(UPDATED) Life-Saving Hospital May No Longer Consider Itself Catholic

Updated: 12/22/10, 5:25pm EST

It’s being characterized as both good news and sad news.

Bishop Thomas Olmstead of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix has formally stripped St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, Arizona of its status as an official Catholic hospital after Lloyd H. Dean, President of Catholic Healthcare West, the entity that runs St. Joseph’s Hospital, refused to submit to Olmstead’s demands that the hospital never again perform a life saving procedure on a woman–if said procedure is an abortion.

St. Joseph’s could not, as the Dude would say, “abide.” In a statement released today, Bishop Olmstead explained his reasoning,

“In the decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld,” Olmsted said at a news conference announcing the decision. “The mother had a disease that needed to be treated. But instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph’s medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week-old baby should be directly killed.”

The hospital did, in fact, treat the mother’s “disease” because if they hadn’t not only would she have died but the fetus would have as well. Olmstead’s insistence on calling the fetus, in utero, an “11 week old baby” is not only disrespectful of this woman’s life and health, it’s medically incorrect and absolutely meant to condescend to a woman whose life was saved and whose chidren still have a living mother.

According to a statement from Linda Hunt, president of St. Joseph’s, the hospital does all they can to prioritize the lives of both the fetus and the mother but, “Morally, ethically, and legally we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.”

Olmstead’s decision was made after physicians and surgeons, in collaboration with Roman Catholic nun, Sister Mary McBride, saved the life of a young mother of four children by performing an emergency abortion in 2009. McBride was demoted by Bishop Olmstead for her role in the woman’s treatment.

The wife and mother at the center of the story was rushed to the hospital with pulmonary hypertension which soon developed into life-threatening heart failure. The decision to perform an abortion on the woman who was 11 weeks pregnant came after the Catholic hospital’s Ethics Committee consulted with Sister Mary McBride.

The young mother lived to see another day and is home with her husband and four children living her life.

This did not sit will with Bishop Olmstead who not only castigated St. Joseph’s in a letter to Dean for performing the emergency procedure but demanded a promise, in the letter, that the hospital would never again save the life of a woman under its care–if it meant performing an abortion.

When Dean did not respond as Olmstead demanded, the Bishop declared that St. Joseph’s may no longer consider itself a Catholic hospital. To be clear, this is more of an “official” declaration than, of course, an actual state of affairs. For the many Catholics in this country who live their lives in faith but who do not follow every tenet of Catholicism as interpreted by the leaders of the religion, they may still consider what physicians did within the four walls of St. Joseph’s a moral, religious act. There are, after all, millions of Catholics who use birth control and many who access legal abortion care. However, as far as the implications of this decision go, the hospital may no longer do things like conduct mass; as well, the “Blessed Sacraments” will be removed from hospital chapels.

Catholics for Choice President, Jon O’Brien, was saddened to hear of the decision today,

“The decision by Bishop Thomas Olmsted to declare that St. Joseph’s Hospital may no longer be considered Catholic is a sad one.

“It’s sad that Bishop Olmsted is so intransigent that he cannot accept that the people seeking medical care at the hospital may need access to services that he finds unacceptable, even though he, and we, know that Catholics use contraception and access abortion services at rates similar to the population as a whole.

“It’s sad that people seeking care and working at the hospital will no longer be able to hear mass in the chapel at St. Joseph’s.  

“It’s sad for the people of Phoenix that the local bishop has created such a spectacle over this issue, from the moment he sought to excommunicate Sister Margaret McBride for sanctioning a life-saving operation to the threats issued to St. Joseph’s down to today’s punishment – announced via press release.

“All of the people who work at the hospital know that their actions are driven by their consciences, from the doctors, nurses and other medical personnel right through to the administration and support staff. They all acted in good conscience. Can Bishop Olmsted say the same thing?” 

