It’s Time to Strip Catholic Hospitals of Their Right to Provide Maternity Care


See all our coverage of Beatriz here.

The May 31 announcement regarding the decision to allow Beatriz in El Salvador to have a “premature delivery” requires a continuing response from the abortion rights community.

1. The article states: “The medical team at the Maternity Hospital is ready to act immediately at the slightest sign of danger.” In fact, the opposite is true. Danger signs have existed in Beatriz’s pregnancy from the beginning. Instead of acting on them and terminating the pregnancy as soon as it was known that the embryo had no chance of survival, if not sooner, the medical team of the hospital has put her life at constant risk. Like Savita Halappanavar in Ireland, Beatriz’s condition could suddenly worsen, e.g. her blood pressure could go out of control, her kidneys could fail, and she could die in a short space of time.

No one in the hospital or the Ministry of Health of El Salvador should be allowed to get away with the falsehood that her care is in good hands. Her care is in the hands of people who have been prepared to let her die for the sake of a fetus with no brain, but with only a heartbeat and without the chance of a life.

2.  She will be “allowed” to have a caesarean section, described as a “premature delivery.” Why a c-section, why surgery? Is this justified because it is the safest possible form of delivery for her? Can someone explain this please? What is wrong with either a dilatation & evacuation, or induction with mifepristone and misoprostol? Both surely carry fewer risks?

Please recall the case of “Aurora” in Costa Rica, at the end of 2012, who was also carrying a fetus with no chance of life, a fetus whose heartbeat stopped only at 29 weeks of pregnancy. She also was then given a c-section. Some of us asked why that was necessary at the time, but no one raised the question or challenged it publicly. It is time to ask publicly: why is a c-section the delivery method of choice? Is it only because it is the only form of termination of the pregnancy that they think cannot be labelled abortion?

3.  Are these two cases representative of a new “Catholic health policy” for pregnant women with an emergency obstetric situation involving a non-viable embryo/fetus – that they are imprisoned in a hospital, in some cases  for months,  denied a life-preserving abortion until the fetal heartbeat stops, and then delivered of the dead baby by the highest risk procedure possible for the woman, a caesarean section??

Beatriz’s treatment should be considered cruel and degrading treatment and a violation of the Hippocratic oath to do no harm. The protest here is not finished; it is only beginning because cases like Beatriz’s and Aurora’s are only just coming to light through the vigilance and action of human rights and women’s abortion rights groups.

We need to challenge the abortion laws of El Salvador, Costa Rica, Ireland and other countries where even abortion to save the life of the woman is not permitted. But we also must challenge Ministers of Health, parliaments, Supreme Courts, hospitals, and clinicians in every country whose clinical decisions and actions are subservient to the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church’s “health policy” on abortion, which blatantly and cruelly disregards the right to life and health of pregnant women. Whose bottom line is that even with a non-viable embryo/fetus with a heartbeat but no chance of survival a termination is never permissible.

Reproductive Health Matters has just published my paper analyzing Catholic health policy on emergency obstetric care involving termination of pregnancy which discusses all the cases I could find that have come to light up to several months ago. The paper is entitled: Termination of pregnancy as emergency obstetric care: the interpretation of Catholic health policy and the consequences for pregnant women: An analysis of the death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland and similar cases

This is a common problem. If health professionals systematically put the lives of their patients at risk for any other ideological non-clinically justifiable reason, it would not be tolerated. I believe any Catholic health professionals and/or hospitals refusing to terminate a pregnancy as emergency obstetric care should be stripped of their right to provide maternity services. In some countries these are the main or only existing maternity services. Even so, governments should refuse to fund these services, and either replace them with non-religious services or require that non-religious staff are available at all times specifically to take charge of such cases to prevent unnecessary deaths. At issue is whether a woman’s life comes first or not at all.

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

To schedule an interview with Marge Berer please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • Ingrid Heimark

    I think many women would like to have prenatal and birthing care done by someone who recognises the right to life of her unborn fetus. I know I would should I ever get pregnant

    • cjvg

      Every woman should have the CHOICE to seek care that she is most comfortable with.
      In a hospital that respects and recognizes women as competent human beings with a right to make their own CHOICES as they see fit that would actually happen!
      In a catholic hospital it is some anonymous man who determines what health care option a woman is allowed to have.
      A man who follows an ancient doctrine that is clearly not compatible with the bible he professes to follow!

      No woman will be required to seek care from anyone who would place their health above that of their fetus!
      however the majority of women as well as their husbands and children, would like to have their prenatal and birthing care done by some one who recognizes women are human beings who are already alive and have a right to remain so!

      Most women would like their health care to be determined by them!, instead of someone else who will never have to live or die from the consequences of the decisions being forced upon the women against her will!

      • Ingrid Heimark

        Well, in the pro-life movement, there are many women that would like to have a doctor that recognises he/she has TWO patients and do wjhat is best for both, not just one. At least that would be my choice had my doc (who is pro-choice) not been aware of my firm pro-life view and accepted it

        • Lolly

          Stop. Just.. stop. No one is wanting you to do this or that. Stop being such a victim. Go do whatever makes you feel best for you. Please. Just don’t go around trying to make choices for other people. And please, stop acting like anyone is forcing you to do anything.

          “At least that would be my choice had my doc (who is pro-choice) not been aware of my firm pro-life view and accepted it.”

