The Catholic Church's War on Healthcare

You do realise under your idiotic rules ANYONE could say they have a religious objection to anything and you think that should exempt them from the laws of the land. Hate to tell you, doesnt work that way, even churches must abide by the laws that the goverment sets in place, criminal law, planning laws, OH&S laws, building codes, and yes laws in regards to workers entitlments.

Nope.

But it's not that simple either.

As I pointed out Obama changed his mind on this today just for the reasons I mentioned.

There are others, like Churches don't pay income or personal property tax.

And of course Conscientious Objectors

There are others, such as use of drugs that are normally illegal:

For instance:

SPECIAL EXEMPT PERSONS
1307.31 Native American Church.
The listing of peyote as a controlled substance [under federal law] does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church so using peyote are exempt from registration.

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/federal/federal_c-10th_d-nm_case1.shtml
 
Well it seems we have the Catholics on board with President Obama's decision on this issue. Insurance companies will pay for it without directly charging the Catholics for contraception.

But that won't stop Republicans from claiming that President Obama is conducting a war on the church when in reality Republicans are conducting war on healthcare for women.
 
Please try for a moment to put yourself in the position of someone who can't in good conscience use or help another person use birth control or arbortificient drugs. Before these new laws that would have seemed like a really personal choice. But now all of a sudden that person can no longer be an employer.

A person who otherwise could have found employees willing to work for him without being given birth control, all of a sudden is prevented by law from doing that. He can no longer function as a full citizen. And the law seems like a very abitrary intrusive government intervention into the freedom for people to contract with each other. Being an employer shouldn't require someone to be part of the state, it should be based on free agreement between employer and employee.

Now, if someone were to, for example, be against the use of money, it would be obvious why that person might not be able to be an employer. But why
 
Nope.

But it's not that simple either.

As I pointed out Obama changed his mind on this today just for the reasons I mentioned.

There are others, like Churches don't pay income or personal property tax.

And of course Conscientious Objectors

There are others, such as use of drugs that are normally illegal:

For instance:

SPECIAL EXEMPT PERSONS
1307.31 Native American Church.
The listing of peyote as a controlled substance [under federal law] does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church so using peyote are exempt from registration.

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/federal/federal_c-10th_d-nm_case1.shtml


LOVE how you ignore the fact that native americans have rights to self determination FAR exceding that of anyone else. They are concidered to be a seprate NATION (or nations) inside the US boarders
 
acns4400am.jpg

Pope:
And what are you doing to ruin healthcare?
 
It's the only reason they have to hire non Catholics.

No it's not.

The Civil Rights act, that the EEOC rules are based on, applies to all companies over 15 employees. It has nothing to do with accepting govt money, it was based on a very loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
 
LOVE how you ignore the fact that native americans have rights to self determination FAR exceding that of anyone else. They are concidered to be a seprate NATION (or nations) inside the US boarders

LOL, the case I cited was for Robert Lawrence Boyll, a non-Native American member of the Native American Church, for (1) unlawfully importing peyote through the United States mail and (2) possessing peyote with the intent to distribute it. Mr. Boyll went on a pilgrimage to Mexico to obtain peyote for himself and members of the congregations with whom he worships.

.....

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant Robert Boyll's motions to dismiss the indictment be and hereby are GRANTED.
 
No it's not.

The Civil Rights act, that the EEOC rules are based on, applies to all companies over 15 employees. It has nothing to do with accepting govt money, it was based on a very loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

They don't have to incorporate, it could be like a private club.
 
No I mean the fact that universities take govt grants has nothing to do with this.

But Government funding for hospitals does have something to do with this.

As nonprofit institutions, Catholic hospitals benefit from significant amounts of public funding, including state and federal grants for Title X family planning programs, Medicare and Medicaid.

[Source]


In other words, they accept public and Government funding and want to continue doing this without censure:

The disturbing findings of a report published in late 2008 in the American Journal of Public Health bear this out. The researchers set out to explore the impact of residency abortion training on the medical practices of a sample of ob-gyns. In the course of conducting their interviews, they got an unexpected glimpse into the conflicts posed by the Directives for physicians attempting to manage miscarriages.

One doctor working at a Catholic hospital reported receiving a woman whose pregnancy "was very early, 14 weeks," with "a hand sticking out of the cervix," indicating that "clearly the membranes had ruptured and she was trying to deliver." Because there was still a fetal heart rate, the ethics committee refused to approve the abortion; they sent the woman to another institution 90 miles away.

Another doctor, at an academic medical center, reported that a Catholic-owned hospital called to ask her to accept a pregnant miscarrying patient who was already septic and hemorrhaging. She urged them to do the uterine aspiration themselves, but they refused. That doctor accepted the patient and did the procedure, but saw this case as a form of "patient dumping." She reported the hospital for an Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act violation.