To those who have responded, however, that it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic hospital to refuse to provide life-saving treatment to patients if said treatment conflicts with religious tenets, the ACLU says no, not at all. What Bishop Olmstead demanded from St. Joseph’s Hospital, and perhaps why the President of Catholic Healthcare West has denied said demand, is against the law according to the ACLU.

The ACLU alleges that religious hospitals’ refusals to perform life-saving abortions is in violation of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) as well as the Conditions of Participation of Medicare and Medicaid (COP). They have asked the government to investigate these violations given that women’s health and lives are on the line. In a statement earlier this year, Brigitte Amiri, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU said::

“The lives and health of pregnant women seeking medical care should be of paramount importance,” said Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “No woman should have to worry that she will not receive the care she needs based on the affiliation of the nearest hospital.”

Today, the ACLU is expressing satisfaction with St. Joseph’s decision to continue providing life-saving care to women. However the group plans to continue to alert the government of incidents where religiously affiliated hospitals may be breaking the law:

“St. Joseph’s made the right decision to stand up for the rights and health of women in need of life-saving care,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project. “A hospital’s first responsibility must be the needs of its patients. Any hospital that fails to provide emergency abortion care violates federal law. No woman should be afraid that she will be denied the care she needs when she goes to a hospital.”

The ACLU has sent another letter to the Obama administration asking them to respond to the first lettter they sent, in July 2010, requesting an investigation into potential federal law violations by religiously affiliated hospitals. The government has not responded to either letter and, given this most recent action by Bishop Olmstead as well as the decision by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to reaffirm, writes the ACLU, “that even life-saving abortions cannot be performed in Catholic hospitals across the country” it’s more important than ever to keep the issue in our sightline.

The ACLU is also asking those who believe that all hospitals are obligated to save the lives of all patients – even dying pregnant women who need an abortion – to sign a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The letter asks Sebelius to ensure that religiously affiliated hospitals follow the law and provide emergency reproductive health care if it means saving a woman’s life. It’s difficult to understand how women need a petition, in this day and age, to ask our government to ensure that hospitals save our lives if necessary but such is the case.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact press@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • prochoicekatie

    He should be reprimanded for calling the fetus an 11 week old baby by all the women with what society and the medical community actually deem 11 week old children: babies who were born 11 weeks ago.

  • prochoicekatie

    When my sister was pregnant, not once did some walk up, touch her stomach (innappropriate, I know), and ask her, “How old (is your fetus)?”

    It was always, “How far along (are you in YOUR pregnancy)?”

    Now that the child is born, people will walk up and ask, “How old?” Not once has my sister referred to her 5.5 month old as 14.5 months.

    It seems pretty clear to me.

  • invalid-0

    Not that it matters what people use in their everyday vernacular when determining who does and does not deserve basic human rights…

    But have you REALLY never heard anyone refer to the child in the womb as a baby?  People don’t talk to the baby?  Or play music to it?  That’s a stupid fight to pick.


    My mother did not GIVE me my right to life; she preserved it. 

  • ldan

    I’ll agree that it’s a silly fight to pick, since people do call fetuses, babies all the time. I’d prefer the clarity of not doing so, since the quote can be confusing if pulled out of context otherwise. In context it’s obvious, since there would be no reason for an 11 week-old baby to be involved in its mother’s health emergency at all.


    However, the bishop is pretty obviously making sure to use the most inflammatory language possible to make it seem that the hospital did something horrible by saving this woman’s life.


    However, your mother gave you your life, not the right to it. Your right to life arrived at birth. Those are rights society agrees upon, not some sort of law of the universe. Thus far, this society doesn’t agree that fetuses have an inarguable right to life.


    Giving life is exactly that, a gift. We gain nothing and lose much by making it a requirement.

  • julie-watkins

    My mother did not GIVE me my right to life; she preserved it. 

    That wording makes attempting to complete a pregnancy an obligation. It’s been my position that such an expectation is treating women and poor people  as second class.

