces someone else to solve the abortion provider's problem RE: admitting privileges.

I'm simply and sincerely trying to find out what you believe you "DID say" RE: Catholic hospitals, because I've pasted three or so posts of yours back and you're still saying that your position isn't being represented.

Would you mind repeating it, please?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#88 Aug 15, 2013
"The abortion isn't the issue, the current emergency situation is. If they REALLY cared about "continuity of care to ensure women's safety", it wouldn't matter how the emergency situation came about.

I'll go out on a limb, and guess that the RCC supports these laws which say that a doctor who performs abortions must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Laws supposedly being considered in order to ensure the safety of the women involved. That IS the reason being put forth, no? Their denial OF those privileges indicates that the safety of women is NOT of concern to them, which was my original point on this subject during this particular exchange. It indicates quite clearly, in fact, that the real purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for a woman to exercise her right to have an abortion.

To paraphrase you, one cannot support laws that claim they are for women's safety while knowing that you are going to do everything possible to make sure the law cannot be followed."

This is what you misrepresented. In no way does it say that Catholic hospitals are responsible for seeing that doctors follow the law, which is what you tried to claim for me.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#89 Aug 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
"The abortion isn't the issue, the current emergency situation is. If they REALLY cared about "continuity of care to ensure women's safety", it wouldn't matter how the emergency situation came about.
I'll go out on a limb, and guess that the RCC supports these laws which say that a doctor who performs abortions must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Laws supposedly being considered in order to ensure the safety of the women involved. That IS the reason being put forth, no? Their denial OF those privileges indicates that the safety of women is NOT of concern to them, which was my original point on this subject during this particular exchange. It indicates quite clearly, in fact, that the real purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for a woman to exercise her right to have an abortion.
To paraphrase you, one cannot support laws that claim they are for women's safety while knowing that you are going to do everything possible to make sure the law cannot be followed."
This is what you misrepresented. In no way does it say that Catholic hospitals are responsible for seeing that doctors follow the law, which is what you tried to claim for me.
"]"The abortion isn't the issue, the current emergency situation is. If they REALLY cared about "continuity of care to ensure women's safety", it wouldn't matter how the emergency situation came about."

No one has said that the emergency patient would be denied treatment based upon the nature of the emergency.

"I'll go out on a limb, and guess that the RCC supports these laws which say that a doctor who performs abortions must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Laws supposedly being considered in order to ensure the safety of the women involved. That IS the reason being put forth, no? Their denial OF those privileges indicates that the safety of women is NOT of concern to them, which was my original point on this subject during this particular exchange. It indicates quite clearly, in fact, that the real purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for a woman to exercise her right to have an abortion."

I already responded to this passage yesterday. I agreed that the RCC would favor laws that restrict abortion. I also believe that they support legislation that provides for high quality of care for those in need. Extension of privileges doesn't have any bearing on those positions. They can and will care for emergency patients as they have now, without having extended admitting privileges to abortionists.

"To paraphrase you, one cannot support laws that claim they are for women's safety while knowing that you are going to do everything possible to make sure the law cannot be followed."

The Hospitals aren't doing anything of the sort, unless you believe that their admitting privilege policies are subject to state fiat. The law doesn't stipulate to that, to my knowledge. To insist that they admit abortion doctors places them in position of having to assist (having responsibility for) the abortion doctor's fulfillment of the new legal requirements. They have to do something to make the abortion doctor compliant in this scenario.

"This is what you misrepresented. In no way does it say that Catholic hospitals are responsible for seeing that doctors follow the law, which is what you tried to claim for me."