          You even use that naughty word here. Choice. “that would be my choice” You said it. Your choice. Your body, your choice. Not some old man bishop who is busy covering up pedophilia, or committing it himself, helping to kill pregnant women in his bloody sacrifice so he can pat himself on the back. Your choice. Seems like you are TOTALLY pro choice, when it comes to yourself anyhow. Good for you. Now, stop pretending that the imaginary “evil feminists” that only live in your head are trying to make you do something you don’t want to do. I know, it’s so painful to read that after all you’ve been trained to believe, but it’s true. No one is stopping you from making your own choices, that’s what “pro choice” means.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            If catholic hospitals were refused to provide maternity care, that would definitely infringe on my right to choose my health care, and that is what the author of this article want. I don’t pretend to be pro-choice, the author does, and yet wants to limit my choices when it comes to health care provider. I am not pretending to be a victim, as I have my health provider, but you pretend to be pro-choice, and yet wants to limit mine. That is the hypocrazy. For weeks people have said I am anti-choice because the only choice I don’t believe in is abortion. And here you are, not accepting that others have the right to choose their provider. It seems like you ae pro-choice as long as it is the choices yuou approve of. Hypocrites, at least I don’t pretend to be something i am not

          • Lolly

            “If health professionals systematically put the lives of their patients at risk for any other ideological non-clinically justifiable reason, it would not be tolerated. I believe any Catholic health professionals and/or hospitals refusing to terminate a pregnancy as emergency obstetric care should be stripped of their right to provide maternity services”

            If a hospital refuses to provide the care a patient requests for ideological/religious reasons, their practice is questionable. It’s not whether they will allow it or disallow it, it has everything to do with REFUSING to do it, if a patient requests it. This doesn’t mean that you don’t get your choices.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            As I wrote in another comment, 7 years ago I could have been forced into an abortion, like my friend almost was. If you are deemed unfit for parenthood due to mental illness, CPS or an “advocate” could request an abortion, even if you refuse. My friend was luckily 26 week gestation, had she been 22, she would not have given birth to her youngest son.

            And also, do catholic hospitals refuse life-saving abortion in case of emergency? What I ahve heard is that they refuse to abort, but saving the mothers life, even if hat costs the fetus it’s life, it is done, based on dual effect, the goal is to save the mother, not abort thj fetus

          • Lolly

            “7 years ago I could have been forced into an abortion, like my friend almost was.”

            Yes. Exactly. A hospital should provide the care the patient requests and not overlay their own ideological/religious or nefarious reasons, whatever they are, on another person, forcing that person to undergo unwanted procedures.

            As the quote indicates, in any other area in medicine, or anywhere else, lawsuits would be filed, businesses would be shut down, licenses would be lost, if there is a systematic pattern of not carrying out the patients’ wishes. If a hospital is unable to care for partients in the manner in which the patient wants to be cared for, then the whole business should come under scrutiny.

          • HeilMary1

            No, Catholic hospitals won’t even induce labor for already dead and rotting fetuses to save mothers. They believe it is “God’s Will” to force mothers to rot to death from dead fetuses that their wombs won’t expel. Such savage believers shouldn’t be running maternity wards.

          • Katikam

            Do you not read any newspapers or watch the news on TV?

          • CT14

            You are wrong. Look up Savita in Ireland. Needless and painful death for an incomplete miscarriage.

            Women routinely die in Nicaragua or El Salvador because of ectopic pregnancies, which can never produce a viable baby. The fetus heartbeat must stop before doctors can intervene, and they hope that will happen before a tube bursts and the mother bleeds to death.

            Catholic hospitals in the US will not use best practices to terminate an ectopic pregnancy. They will only needlessly remove the Fallopian tube and ovary, which also removes the fetus, because of twisted ethics about “not harming the fetus”.

            I have a family member with a wanted pregnancy that failed. She had to leave the Carholic hospital she was originally diagnosed at because the only treatment they would offer her was bed rest and monitoring until fetal heartbeat stopped, even though she risked infection and loss of future fertility or even her life with that option.

            Hospitals should be legally required to apply best practices. If Catholic institutions refuse to provide best medical practices, then they should get out of the business. If they won’t leave voluntarily and they won’t provide best practices, they should be legally closed. It’s unacceptable that they are enforcing their theology by providing bad medicine.

          • cjvg

            If catholic hospital start practicing medicine and best medical as well as informed consent they will be allowed to practice all day long.

            As long as catholic hospitals practice religion out of a two thousand year old book (that by the way, fully acknowledges that a woman is much more valuable then a fetus) and try to pass that of as medical care then no.

            Exodus 21:22-25 Read the original translation from the
            jewish bible (yes jesus was a jew)” if people hurt a pregnant woman during a fight and it causes her to lose the fruit but no further injury (to the woman) follows, he shall be fined as determined by the woman’s husband.
            If the woman suffers further injury he shall pay a life for a life, an eye for an eye,a hand for a hand etc.
            Obviously god considered the woman’s life more precious then the fetus since the death of the fetus will cost you a fine to the husband, but the death of the woman will cost you your life”
            Orthodox rabbis have no problem with choice by the way

            Besides you claim you live in Norway were there are no catholic hospitals so your choice will not be affected at all!

            You really have to start being more carefull with your statements they are beginning to wildly contradict each other in facts mentioned

          • HeilMary1

            YOU are the ignorant hypocrite here because you refuse to acknowledge that you OPPOSE choices for all women for whom Catholic hospitals are often the ONLY available hospitals in Catholic countries and in many rural areas of the U.S.

          • Katikam

            Not just rural areas. Take a look at great portions of Washington State….

          • CT14

            You made your choice clear to your admittedly pro-choice doctor.