    Is it your position that this is OK? What this essentially does is declare that society should expect women and the poor to accept a higher tax burden than men and the rich.

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    Oh, I think Olmstead knew EXACTLY what he was saying when he said “baby” instead of “fetus.”  That’s a lot different than what you’re describing, arex.  Olmstead was trying, in vain, to make the abortion seem like Murder One instead of a life-saving device for the woman. 


    Seriously, did Olmstead expect the hospital to just let both mother AND fetus die?  Is that what he considers proper Catholicism? 

  • julie-watkins

    are almost always talking about  wanted pregnancies. When someone asks me “where’s the line”? I answer “when the mother wants the pregnancy … or some varient time later when it becomes ‘too late’.” (The “too late” time varies by locality & time in history.)

    I don’t think it odd that medical staff often use the wording that their patient uses. I don’t find it odd if/when an excited expectant mother uses the word “baby” before the birth. She’s looking forward to the birth. The medical staff, then, is basically are treating two patients.

  • julie-watkins

    something about “pregnancy isn’t a disease”, so I don’t think he really believes or understands that the woman was going to die. Or if she did, it was “God’s will”, not something doctors could predict with certainty. I don’t think he’s sane. He’s not thinking straight. I get the impression he’s much too obsessed with the medical staff & hospital’s administration disrespecting his authority.

  • ldan

    Yes, it’s a fuzzy line. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like the clarity when, say, talking to press, where a line or two is likely to be plucked out of context and quoted. It’s a minor quibble though.


    By all accounts, this was a wanted pregnancy, where, you’re right, I would expect mom and her doctors to be refererring it as a baby. I’d completely agree with medical staff using the wording their patient uses, it’s part of ‘bedside manner,’ sensitivity, etc. After all, I’d have been pretty annoyed if a doctor had continued to refer to my about-to-be-aborted fetus as a baby…it would have felt condescending and emotionally manipulative.


    Despite the manipulation, I’m not even sure I can grouse much about the bishop’s usage there. I very much doubt he’d *ever* use fetus in any context. So even there it’s a silly fight to pick when one only has energy for so many fights. Besides, it isn’t as if his arguments lack for idiocy to argue about well beyond word usage.

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    It does sound like he’s pretty willfully ignorant in this instance.  I was glad to see the Catholics for Choice president call him out.  Every time I’m tempted to lump all Catholics together, I remind myself that there are groups like this.  Specifically, I remind myself of a friend who is a fierce pro-choice feminist and a devoted Catholic. 

  • view2

    Julie you are so right. The Bishop didn’t want to be disrespected regardless of whether that meant letting two people die. Insane-definitely. Christian-hardly. That reminds me of a bumper sticker that I saw recently: I like your Christ. I just don’t like your Christians. They are not like your Christ.

  • invalid-0

    That wording makes attempting to complete a pregnancy an obligation.

    Hi, maybe we’ve never met.  I’m a pro-lifer.  

    What this essentially does is declare that society should expect women and the poor to accept a higher tax burden than men and the rich.

    I’m not sure what this has to do with taxes…

  • julie-watkins

    The point you didn’t respond to:

    Julie wrote: It’s been my position that such an expectation [believeing that a pregnant woman is obligated to attempt to give birth] is treating women and poor people  as second class.

    answers this question:

    arex wrote: I’m not sure what this has to do with taxes…

    Everyone is expected to pay taxes (except the rich find loop holes). An unexpected pregnancy impacts women and poor families more than men and families with more resources, … but you’re apparently OK with them having that higher burden.

    I don’t think society & the law should treat women and poor people as 2nd class.

  • crowepps

    Yes, he did indeed understand she would die.  His opinion was that was best all around.  Her own life and the five children she would leave without a mother are less important than the PRINCIPLE of never killing.

    “It is not better to save one life while murdering another. It is not better that the mother live the rest of her existence having had her child killed.”