[Source]

And it doesn't end with miscarriages and women requiring abortions because of the risk to their lives (as was the case with the nun who was excommunicated in Arizona for signing off on an abortion proceedure when a 27 mother of 4 presented with heart failure caused by her 5th pregnancy when she was 11 weeks along). They also deny men and women contraceptive care and tubal ligation, for example, as well as reproductive care (such as IVF treatment).

If the refusal to treat women who are miscarrying because the child's heart may still be beating was not bad enough. The Church run hospitals even go a step further.

In the United States, it is estimated that 2% of all pregnancies are ectopic, over 97% of which are located in the fallopian tube. This relatively common condition has historically been associated with significant maternal morbidity and mortality. Management options for tubal ectopic pregnancy include use of methotrexate (medical therapy), removal of the embryo from the fallopian tube (salpingostomy), removal of the section of the fallopian tube containing the embryo (salpingectomy), and “expectant management.” A variety of factors may influence the management option employed by physicians including physicians’ and hospitals’ legal, religious, or moral objections to interfering with a tubal pregnancy.

The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (the Directives) issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, govern the provision of care in Catholic-affiliated hospitals. The Directives prohibit abortion and prohibit health service providers from taking “direct” action against the embryo. Although salpingectomy and expectant management do not act directly against the embryo and are therefore permitted under the Directives, the use of these management techniques may subject women with ectopic pregnancies to unnecessary risks and serious long-term consequences, including infertility, unnecessary surgery, and tubal rupture. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that patients with ectopic pregnancies are sometimes transferred (without treatment) from
Catholic hospitals to non-Catholic hospitals.

In addition, anecdotal reports also suggest that some patients presenting with incomplete/inevitable abortions at Catholic hospital emergency departments have been transferred to non-Catholic facilities without treatment or stabilization.



[Source]


A study done about the treatment of ectopic pregnancies in the US and religious hospitals (primarily Catholic hospitals) showed the worrying trend. Keep in mind the treatment that is given in ectopic pregnancies detailed above:

We undertook this qualitative study to explore the relationship between the Directives, hospital policies regarding ectopic pregnancy management, and clinical practices. We recruited participants at non-Catholic, longstanding Catholic, and recently merged facilities and conducted focused interviews with 24 physicians at 16 hospitals in 10 states.

Participants from three Catholic facilities reported that medical therapy with methotrexate was not offered because of their hospitals' religious affiliation. The lack of methotrexate resulted in changes in counseling and practice patterns, including managing ectopic pregnancies expectantly, providing the medication surreptitiously, and transferring patients to other facilities. Further, several physicians reported that, before initiating treatment, they were required to document nonviability through what they perceived as unnecessary paperwork, tests, and imaging studies.

Our findings suggest that some interpretations of the Directives are precluding physicians from providing women with ectopic pregnancies with information about and access to a full range of treatment options and are resulting in practices that delay care and may expose women to unnecessary risks.


[Source]
 
Bells thats not what this thread is discusing. Hell I agree with you but thats beside the point. This thread is about the health care that THEY ARE PROVIDING TO THERE EMPLOYEES. I know thats an alien concept for those of us who live in societies where its governments responcibility but *shrug*
 
But Government funding for hospitals does have something to do with this.

No it doesn't.

This is based on Obamacare and the applicability of those regulations aren't based on whether an institution takes govt funds or not.
 
If you look at birth control, most of need is for recreational sex. Pregnancy is not a sickness or a disease, but rather pregnancy is something that can end the fun. Sex is fun and we all want the fun to continue as long as possible. The government is supporting this fun through birth control. Do a poll to see how much of the birth control is for fun compared to sickness and disease.

Relative to sex, alcohol helps to increase the amount of fun and help justify the need for birth control. If the ladies get tipsy they are more likely to make use of the birth control. Since the goal is not sickness or disease but enabling fun, the government should also mandate that insurance companies provide alcohol since this makes the birth control more justified. It is not right that mandated fun is limited to only females and sex. This discriminates since there are other forms of fun to enable.

Unprotected sex can be dangerous and could limit future fun. This is also true of all illegal drugs. Unprotected drugs (low QC) can be dangerous and limit future fun. Therefore so we don't discriminate fun insurance companies need to provide all these too.

Relative to sex and birth control needs, dishonest guys do better than honest guys (on first dates) This suggests lying is also an enabler for the fun. Maybe the politicians can train people to lie and have it paid by insurance so the birth control is more useful.

It is unconstitutional to pay for pursuit of happiness for one group but require others groups pay for their own fun. We need to enable and mandate for all the groups.
 