            Catholic hospitals do not extend the same respect to pro-choice patients, and more specifically, do not provide best medical practices to ANY patient since the fetus is PRIMARY.

            Beatriz and Savita had failed pregnancies that had no chance to produce a viable child, yet they were denied life-saving care–until a horribly painful and unnecessary death for Savita–for no ethical MEDICAL reason.

            Catholic hospitals will not offer rape victims in their ERs emergency contraception–which is proven to work only by suppressing ovulation by the latest studies.

            Catholic institutions do not care about two patients. They only care about the fetus, and bishops have reiterated that dying for a hopeless pregnancy is a grace-filled death.

            If they cannot provide best medical practices, thn they should be legally restricted from providing services. As it is, the woman’s health is a secondary concern, whether she chooses to continue a problematic pregnancy or not.

        • cjvg

          You can seek any physician you want, however your doctor who is personally pro-choice will honor your views and wishes as you yourself proclaimed just now!

          THAT is what pro-choice means, but regardless of how many ways you get told you refuse to acknowledge that!
          Now lets contrast that with an anti-choice physician that I was forced to see in a obstetric emergency
          Will he respect my wishes? NO
          Will he respect my medical choices? NO
          Will he let me have any choices that are not the same as his? NO

          What were you saying again about you being denied?!
          Oh yeah, a load of BS in an oil tanker!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I knew a 16-year old girl. She was pregnant after EC failed. The doc asked about abortion and she said no.. Fearing ectopic pregnancy as her mother had suffered such and knowing EC-pregnancy are higher in ths, she asked for an exam. The doc denied her request

          • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

            & do you also see this mysterious doctor? Did you grill him on his views about pregnancy and abortion? Does he advertise his views about abortion on his website (unlikely since doctors who are prochoice are at risk for being murder by “prolifers”). Does this girl have insurance to cover this exam/test? How far along in her pregnnacy was she? Maybe you couldn’t tell if the pregnancy was ectopic since she was too early along. Maybe that office didn’t DO that test. Was the Doctor an OBGYN or general doctor? Maybe in that state he could not give her that test without her parents agreeing since she was a minor. Many states don’t let minors get abortion without parental permmission, why not apply the same laws to pregnant minors about FORCING young girls to tell their parents? Seems like the anti choice thing to do.

            I AM SO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOLES IN YOUR STORY.

          • cjvg

            Ectopic pregnancy is not hereditary , the doctor knows that.
            A doctor can not refuse treatment to a patient he has already accepted unless there are very good reasons, she refused abortion as an option regardless of that being the only viable treatment for an ectopic pregnancy.

            A doctor that diagnoses an ectopic pregnancy and does not immediately recommends abortion, and follows up is committing malpractice and will lose his license!

            She already stated she would not abort.
            If he examines her and diagnoses an ectopic pregnancy that she refuses to abort there is nothing he can do for her.
            In effect the exam is unnecessary, since the outcome does not change.

            She places him/her in a situation were he loses regardless of what he does for her.

            Besides why would she want an exam to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy, she already stated that she would not abort?

            Your strange little stories lack all sense of logic or coherence, you need to do better then that.

          • Katikam

            A doctor in NOrway denied a pregnant teen a gynecological exam????? That is an impossibility.

        • HeilMary1

          You want theocratic “doctors” to LIE to you on behalf of pedophile priests.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I really don’t undertsand why you write things like that when I have NEVER expressed anythuing like this

          • Lolly

            Not outright. But when you demand that women subject themselves to catholic dogma in terms of their healthcare, when the catholic church is notorious in their corruption and lack of ethics, all the while you are standing up and praising them as the pinnacle of virtue, that’s precisely what it sounds like to women who are frightened by the implications when their choices dwindling. You believe they are the protectors of women and children, evidence shows over and over that it isn’t true.

          • HeilMary1

            Bravo!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I am not catholic, and I do not believe in the catholic doctrine., Neither do I look to the catholic church for guidance. But I do respect pro-life women having the right to seek pro-life healthcare

          • Lolly

            “I am not catholic, and I do not believe in the catholic doctrine., Neither do I look to the catholic church for guidance”

            You are backing off your previous comments here. When I previously criticized the church, you said “what a wrong idea” I had about the church. It seemed you were perfectly fine with the catholic church not too long ago.

            What you see as pro life health care is vastly different from the realities that women are forced to endure against their will.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I think you have the worng idea when you say the catholic church are pro-pedophilia or abuse. Catholics may be, but no christian church has such attitudes at the bottom of their confession or view. I believe the catholic church on the bottom line is pro-marriage only sex, and that precludes all kinds of sexual devience such as alter boy sex, pedophilia etc

          • Lolly

            “but no christian church has such attitudes at the bottom of their confession or view.”

            Of course, that’s what they say. That’s the image they project. The catholic church is a corrupt institution that has not only perpetrated and covered up pedophilia, they have had to confess and pay millions in fines. It is so heavily involved in money laundering that credit cards are no longer allowed in Vatican City. Abuses like this are systemic in the catholic church up and down the hierarchy. and you’re only kidding yourself if you think that child sex abuse isn’t rampant in other churches. Because authority is never questioned, it’s easy to get away with it, especially when the priest or minister can get the flock behind him to blame the victims and cover up. There is a reason why not everyone views churches as examples to follow for virtuous living, and why to some people, even though you claim “I never said that!” it sure sounds like you did.

          • HeilMary1

            The Catholic has always secretly allowed, even forced abortions and infanticides to cover up the affairs and rapes by “chaste” priests and nuns. Meanwhile, it cruelly denies marriage for disabled men and intersex gays.