    Interestingly, the Church does not excommunicate all the soldiers who kill others in wars, or the military heirarchy that orders them into battle, or the politicians who create the wars in the first place.  Funny how it’s always necessary for women to be ‘perfectly moral’ to the point of death while men get off the hook for doing pretty much the same thing.

  • amie-newman

    That’s because, let’s not kid ourselves, this actually has nothing to do with morality or murder, even. It has to do with maintaining control over women, maintaining control – period. Bishop Olmstead and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are male bullies. Honestly. It’s not that I don’t have respect for people who identify as Catholic or Jewish or Buddhist or whatever faith you chose to follow. But when male leaders are this intent upon ensuring “the status quo”  that they are willing to FiGHT to KILL a woman, a mother of four, someone’s daughter, a wife, a friend in order to “stay true” to a tenet of their religion which not even all of those who identify as being members of that religion believe, it’s no longer about anything but control and fear of a loss of power.

    I do believe that until those who identify as Catholic rise up and say enough is enough, our religious leaders must be held accountable, this won’t change.

  • crowepps

    Certainly the patient was Catholic, her husband was Catholic, the members of the ethics committee were Catholic (one of them was a NUN) and for all we know her doctors were Catholic.  THEY all had no problem reconciling their faith with the facts of the situation, making a ‘moral’ decision and saving the woman’s life.


    The current hysteria among the clergy about ‘the women getting out of control’ has a great deal more to do with denial of the child sexual abuse scandal than it does anything else.  Certainly running as fast as possible from the fact that THEY, individually and collectively, committed the crimes, avoided confronting those who committed the crimes, told those who did want to confront the criminals to shut up, covered up the evidence of the crimes, ENABLED THE CRIMINALS TO MOVE TO NEW AREAS AND CONTINUE, and shamed and gagged the victims.


    The recent pronouncement that sums up as ‘everybody else was doing it, why wouldn’t the priests imitate the laity?’ is staggeringly morally bankrupt.  As more and more cases hit the courts and more and more settlements are made, the Church itself may be bankrupt as well, and instead of covering their obligations by closing parocial schools and looting the assets assembled by hardworking nuns, the highest ranked members of the heirarchy will see a serious threat to their luxurious lifestyles.  Perhaps they should “consider the lilies of the field”?

  • tiktokklok

    Calling a fetus a baby or and unborn child is like calling a pile of lumber an unmade piano.

  • tiktokklok

    If some people call; a fetus a “baby” or and “unborn child,” the do so because they are ignorant. Scientifically (that means reality) there is no such thing. Ignorant people and their stupied utterances are not to be respected, they are to be educated.

  • squirrely-girl


    The recent pronouncement that sums up as ‘everybody else was doing it, why wouldn’t the priests imitate the laity?’ is staggeringly morally bankrupt.

    My stomach absolutely churns at this excuse.


    My humblest of responses to them – BECAUSE YOU CLAIM TO BE MEN OF GOD AND ABOVE EVERYBODY ELSE! 

  • squirrely-girl

    Bishop Olmstead and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are male bullies.


    When the primary demand has been for the staff to admit they are wrong and he is right… well… that’s just ego. And I could have sworn God and the Bible had a few things to say about that. 

  • arekushieru

    No one has an inarguable right to life, though.  Someone on the transplant waiting list doesn’t have an inarguable right to life, after all.

    What I think Olmstead was trying to do was appeal to the emotions of his followers and ‘trick’ them into thinking that babies have more of a right to life than fetuses do.  (They don’t.)

  • arekushieru

    I have no problem granting fetuses the same rights that everyone else has.  That’s why I’m ProChoice.

    Just because someone wants to call their adolescent an adult doesn’t mean it’s any more or less true, especially within the context of this particular debate.

  • ack

    In my experience (woohoo anecdotes!) women who want to continue their pregnancies refer to their fetuses as babies. This shouldn’t be disrespected or shunned. They often know what developmental stage they are in; it’s not about the fetus (at 11 weeks it’s the size of a lime), but about life changes and preparation. They also may use the phrasing “When I have the baby” or “When the baby comes” to describe birth and the aftermath.