If you look at birth control, most of need is for recreational sex.
Now we need a definition of "non-recreational sex".:eek:

Pregnancy is not a sickness or a disease
If that were true, no woman would die in childbirth, no medical care would be required during pregnancy, and no labor and delivery services during birthing. It's a great idea, though, to get this message out, so a lot of money can stop being wasted on unnecessary treatment.

but rather pregnancy is something that can end the fun.
Such as the woman denied admission to the hospital at 14 weeks with a fetal hand protruding though her cervix, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, and had to drive 90 miles to get an abortion. Talk about a party pooper. :mad:

Sex is fun and we all want the fun to continue as long as possible.
Sounds like an opening line for "the talk".:p

The government is supporting this fun through birth control.
What country? Man I want to live there. Did Disney buy a country when I wasn't looking?

Do a poll to see how much of the birth control is for fun compared to sickness and disease.
That would be hilarious. People would be looking around for a hidden camera, certain that this was a comedy gag. Is this post a comedy gag?

Relative to sex, alcohol helps to increase the amount of fun and help justify the need for birth control.
Yeah. While we've got our nose in their business, let's worry about every thing else they're doing.

If the ladies get tipsy they are more likely to make use of the birth control.
Well that's a relief, we thought you were just referring to hookers. Yeah the ladies, that's a real problem. Talk about loss of decorum. I see your point. Of course hookers get smashed while ladies get tipsy, so yeah, I'm following this reasoning real well.

Since the goal is not sickness or disease but enabling fun, the government should also mandate that insurance companies provide alcohol since this makes the birth control more justified.
Not good enough. I want a full harem, hooka pipe, and slaves waving ostrich fans at me. I'm gonna rule this roost, by gum. At least you oughtta propose a tax break for those coin operated beds.

It is not right that mandated fun is limited to only females and sex.
That's why we guys need ta stick together and vote all them wenches outta office. Then we can get them back in aprons with vacuum cleaners in their hands, like back in the day. Maybe we can get insurance coverage for those pills they gave their gals on The Stepford Wives

This discriminates since there are other forms of fun to enable.
Like I say, we gotta reclaim our rights, boys.

Unprotected sex can be dangerous and could limit future fun.
Sounds like the voice of experience. Did I ever tell you about that sore I got.... never mind. Of course HIV *pshew* what a bummer.


This is also true of all illegal drugs.
Except for the mickeys we're going to slip them once in awhile....


Unprotected drugs (low QC) can be dangerous and limit future fun.
You mean tamper resistant packaging? Oh I get it, they won't be able to open their birth control packs, especially tipsy... wow that's ingenious.

Therefore so we don't discriminate fun insurance companies need to provide all these too.
Not enough, I want the full harem, the slaves, the hooka pipe...and one of those deals where they hoist you up in a gilded carriage and carry you around through town. I mean, if we're going to legislate we might as well go for the full enchilada.

Relative to sex and birth control needs, dishonest guys do better than honest guys (on first dates)
"Do better" = score ? Oh, could we get some government funded pickup lines too?

This suggests lying is also an enabler for the fun.
Like: "Is this seat taken?"... no... "What's a classy broad like you doin' in a 2 bit dive like this?"... yeah that's more like it. Well, white lies are OK , dontcha think?

Maybe the politicians can train people to lie and have it paid by insurance so the birth control is more useful.
That comes with the full harem coverage. Good.

It is unconstitutional to pay for pursuit of happiness for one group but require others groups pay for their own fun. We need to enable and mandate for all the groups.
Well when it comes to the Constitution, we just need to repeal their voting rights, and then who cares about Roe v Wade, we'll have them under our thumbs so tight they'll melt like butter.

Great plan. So where do we meet boys, we need to get organized. Hey how about that shack around by the tracks where we used to have our Klan meetin's? Yeah, cuz when we get done with the broads, we're gonna hafta settle a few other scores.....

Man I like the way you think.... Hey! Mr. Romney! ....We've got a great campaign idea for you!!......
 
How funny, sort of... My wife and I never had kids. There were a number of reasons for this, but perhaps one of the most significant reasons was my wife's medical problems. She had severe endometriosis and the most effective medical treatment for pain, was to take birth control pills. Her condition never improved as we had hoped, so eventually having kids became impractical. But the point is that she took birth control pills for 20 years or more, for pain control.

Here our own circumstances are an example of how these pills apply to other situations and it didn't even occur to me!
 
If you look at birth control, most of need is for recreational sex. Pregnancy is not a sickness or a disease...
Hmm...and yet, pregnant women routinely go to doctors and hospitals to receive medical care related to their pregnancy. Ultrasounds...consultations...the actual act of giving birth...

Wow, it's almost like even though pregnancy isn't a sickness of disease, it's still a medical condition that's related to healthcare. Are you REALLY that obtuse, or are you just playing (extremely) dumb because you think it helps your position?
 
Back
Top