See above paragraph.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#90 Aug 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"]"The abortion isn't the issue, the current emergency situation is. If they REALLY cared about "continuity of care to ensure women's safety", it wouldn't matter how the emergency situation came about."
No one has said that the emergency patient would be denied treatment based upon the nature of the emergency.
"I'll go out on a limb, and guess that the RCC supports these laws which say that a doctor who performs abortions must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Laws supposedly being considered in order to ensure the safety of the women involved. That IS the reason being put forth, no? Their denial OF those privileges indicates that the safety of women is NOT of concern to them, which was my original point on this subject during this particular exchange. It indicates quite clearly, in fact, that the real purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for a woman to exercise her right to have an abortion."
I already responded to this passage yesterday. I agreed that the RCC would favor laws that restrict abortion. I also believe that they support legislation that provides for high quality of care for those in need. Extension of privileges doesn't have any bearing on those positions. They can and will care for emergency patients as they have now, without having extended admitting privileges to abortionists.
"To paraphrase you, one cannot support laws that claim they are for women's safety while knowing that you are going to do everything possible to make sure the law cannot be followed."
The Hospitals aren't doing anything of the sort, unless you believe that their admitting privilege policies are subject to state fiat. The law doesn't stipulate to that, to my knowledge. To insist that they admit abortion doctors places them in position of having to assist (having responsibility for) the abortion doctor's fulfillment of the new legal requirements. They have to do something to make the abortion doctor compliant in this scenario.
"This is what you misrepresented. In no way does it say that Catholic hospitals are responsible for seeing that doctors follow the law, which is what you tried to claim for me."
See above paragraph.
"Extension of privileges doesn't have any bearing on those positions."

According to the reasoning behind the law, this statement is untrue. It's purpose is supposedly to ensure the safety of women through "continuity of care".

"To insist that they admit abortion doctors places them in position of having to assist (having responsibility for) the abortion doctor's fulfillment of the new legal requirements."

No. What I had said was that obviously they DON'T care about "continuity of care", which makes their support of a law that is supposed to ensure such, suspect.

Still, what I actually "insist" on,(not that I have insisted at all, this is merely what I believe) is that they not be allowed to refuse privileges merely on the basis of the fact that the doctor performs abortions, if that doctor fulfills the other requirements of being granted privileges, and if they are the only available hospital in range.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#91 Aug 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"Extension of privileges doesn't have any bearing on those positions."
According to the reasoning behind the law, this statement is untrue. It's purpose is supposedly to ensure the safety of women through "continuity of care".
"To insist that they admit abortion doctors places them in position of having to assist (having responsibility for) the abortion doctor's fulfillment of the new legal requirements."
No. What I had said was that obviously they DON'T care about "continuity of care", which makes their support of a law that is supposed to ensure such, suspect.
Still, what I actually "insist" on,(not that I have insisted at all, this is merely what I believe) is that they not be allowed to refuse privileges merely on the basis of the fact that the doctor performs abortions, if that doctor fulfills the other requirements of being granted privileges, and if they are the only available hospital in range.
Yes, "continuity of care" was mentioned as a rationale for the new strictures. No such "continuity" was available for the abortion doctor at a Catholic hospital prior to passage of the law. The Wisconsin Catholic Conference did not address this feature of the law; they focused on the ultrasound provisions.

http://www.wisconsincatholic.org/SB%20206--Ul...

What I'm saying is they didn't run the "continuity of care" thing out.

You're saying that they cannot decide themselves as to whom they allow admitting privileges? Again, it seems to me that you are yoking the hospitals with the abortion doctor's burden.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#92 Aug 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, "continuity of care" was mentioned as a rationale for the new strictures. No such "continuity" was available for the abortion doctor at a Catholic hospital prior to passage of the law. The Wisconsin Catholic Conference did not address this feature of the law; they focused on the ultrasound provisions.
http://www.wisconsincatholic.org/SB%20206--Ul...
What I'm saying is they didn't run the "continuity of care" thing out.
You're saying that they cannot decide themselves as to whom they allow admitting privileges? Again, it seems to me that you are yoking the hospitals with the abortion doctor's burden.
I'm saying that I believe they shouldn't be allowed to deny a doctor admitting privileges when that doctor fits the requirements the hospital has decided upon, SOLELY because he performs abortions, and when they are the only hospital within range. It's clear that the DOJ agrees with that.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#93 Aug 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying that I believe they shouldn't be allowed to deny a doctor admitting privileges when that doctor fits the requirements the hospital has decided upon, SOLELY because he performs abortions, and when they are the only hospital within range. It's clear that the DOJ agrees with that.
Not allowing an abortion doctor privileges IS part of the requirements the hospital decided upon, it appears. At least some of them.

The Wi DOJ only 'agrees with' it since making the hospitals grant privileges to the abortion doctor would take the "you're making me get admitting privileges and I can't get them" problem off of their desk and onto someone else's.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#94 Aug 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not allowing an abortion doctor privileges IS part of the requirements the hospital decided upon, it appears. At least some of them.
The Wi DOJ only 'agrees with' it since making the hospitals grant privileges to the abortion doctor would take the "you're making me get admitting privileges and I can't get them" problem off of their desk and onto someone else's.
Says you.