  • jayn

    I always preferred “God, please save me from your followers.”

  • colleen

    The recent pronouncement that sums up as ‘everybody else was doing it, why wouldn’t the priests imitate the laity?’ is staggeringly morally bankrupt.

    As I understood it, this particular reasoning is an attempt to blame the pedophile scandals and subsequent systematic scandals on the ‘liberal’ portion of the Catholic church and on the wider culture.The Light of the World is claiming that pedophilia was acceptable and enjoying wide popular appeal (even amoungst children!) in the ’70’s.

    This ‘excuse’ is not just as morally bankrupt and pathetic as the reasoning of every other rape apoligist, it’s also completely untrue. What happened in the  ’60’s and ”70’s as a result of the cultural changes is that victims of childhood sexual abuse started talking about their experiences and the  damage and suffering it caused them. What happened in the ’70’s is that victims stopped being ashamed and started speaking out and sharing their experiences.

    Apologists for the Church pretend that the systematic rape of children began in the ’60’s and ’70’s when it’s perfectly clear that the Church has been offering up institutional protection and enablement for child rapists for a very, very long time.

  • freetobe

    or a transplant lets hope he does not get it!

    After all this WAS life saving surgery. If the patient had not had an abortion she would have died.

    The Catholic church is known for their atrocities to humans in past history. this is the worst I have heard so far. They basically (and I mean the entire Catholic faith is behind Olmstead)  are saying and or admitting that womens lives are not important!

    They do not realize how hurtful this is to women like me who spent 18 years trying to get over the mysogyny in religion when in fact this is not what the Bible is teaching at all.

    This is a catholic thing. they are takeing advantage of women in complicated issues  and stories in the bible and I know this now because I am study ing the Bible to try and make sure that just because i am a woman when I die I won’t be discarded in a pile somewhere like they do to animals in factory farms.

  • prochoicekatie

    What about an “un-aged adult?”

    I actually would have been *okay* with unborn child. At least I wouldn’t have then pictured my sweet, 11 week old nephew, whom all of society would agree  is an “11 week old baby.”

    My main problem is that a person speaking publicly about a MEDICAL situation should use appropriate language.

    Also, while I hear pregnant women refer to their developing fetuses as babies, I have still never heard someone declare the age of their fetus by calling him an 11 week old baby. I always hear, “I’m __ weeks/months along.”

    I think it’s misleading. Even if you understand the context of the article, I honestly think you initially picture what we all understand to be an 11 week old baby. Not a lime.

    If I WERE to talk about the gestation of my fetus, I still think I would say, “He’s at 24 weeks,” or “She’s 24 weeks along.”

    I would only use the ___ years/months/weeks OLD phrasing for a born child. Likewise, I have never heard the “at __ weeks/months” or “___ weeks along” phrasing for a born child.

    I mean, have you heard someone say, “Little Billy, he’s 25 months along,” regarding their toddler?

    Does a full-term fetus go from being nine months old to one day old?

    I really haven’t hear those phrases used alternately. Perhaps they are, but I would still expect more from someone talking about a medical situation to the press. His words were manipulative and I believe misleading.

  • crowepps

    The teachings of the Catholic Church are supposed to be learned, rememberd and followed by every single member of the Catholic laity — but it’s understandable if the priests  make their moral decisions based on whether there’s a lot of porn around and hippies are talking about ‘free love’.  Makes it obvious their teachings are either insufficient to convince or ask people to do the impossible.


    And some checking shows that the earliest documents still available detail reports of child sexual abuse in the ’50’s, when Ike was still President, and the abuse known to have occurred in the Irish Magdalene Asylyms started in the 1930’s.