          • Origami_Isopod

            “No True Xtian.”

          • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

            What is this mysterious “prolife healthcare” you speak of? Do you think Doctors will ignore your wishes to continue a pregnancy? That they will lie about the health of your growing fetus?

            HEEEEY, what does that sound like everyone? The antichoice laws being put into place & places like CPCs run by religious people with no backround in health or maternity care that are LYING TO PREGNANT WOMEN!

        • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

          You seem to be living with the delusion that prochoice people, and by extention prochoice doctors) never choose to HAVE children. Which is obviously false. You also see to think prochoice people (& doctors) do not understand pregnancy. Women KNOW they are growing a new human inside their uterus. What prochoice people recognize is that a nonsentient non viable fetus does not have any rights that outweight the women it is inside of. “prolife” people attempt to give fetuses more rights than born Adult people. Prochoice people recognize that the living Adult woman has more rights than a nonsentient nonviable fetus inside her. Prochoice doctor don’t not realise they are treating both mother and fetus. They recognize that the mother is a person with full rights and control over her body that deserves the choice of what goes on inside her body over, say it with me, a nonsentient nonviable fetus.

          Recognizing that a born, Adult woman has the right over what medical care she will and won’t accept. VS the “prolife/antichoice” Catholic view that the fetus is worth more than the born Adult woman.

    • HeilMary1

      So your fetal fantasy is to be LIED to by pious pedophile priest womb traffickers?

    • Katikam

      Ingrid
      The primary issue is that all women should have access to health care. The prolifers in the US who claim they are concerned about the fetus oppose providing prenatal care for pregnant women if they lack insurance and have forced clinics that provided that care (under sliding scale fee) to close in a number of states. You just can’t imagine the situation here as in NOrway no one will prevent you (and your fetus!) from getting health care if you don’t have health insurance which a growing number of Americans lack.

  • Dr. Judy Stone

    Great takedown. Thanks for calling attention to unnecessary delay and C-section, both of which put mother’s life at risk. This is increasingly important in US as well as more regions have Catholic health systems as primary providers (e.g. current battle over PeaceHealth in Washington state/Pacific Northwest. Similar problems have also occurred in the US and need to be publicized–including Arizona and New Hampshire. It’s also, sadly, not just Catholic health systems but the increasing trend to disallow any abortion, even to save the mother’s life, e.g. in Louisiana (LSU; see NEJM DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp068083). Thanks for calling attention to this.
    p.s. Unfortunate that your paper on Termination of Pregnancy is behind Elsevier paywall. Please try PLOS, open access journal next time.

    • cjvg

      Thank you for providing that link.
      I knew it was bad, I was not aware how bad it had gotten!
      it is absolutely horrifying that these case are taking place in a country that claims it holds the rights of every citizen to be equal!.
      Apparently women are increasingly seen as not actually human and deserving of the right to life!

      • Ingrid Heimark

        So if a doctor places equal value on the life of the woman and that of the fetus, he doesn’t acknowledge the womans right to life? That is ridiculous! A woman can choose a pro-choice physician if she so chooses, and you, or at least the author of this article, wants to take away our right to choose a ythat is compatible with our views. At least we don’t pretend to be pro-choice, and neither should you if you want to take away our right to have a physician that share our views

        • PictishMonster

          If a doctor values equally the life of a pregnant woman and that of a NON-VIABLE fetus, and is thus willing to endanger that woman’s life and risk making her children motherless in order to keep that NON-VIABLE fetus alive, that doctor needs to check the Hippocratic Oath.

          The issue in the cases of Beatriz and Savita was lack of choice – the mothers wanted to live and the hospitals denied them their choice. If someone wants to risk their life to deliver dead baby they are welcome to do so (and pay for it themselves, it’s not reasonable to ask taxpayers to fund anything so grotesque). It is wrong to force any woman to risk her life against her will.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Those cases were not about saving the fetus on the expense of the mother, those fetuses were non-viable, and catholic hospitals do abortions in case of life endangerment, but they try to save the baby, and mourns it’s death should that be happening due to immaturity. And why are you saying “against her will”? We should have the right to choose our physicians based on our view, you want to deny us that right. Noone forces a woman to use a pro-life hospital, noone should deny us that right either

          • Lolly

            The Catholic hospital tries to save a baby and mourns it’s death? A bishop wouldn’t skip a meal to feed a hungry child. But he will not hesitate to demand that women sacrifice their lives to his god, because god demands sacrifice. And since we don’t do animal sacrifices at the temple anymore, women will just have to do.

            The Catholic church has zero moral standing. Too much sex, too much corruption, they’re basically a business organization that buys up real estate and gets humongous tax breaks.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            What a wrong idea of the church. I am not catholic, but I respect the catholics that live by their faith, and both you and I know pedophiles are not abiding by their faith.

          • Lolly

            This doesn’t have anything to do with the people, this is the hierarchy. Some of my best friends are Catholic.

            The church receives enormous amounts of money and do very little to actually help people. How can they when they’re so busy hating on gay boy scouts and colluding with the government to decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies and obsessing about sex and birth control. They have so much money and can do so much, yet they do so little. With their enormous wealth, they are now infiltrating private hospitals, claiming to be independent, then going ahead and implementing their restrictions, that only ever apply to women. There are plenty of Catholic hospitals around, so you are free to go to one of those. But that’s not good enough for them, non Catholics now have to abide by their rules and the church can’t even be honest about what they’re doing, they have to be sneaky and manipulative.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Actually, I live in Norway, I don’t have the choice of choosing a pro-life gynecologist or obstetrician as public hispåitals are the only ones delivering maternity care, and no pro-life doctor gets to work in womens care. We are your dream.