It's not "part of the requirements". What nonsense you spout.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#95 Aug 16, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they do have the right to free exercise of their religion, even though some stupid fcking people who skipped Civics class in middle school think they don't.
I was never taught that religion could bypass the laws of the land. Apparently YOU were.

Explain to me again why muslims are not free to practice Sharia? Take your time.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#96 Aug 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Says you.
It's not "part of the requirements". What nonsense you spout.
Some hospitals already said they won't issue admitting privileges to the abortion doctors, so it appears that they know what their own requirements are and are not.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#97 Aug 16, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was never taught that religion could bypass the laws of the land. Apparently YOU were.
Explain to me again why muslims are not free to practice Sharia? Take your time.
The first amendment IS the law of the land.

It does indeed appear that you were "never taught" respective to this stuff.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#98 Aug 17, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The first amendment IS the law of the land.
It does indeed appear that you were "never taught" respective to this stuff.
AND AGAIN:

I was never taught that religion could bypass the laws of the land. Apparently YOU were.

Explain to me again why muslims are not free to practice Sharia? Take your time.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#99 Aug 19, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
AND AGAIN:
I was never taught that religion could bypass the laws of the land. Apparently YOU were.
Explain to me again why muslims are not free to practice Sharia? Take your time.
Who says they can't?

Sharia is essentially being an observant Muslim. They can do that all day and twice on Sunday.

Some facets of Sharia (like Islamic criminal law and those deal with societal governance) cannot be implemented in the US as we have a civil/Criminal legal structure in place.

Again, never taught, were you?

Slogans are poor substitute for facts.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#100 Aug 19, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Who says they can't?
Sharia is essentially being an observant Muslim. They can do that all day and twice on Sunday.
Some facets of Sharia (like Islamic criminal law and those deal with societal governance) cannot be implemented in the US as we have a civil/Criminal legal structure in place.
Again, never taught, were you?
Slogans are poor substitute for facts.
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Who says they can't?
YOU do.
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sharia is essentially being an observant Muslim.
BS, no it is not! The law is part and whole of their observation.

Definition of SHARIA
: Islamic law based on the Koran

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sha...

Definition of 'Sharia'

Islamic religious law that governs not only religious rituals, but aspects of day-to-day life in Islam. Sharia, literally translated, means "the way."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shariah.a...
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>

Some facets of Sharia (like Islamic criminal law and those deal with societal governance) cannot be implemented in the US as we have a civil/Criminal legal structure in place.
WHY NOT? Religious freedom takes precedence over the law according to YOU. In your own words:
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
They already have "special rights", Morgana. Same ones everyone has.
First Amendment rights.
Thanks
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
First amendment trumps Wisconsin law.
Better read this again sweety:

ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
Overview
Resources
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendmen...

You are not for religious freedom....unless it is YOUR religion!

BuIIshit is a poor substitute for facts Dan.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#104 Aug 20, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
YOU do.
<quoted text>
BS, no it is not! The law is part and whole of their observation.
Definition of SHARIA
: Islamic law based on the Koran
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sha...
Definition of 'Sharia'
Islamic religious law that governs not only religious rituals, but aspects of day-to-day life in Islam. Sharia, literally translated, means "the way."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shariah.a...
<quoted text>
WHY NOT? Religious freedom takes precedence over the law according to YOU. In your own words:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Better read this again sweety:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
Overview
Resources
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendmen...
You are not for religious freedom....unless it is YOUR religion!
BuIIshit is a poor substitute for facts Dan.
Don't cherrypick, Morgana.
Of course the establishment clause is in effect, but the First Amendment allows for free exercise of religion.
There ARE limitations-one cannot commit crimes claiming free exercise, etc.
Sharia law respective to civil can criminal penalties cannot supercede existing state and federal civil/criminal law.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#105 Aug 20, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't cherrypick, Morgana.
Of course the establishment clause is in effect, but the First Amendment allows for free exercise of religion.
There ARE limitations-one cannot commit crimes claiming free exercise, etc.
Sharia law respective to civil can criminal penalties cannot supercede existing state and federal civil/criminal law.
You are the one who is cherrypicking.

OH...now you admit there are limitations to religious practice!!! Guess what Dan...there are limitations to YOUR nonsense religion also!!