  • rosarykins

    I saw this item and think Bishop Olmstead should be given some credit:

    LAS CRUCES, NM – Let no one say that Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmstead is focused on a cinder in someone else’s eye while ignoring a possible plank in his own. Southwest Disciple reports that in January, Olmstead will institute a requirement that female applicants for membership in diocesan parishes present medical certification that they do not have an IUD.  By April 1, all female parishioners will be required to have such medical certificates on file to retain eligibility to receive communion at the local parish.  Olmstead is said to be horrified by the idea that hundreds or thousands of parishioners could have IUDs and be at mass, in some instances receiving the Host from their priest at the very instant they are aborting right in church.  Were all Bishops to cease turning a blind eye to routine IUD abortion sacrilege at mass, and institute this simple requirement, the ongoing in-church Catholic abortion scandal could be greatly abated.

  • crowepps

    Just in case the women LIE and don’t confess their secret IUD’s, is Bishop Olmstead going to start doing pelvics at the door?


    The Vatican needs to encourage this idiot to retire — his insistence on loudly proclaiming the Catholic policies that punish women who aren’t happy as contented cows makes Catholicism look ludicrous.

  • colleen

    Just in case the women LIE and don’t confess their secret IUD’s, is Bishop Olmstead going to start doing pelvics at the door?

    I can find no record of a publication named ‘Southwest Disciple” or anything to corroborate rosarykin’s dubious claim.

    That said, for the past year Bishop Olmstead has been rumored to be Cardinal Mahoney’s replacement. If true, poor LA



  • colleen

    a duplicate post



  • colleen

    And some checking shows that the earliest documents still available detail reports of child sexual abuse in the ’50’s,

    I believe that it’s been  going on for much, much longer than that. The thing that changed is that some of the the victims are no longer shamed or silent.

    I mean this is a church that, in order to avoid having women sing in church and still fill the soprano parts, castrated young boys with good singing voices. According to wikipedia’s sources “the preferred method of castration when castrati were popular was for the young boy to sit in a bath of hot water, infused with herbs, where the person administering the procedure would massage the boy’s testicles with some force, eventually crushing them and causing them to crumble away.”






  • goatini

    Note the final date cited for collection of “medical certificates”.


    Despite my outrage at this nasty little man whose Holy Shepherd-ship skills are on a level with those of Eric Cartman, I knew this little Onion-eque snippet had to be a jape.  


    Not that vicious self-absorbed creeps like Olmstead wouldn’t jump at the chance to implement such a program.  I heard this filthy d-bag Olmstead yesterday on Roided-Up Muscular Jeebus RCC Radio, aka EWTN Radio, attempting to defend the indefensible.  Unbelievable.  He seems annoyed that this wife and mother of four wouldn’t just DIE QUICKLY, and he seems incensed that the leadership of St. Joseph’s wouldn’t allow this wife and mother of four to just DIE QUICKLY.  


    I honestly think his preference, given all the concern and care he has expressed for the critical illness suffered by the wife and mother of four – which to date has been ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO , NONE – would have been for her to hurry up and die, and then put her corpse on life support and tube feeding for as long as possible.  Even though there would be absolutely no chance – as in ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO, NONE – of an 11-week fetus achieving viability in the artificially animated corpse of a woman whose severely compromised health, caused by intentional neglect, could never support the growth and nutrition needs of an 11-week fetus to reach any possible iota of a chance for viability – this horror-movie scenario with two inevitable casualties would have been preferable to Olmstead, to the simple act of medically intervening to save someone’s life.  THIS horror-movie scenario, to the Bishop, would be HIS idea of “we did everything we could medically to (quote unquote) Save Lives in a (quote unquote) Culture Of Life (registered trademark)”


    If ever there were a teachable moment as to why the Vatican Boys Club MUST be vanquished from Mother Church in America, THIS IS IT.  

  • colleen

    “In the decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld,”


    What a shame that these men don’t allow women to question their authority because, as far as I can tell, “equal dignity” in this situation means  “both dead” and, in the case of the woman, a painful and unnecessary death.