          • Lolly

            40 years ago, my cousin was in labor and having problems. She wasn’t near her home and insisted she not be brought to a catholic hospital because they would kill her.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            And she had other choices, didn’t she? I would be forced to go to a hospital that does abortion into the 22 week gestation, and have a baby delivered by a doctor that viewed me, and not my baby as the patient.7 years ago I could have been forced into an abortion sahould I have gotten pregnant, my friend almost was, because she had a diagnosis of mental illenss, as I hd at the time also. Now I work at the hospital, at the psych ward. 7 years ago I could have been denioed the right to carry to term.

          • Lolly

            >And she had other choices, didn’t she?

            No, nott really. It was over 40 years ago, no there were not many choices actually. She was full term, in labor and in danger, so her choices were really kinda limited, but she was adamant about the catholic hospital. She knew she wasn’t going to be cared for.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            If she was full term, wouldn’t the hospital try to save both? That would be the pro-life thing to do, any hoispital that doesn’t recognise thje mothers right to life should not practise, I believe catholic hospitals today cares about the womans life, as well as the fetus’

          • Lolly

            You would think, right? It would totally be the pro life thing to do, but it’s a cultural thing to view women as disposable in the US, particularly by the catholic church and the humongous evangelical fundamentalist population. Like I said, no catholic hospital for her.

          • Jodi Jacobson

            That is the point. It is not always possible to “save both” because pregnancy often entails complexity and therefore women are at great risk of death or disability. I truly do not understand why this is so difficult to grasp.

          • cjvg

            You believe!
            Despite all the evidence to the contrarary you believe that the catholic doctrine cares for children and women?!

            We should just ignore Beatrice in el Salvador, savita in Ireland, jane doe in phoenix, the 9 year old rape victim in mexico, the teenager with cancer in the Dominican republic etc
            All these and more were in the last year and a half, and these are only the named cases that drew the attention of the public!

            You can believe whatever you want, but your believes or the RC churches has no place in my medical care

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            I believe a Catholic hospital will put the dictates of a religion which I don’t even follow over what’s best for my health.

          • HeilMary1

            No, Catholic hospitals are protected by corrupt Catholic politicians who never hold Catholic hospitals accountable for their high, UNreported maternal deaths. Quit living in Catholic La La Land.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            And i don’t want my healthcare to have to be approved by a bishop. Not a doctor, but a bloody bishop. That’s downright frightening if you ask me.

          • HeilMary1

            Since you know so much English, why don’t you move to Ireland and offer your womb services?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            How would that make any difference as fetal transplant are impossible?

          • HeilMary1

            Maybe Ireland will pioneer that feat.

          • Melooley

            And I quote: “any hoispital that doesn’t recognise thje mothers right to life should not practise”

            That is what we’ve been saying all along! That is the point of this article; that is what we’ve been saying in the comments; that’s what you’ve been arguing AGAINST throughout this thread.

            I’m a medical student in the US and I’m considering going into OB/GYN as a specialty. Abortions are typically performed by either OB/GYN specialists, or Family Medicine specialists–the same specialties that deliver most babies, in fact. No one goes into either of these specialties because they hate children or babies. I’m just about as pro-choice as they come, and if I ever had a pregnant patient say, “Hey, doc, if it comes to it, please save my baby over me,” well, I’d hope it never came to that, but would absolutely do as my patient asked. Plenty of people–including those that get training in abortion procedures–love OB/GYN specifically because you get two patients in one. Twice the humanity, twice the medicine, and way more than twice the warm fuzzies after delivering a healthy chubby baby.

            That said, if a patient ever said, “Hey, Doc, if my baby is going to die, can you make sure I die, too?” (which kind of seems to be the situation you desire, or at least want the option of “choosing,”) THEN I WOULD GET A PSYCHIATRIC CONSULT. We physicians, even we physicians-in-training, swear to protect patient life and patient autonomy to the best of our abilities, but whenever a patient seems to be actively pursuing death, we have the obligation to not assist with suicide.

            The pregnant woman will always have more say in the medical care than the fetus, because the woman–not the fetus, no matter how far along–is the one that can communicate her wishes to the physician. The mother has the right to prioritize herself, or her fetus, over her own life, as she chooses (there’s that word again!). A pro-choice physician, by definition, will support that patient’s choice.

          • CT14

            Now you’re starting to get it!

            Catholic hospitals are often the only provider in an area, and the mother is NEVER viewed as an equal to the fetus. They will let a mother die even if it doesn’t save the baby, and if they save the mother at the expense of the child-even one that is nonviable-the bishops excommunicate them.

          • cjvg

            Considering that you told us that you were severely abused by your psychopathic mother (your diagnosis not mine) maybe there are very good reasons not to let mentally ill people (who are that incapacitated that they can not function outside of a hospital) not become parents

            Apparently your mother was still able to function outside of a facility and pass as a competent adult and still it was living hell for you as a child (your assertion, not mine)

            However, you believe that giving some one with even less capabilities a child is just fine?!
            I don’t believe you are actually quit rational even now!