Discrimination is against the LAW, your catholic and other religious nut cases wish to discriminate against women, women have civil rights...I know that is tough for you but you need to accept it.

In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The word "sex" was added at the last moment. According to the West Encyclopedia of American Law, Representative Howard W. Smith (D-VA) added the word. His critics argued that Smith, a conservative Southern opponent of federal civil rights, did so to kill the entire bill. Smith, however, argued that he had amended the bill in keeping with his support of Alice Paul and the National Women's Party with whom he had been working. Martha W. Griffiths (D-MI) led the effort to keep the word "sex" in the bill. In the final legislation, Section 703 (a) made it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The final bill also allowed sex to be a consideration when sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Title VII of the act created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement the law.

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civ...

They can abide by the laws of civil rights and commerce or bow out of doing business, or bow out of having their hand out for government money. If they do not want to treat half the tax payers equally then they need to support themselves. Okey dokey?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#106 Aug 21, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who is cherrypicking.
OH...now you admit there are limitations to religious practice!!! Guess what Dan...there are limitations to YOUR nonsense religion also!!
Discrimination is against the LAW, your catholic and other religious nut cases wish to discriminate against women, women have civil rights...I know that is tough for you but you need to accept it.
In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The word "sex" was added at the last moment. According to the West Encyclopedia of American Law, Representative Howard W. Smith (D-VA) added the word. His critics argued that Smith, a conservative Southern opponent of federal civil rights, did so to kill the entire bill. Smith, however, argued that he had amended the bill in keeping with his support of Alice Paul and the National Women's Party with whom he had been working. Martha W. Griffiths (D-MI) led the effort to keep the word "sex" in the bill. In the final legislation, Section 703 (a) made it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The final bill also allowed sex to be a consideration when sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Title VII of the act created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement the law.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civ...
They can abide by the laws of civil rights and commerce or bow out of doing business, or bow out of having their hand out for government money. If they do not want to treat half the tax payers equally then they need to support themselves. Okey dokey?
You're simply whining now.

The First Amendment says what its says and means what it means. You can't simply throw it out if you disagree with the positions of those protected by it.
OFC

West Chicago, IL

#107 Aug 21, 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.
Correct me if I am wrong- in a medical emergency you call 911 and the paramedics transport you to the nearest hospital with the level of medical support needed. Are you saying that catholic hospitals are refusing to allow paramedics to transport patients to them? Anything else should be up to the hospitals- including who can be on staff.
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#108 Aug 21, 2013
OFC wrote:
<quoted text>Correct me if I am wrong- in a medical emergency you call 911 and the paramedics transport you to the nearest hospital with the level of medical support needed. Are you saying that catholic hospitals are refusing to allow paramedics to transport patients to them? Anything else should be up to the hospitals- including who can be on staff.
that depends on if the catholic hospital is paying their salaries or if they are being subsidized by the american taxpayer. They wanna pay, they are free to do whatever it is they want with their religion within bounds of the law.

If they want gov handouts then sometimes that means following guide lines laid out by the federal gov. And there is zero doubt in my mind that once you start taking away federal dollars, they will change their tunes pretty quickly.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#109 Aug 21, 2013
Lamer wrote:
<quoted text>
that depends on if the catholic hospital is paying their salaries or if they are being subsidized by the american taxpayer. They wanna pay, they are free to do whatever it is they want with their religion within bounds of the law.
If they want gov handouts then sometimes that means following guide lines laid out by the federal gov. And there is zero doubt in my mind that once you start taking away federal dollars, they will change their tunes pretty quickly.
Catholic hospitals treat emergency patients. The hospital pays the salaries of those employed there.

By the way, receipt of federal monies doesn't abridge your rights under the constitution.

People who live on welfare, for instance, retain all rights granted under the constitution.

Instead of memorizing cute slogans, stay awake in Civics class next time.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Wisconsin students demand free tuition for blac... Feb 18 Sean Spicer 4
News Six Wolves Found Dead in Wisconsin (Dec '08) Feb 13 vocal local 31
read this if you're looking for a kinky woman!! Feb 6 Nipples6280 1
News Wisconsin Democrats propose legislation to lega... Feb 6 Jo Ann 1
News Can A Liberal Talk Station Survive In Trumpa s ... Feb 1 BHM5267 1
News Wisconsin union membership continues to fall Jan 30 BHM5267 1
News Wisconsin has most successful year for solar po... Jan 29 Solarman 1
More from around the web