    I’m always wonder what men like this mean when they speak about ‘dignity’, ‘innocence’ and, of course, ‘compassion’.

  • colleen

    My mother did not GIVE me my right to life; she preserved it. 

    Your mother gave you life and at considerable sacrifice to herself. Rather than be grateful your Church demands the authority to kill women whose bodies cannot sustain a pregnancy. Speak to the issue or shut up.



  • goatini

    The Vatican seeks conscienceless vampires like Olmstead.  He did what he did because of his lust for the little red beanie and lifetime five-star accommodations in Rome.  


    Wojtyła and Ratzinger have utterly corrupted the modern RCC.  Wojtyła was basically GWB to Ratzinger’s Cheney.  Ratz was the one giving the orders and making the rules in the last years of Wojtyła’s life anyway – Wojtyła was as gaga as Reagan was in his final years as POTUS.  


    Many of us American Catholics want this cabal GONE from the hierarchy of the American Catholic Church.  Hopefully, this issue will be a watershed event in the evolution of the American Catholic Church.  We can’t fool ourselves any more into thinking that the current Vatican leadership and hierarchy consider half the human race to be anything more than just livestock.  (I never bought all that “women are on a pedestal” cr@p anyway.  I’d already lived through the end of “separate but equal” in US race relations, had figured out that EQUAL means EQUAL, and that if my “equal” position has to be defined as being “MORE than equal even though you’re NOT equal, because you are very very very SPECIAL and we just can’t even RATE your SPECIAL SPECIALNESS next to something as mundane as silly old ‘equality'”.  I know, it sounds completely looney, but that’s the rationale of the pedestal.)

  • goatini

    is NOT by any stretch of the (lucid) imagination an “11 week old baby”, as Olmstead repeatedly called it in his response to St. Joseph’s statement that they would stand their ground to perform and provide life-saving care when appropriate.  


    Church Canon of previous years found the scenario at St. Joseph’s as it occurred to be completely acceptable within Church law.  It’s Wojtyła and Ratzinger who have rewritten Church Canon to support the withholding of medically sound life-saving medical intervention from females should they suffer life-threatening complications in pregnancy.  It was Wojtyła who conferred sainthood upon a woman who is no example of any kind of “saint” to me – a twentieth-century PHYSICIAN, for crying out loud, who evidently at the end was so delusional and/or mentally ill that she chose to suicide herself by specifically requesting that her medical needs be neglected, thus depriving her family of a wife and mother.  Wojtyła made this woman a “saint”, thereby condoning the act of withholding lifesaving medical intervention from females.  As suicide is a mortal sin, I cannot logically fathom how the Church deems the suicide of a wife and mother to be noble and saintly.


    Don’t YOU find it reprehensible that Olmstead’s response went on and on about a non-existent “11-week old baby”, but said absolutely NOTHING about the mortally ill wife and mother of four, and her own personal tragedy of a non-viable fetus that could never live to be her very wanted child under the circumstances?  Oh, he DID trot out the old “equal dignity” platitude, but then went on to make himself abundantly clear, with his own written words (and absence of same) that only the putative “dignity” of the fetus was of any concern to him.


  • goatini

    TurboTax doesn’t have a category to claim fetuses of less than 90 days as dependents.  

  • warriorwoman

    And this is not considered intent to murder?  All this to control their subjects. What crap.

  • crowepps

    Well, golly, you sound like you expect him to actually be GRATEFUL to his mother or something.  Don’t you know how EMASCULATING it would be to feel like he owes his mother for that sacrifice?  He wouldn’t be able to stand thinking some WOMAN was special.  So she got pregnant and had a baby — so what — that’s what women are FOR.  Women are supposed to be willing to die to create and get used up in preserving his unique and special masculine entitlement to female inferiors to act as his servants.


    And, yes, for the humor impaired, I’m being sarcastic