          • HeilMary1

            And my Catholic-deranged mom also abused me, so I’ve come to the opposite conclusions that Ingrid has come to. Ingrid refuses to consider the suffering of children born to unfit parents, and her likely death if she needed an abortion to save her life at a Catholic hospital. She stupidly believes Catholic hospitals are always able to save both mothers and fetuses, but I’ve read of Catholic hospitals always choosing non-viable fetuses over mothers and even hastening fetal deaths just to baptize those little heathens!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I do not believe catholic hospitals always save mother and child, but I do bvelieve any RESPONSIBLE catholic hospital will save the mothers life, and if at all possible, the baby

          • HeilMary1

            We have been explaining to you over and over that in reality, Catholic hospitals have been hiding needlessly high maternal death rates because they put fetal “heartbeats” of DEAD embryos over mothers.

          • canaduck

            Stop with the No True Scotsman routine.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I don’t know who that is,

          • canaduck

            You know how to use Google though, right?

          • colleen2

            In the face of a great deal of evidence to the contrary your beliefs are irrelevant.

          • cjvg

            STOP lying, not one doctor or the state will ever force you to have an abortion!!
            You have no idea what the personal believes of those doctors are, they are obligated to treat you according to best medical standards and not according to religious doctrine.
            However, any and all medical procedures require your consent if you are a competent adult.
            NOT ONE SINGLE CASE OF FORCED ABORTION ON A COMPETENT LEGALLY ADULT WOMAN WAS EVER RECORDED THERE
            And still if you decide that you want to carry a child to term at the risk of your life NOT ONE SINGLE DOCTOR WILL FORCE AN ABORTION ON YOU!
            So yes you can live your conscience all you want!

          • cjvg

            The “pressure”, I see you stop short at claiming to be forced to undergo one against your will and without your consent!
            Not so for women in a catholic hospital or an catholic anti-choice country, they will not feel pressure at all, they will just be told that their wishes or opinion is of no concern.
            They will be told they have no choice or rights other then what the church decides for them!

            It is very hard to have some declared incompetent in northern Europe!
            It is much easier in America.

            Several doctors (I believe it is currently 3 separate doctors who do not work together or have social contact) have to agree on the diagnoses’ The person in question as well as a appointed social worker and the court appointed defender will then have to file their reports as well as any other evidence the person would like to file in their defense.
            A judge will then personally speak to the person and evaluates the evidence!

            So in your medical(?) opinion your friend was not mentally ill although at least 3 doctors came to that conclusion independently.
            Furthermore, a judge who evaluated the evidence and the statements made as well as spoke to the patient and her welfare worker and her appointed defender, came to the same conclusion!

            I have a very hard time believing you that that person is actually sane, and everyone is just “out to get her” based on your and her opinion of the situation!
            Maybe you need to evaluate what your state of mind was when you got to that conclusion, did you meet her in the mental hospital by chance?!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            She was diagnosed by ONE psychologist, another claimed she was suffering from depression, not schizophrenia.There was not 3 independent doctors, there was no judge, just the CPS, her physician misleading her. Yes, I stopped short of saying I was forced since I protected myself, I chose to stay abstinent based on a) My faith, and b) I knew I could not care for a child.
            Today I can, but that’s another story. I met her through some friends. Her case is going to the ECHR, maybe you haven’t heard, but norwegian CPS are very notorious, I find it very funny that they gave a darn about helping my sister when I reported my mother, whilst taking thw children of my friend based ona diagnosis her own therapist say is false.
            And another thing: You think having an abortion is hard in US because of anti-abortion people? Well, here we have an immense abortion pressure.

          • HeilMary1

            So you’ve converted to sex-hating, anti-contraception Catholicism.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            When did I do that? I do support contraception, and I am not catholic, I am pentecostal

          • HeilMary1

            You said you practiced abstinence and you also support Catholic hospitals following their whims, which means denying AIDS couples the right to use condoms to avoid spreading AIDS.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I practised abstinense for myself yes, that does not mean I would not use BC should I desire that, and I would still prefer BC be free and available, that condoms is a good thing and that the catholic chirch during their opposition to condoms are guolty of a kind of genocide

          • cjvg

            So you now claim that in Norway physicians, hospitals and social workers routinely violate civil law, thereby opening themselves up to criminal charges and penalties, as well as loss of license.

            A hospital that commits a patient against their will and has them declared incompetent without a legal order from a judge is in effect holden the patient hostage!

            This falls under the same criminal statue as that of a hostage situation occurring during a home invasion or a kidnapping on the street!

            Why on earth would a hospital take that risk while it is no trouble at all to follow the rules like they do for each and every other incompetence hearing?!

            Your story makes no sense, or maybe you just do not have all the facts since you are not allowed to read the private medical files or have access to the legal files on incompetency hearings (these are confidential and only disclosed if you have a legitimate reason to access them, after all)

            I was not aware that you were one of the only 5 people still alive in Norway and the rest died out from self abortion.
            As far as the world knows Norway still has a fairly active presence on the international scene, and they still hold and guard the largest most diverse plant seed depository in the world.
            As I understand that it is fully guarded, must be by foreigners then since Norwegians are practically extinct.

            However, out here in the real world Norway is not dying out as of yet so apparently plenty of people still have kids.
            The majority of couples still have at least one or two children so apparently some people are able to say no to abortion, or “gasp” even encouraged or congratulated on their pregnancies.

            As for it being hard to not have an abortion in Norway, say no, nobody will force you kicking and screaming into one, you have CHOICE
            In the US it is becoming virtually impossible to find access and several invasive unneeded physical procedures are forced upon you just to obtain a legal medical procedure that you pay for!

            There is a huge difference between forcefully being restricted or prevented from accessing needed medical care and having to say no!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            You really don’t know what you are talking about. In Norway, you have the possibility to commit people on the basis of the desiction of ONE physiciän, this shall then be evaluated by an in-hospital psychiatrist, and you can then complain to a comission, if you loose that one, you cannot complain for several months. Norway is one of thecountries allowing for commition in cases where the patient according to physicians needs treatment, regardless of whether the patient is a risk to self or others.
            You are so sure I am lying whilst I am the one working in the system, IU am the one living here, and I am the one with my friend they tried to force to abort, had she been shorter gestation they wold have succeded.
            I find you so damn obnoxoius, arrogant that I can’t even describe it. You don’t want tit to be true, thus I must be lying. Well I will do what you want me too, leave this forum.

          • cjvg

            I understand that you do find it uncomfortable when the obvious glaring lack of logic and credibility are questioned, however I do not prevent to from addressing these and explaining these obvious lapses in logic, or providing some other argument then second hand hearsay to strengthen your statements!

            Yours is a common response from those who are called to defend the indefensible position.

            It is you who unexplainable demands the right to dictate the choices others can be allowed to have according to your believes!
            It is you who claims your rights would be non existent if you would not be allowed to usurp the rights of others!
            Of course if I insist that every woman should be respected and allowed to make her own choices according to her own conscious I must be insufferably arrogant (?)

            This time your arguments actually made me laugh, somethings are just so ironic that it becomes humorous

            Sure, we can not possibly doubt your honesty although not one thing you claim is legal or even plausible in Norway.
            You claim that she was legally declared incompetent, that is not possible if no judge was involved (as you also claim)

            You have presented not one single reason, or even a illogical reason, why all the professional and highly educated, impartial doctor social worker, hospital officials etc. were so willing to compromise their professional ethics and risk their licenses, livelihoods, freedom, criminal charges and all around life destroying misery just to abort a fetus?!

            I too, have worked there, why should I not be allowed to state the actual legalities and procedures used?

            You hear a story from a friend of a friend who you admit was mentally ill, you have never seen the actual documents or medical/legal files of the case, you have never spoken to any one other then your mentally ill friend, but her accusations must be correct because?!

            You produce no links or any articles dealing with this case, and this would be quit a high profile scandal involving the state, professionals like doctors, a hospital, and absolute willful criminal disregard of known Norwegian law!

            Norway does have freedom of the press, they would be all over this, as would the other European countries.

            You then challenge me to disregard all logic, science, reason, personal morality or ethics to believe your believes that I too should appropriate the right to tell others what they should be allowed to chose?!

            Fine, here is your wish;
            I am telling you that you must now let others have choices and respect the rights of other women to live according to their conscious.
            I’am ordering you to stop treating others as extensions of your body and respect their ownership of their own bodies

          • colleen2

            Lots of us have friends and relatives in Norway. We know you are lying.

          • HeilMary1

            Ingrid, due to our GOP- and Catholic-ruined insurance industry here, most American women have ZERO choice about AVOIDING Catholic hospitals and physicians, so they can’t even access affordable sterilization and long-term contraception like IUDs. Moreover, Catholic hospitals won’t even perform abortions to save women’s lives! They lie to the women, their families and state authorities about causes of death!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            They do salpingectomies in case of ectopic pregnancies

          • HeilMary1

            Which are considered out-of-date and render patients needlessly sterile on one side. Moreover, they wait until fetal “heartbeats” have stopped or the fallopian tube has dangerously ruptured. El Salvador is now forcing untreated ruptured ectopic pregnancy deaths on 300 women annually. How “pro-life” is that?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            It is not pro-life at all

          • canaduck

            “Should I want pro-life health care, I would need to go outside our country.”

            Wow, so no babies are born in Norway? They’re killing every fetus? That IS wrong.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            No, but my child would be delivered by a doctor that probably already had killed tens or hundreds of fetuses, and I am not comfortable with that

          • HeilMary1

            And I’m not comfortable that you obey a cult that has murdered millions of women and has raped millions of children. Maybe tumors have a right to life also, and you should only go to shamans that pray away tumors.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            That was very to the point of the discussion and logical. I believe in the sanctity of human life, as far as I know that is not a cult that has raped anyone

          • HeilMary1

            You never heard of the pedophile priest scandal?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Of course I have, but what does that have to do with the sanctity of life? You already know I abhor sexual violence, after all I see the victims in my work at the psych ward

          • Lolly

            “Of course I have, but what does that have to do with the sanctity of life? You already know I abhor sexual violence, after all I see the victims in my work at the psych ward”

            It is related because the same people who are pushing the sanctity of life cause on everyone else, to the point of death, because they are the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of all that is holy, are the same people who are participating in, functioning within and supporting pedophilia. What you think and say and believe is so utterly, completely and totally besides the point. Women who are given death sentences because of some pedophilia-engaging theocratic views on it.

            “And I cannot understand that a catholic hospital should see a womans life as inferior to her fetus’. In my mind, abortion IS ok to save the mother when she would otherwise die. And I don’t know any christians IRL that does not share that view. Even the pro-life OB/GYNs agree on that. So who are these docs that don’t agree with that? They of course should be fired”

            You don’t understand. You cannot understand. You even seem to be incapable of understanding. What goes on in your mind doesn’t matter even a tiny bit. You think abortion is OK whenever you think it’s OK and so do some pro life doctors, according to you. Alright, that’s fine. But to be perfectly honest, and, once again, this isn’t about you. OK? Not about you. Not about how you how you feel or how you live your life and the choices you’ve made for your own self, and you aren’t in a position to push your beliefs on anyone else anyway.

            However you feel about whatever, congratulations, but it’s not pertinent because the bottom line is, the AUTHORITIES do not believe whatever it is that’s going on in your mind. And the authorities have demonstrated time and time again that they do not deserve the power they’ve usurped, they have no moral leg to stand on. By engaging in pedophilia. By covering it up. By manipulating and lying. And yet they feel perfectly entitled to push their beliefs onto other people, to the point of denying care and killing them. It isn’t about morality, it’s a power grab, and these are the people who are running the hospitals and helping their patients die.

            You want to make sure you can have a doctor that has never performed an abortion because it makes you uncomfortable, you want to make sure your doctor will see “the pregnancy through to the end”, whatever that means, while simultaneously saying that even “pro life” doctors believe that abortion is OK sometimes. In the increasingly theocratic US, that is read as completely contradictory, it cannot be both.

          • colleen2

            Ah. Perhaps you should move to Saudi Arabia or Bahrain.

          • CT14

            No, you do not understand the US health system at all.

            There are NOT enough hospitals that aren’t affiliated with Catholicism, and Catholics are buying up ore hospitals all the time.

            We do not have public hospitals. They are mostly privately owned, though some are nonprofit and affiliated with universities. Without insurance, you will be charged $5000 or more for a “normal” delivery, and premature infants generally can rack up a million dollars in bills.

            The most common cause for bankruptcy in America is medical bills.

            Catholic hospitals should not operate public trauma units nor should they be public at all if they can’t follow best medical practices. That’s what the argument is about. They put even a dying or dead fetus over the health of the mother, and even if they do intervene, they will do the most invasive procedure to the mother without giving her an option of a procedure that is better for her health–and that’s only if her life is obviously in imminent danger, and may not even then.

            There are no other options for many in the US. Outside of big cities, there are few providers of abortions at all–90% of US women must travel for an abortion, even in cases of medical necessity.

            Your ignorant defense of Catholic hospitals when you fail to grasp how the US health system works is why everyone is jumping down your throat. You need to listen and educate yourself, because the reality is that you are not advocating choice for anti-abortion zealots, you are advocating forced birth even at the risk of a woman’s life.

            Try learning more about a country’s situation before commenting on detailed legal arguments.

          • colleen2

            You are lying

          • Rob

            The Church does very little to help people? So the largest education system in the world, the largest charity network in the world for feeding and clothing and sheltering the poor, all the missionary work, the hospitals which provide excellent healthcare for millions of people, none of that counts as “doing much” in your opinion?

          • Lolly

            Oh please, spare me. The only way they “help the poor” is if the poor succumb to their religious doctrine and we know that the catholic church withdraws help when the people involved are people they don’t like, such as the gay community, even when it involves children the church claims to love so much. They only help people they like, even then not so much. They are not a universally wondrous organization. I wouldn’t send my kids to a catholic school on a bet and I certainly wouldn’t go to one of their hospitals. The vatican has billions of dollars and is vastly corrupt. You with the stars in your eyes are just picking around the edges.

          • Rob

            Catholic Charities USA is THE largest charity organization in the USA and serves 7 to 8 million people annually, and not just Catholics. Mother Teresa served a plethora of non-Catholics in India. Catholic Hospitals and Schools are consistently ranked as the best in the nation. Catholics do not “dislike” gays. In fact, the Catechism itself states that they must not be discriminated against. To do so is a sin of bigotry. The Church DOES teach that gays should not be married because they cannot procreate, which is an inherent purpose of Catholic marriage and has been a purpose of marriage even in pre-Christian societies. All of these are facts that you could easily verify with a simple google search, but you are right, I’M definitely the one who isn’t seeing clearly…

          • cjvg

            However, there are just not that many organizations that willingly and knowingly shelter pedophiles from criminal and civil charges, as well as relocate said pedophiles and provide them with new victims, not once, twice, three, four in some cases six times or more.

            All the while preaching that they are moral and upstanding and have the right to judge you!
            You know what sexual molestation does to a child?!
            It is murder, plain and simple, the body still breaths but that child is gone!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I know that, and I have never ever supported shielding any sexual predator, had I been in charge, they would be in jail for at least twice the time they abused any of their victims, consecutively, and in order to get out they should be castrated

          • HeilMary1

            Ingrid, get it through your thick, selfish skull that the dirty reason why the Vatican opposes all sterilization and effective contraception is so that its esteemed pedophile priests will have unlimited children to victimize and so that its wealthy playboy funders like Erik Prince of Blackwater will be conveniently rid of aging brood mares through childbirth-caused deaths.

          • 141park

            “No one forces a woman to use a pro-life hospital”….not true. How many hospitals where you live? Unfortunately, I do not know of any doctors who care about patients who aren’t family members or close “friends of the family”. Given that, how is lack of availability any sort of “choice”?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Here we only have a pro-abortion hospital.

          • HeilMary1

            Then move to Ireland, El Salvador or the Philippines to see Catholic “health care” in action.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Irelands maternal mortality rate is one third of the US rate, so how come when abortion is so widely available in the US and not in Ireland?

          • HeilMary1

            Ireland dishonestly has a very high unofficial maternal mortality rate that is blamed on other causes. Ireland’s over-rated maternal safety also doesn’t include the thousands of unhealthy women who get life-saving abortions in England but never report their illegal abortions to Irish officials.

          • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

            You think abortion is “”widely available in the US””

            HAHAHAHA.

            In the past year alone politians have put forth OVER 1000 bills/law that deal with restricting women’s access to abortion and other things relating to reproductive rights. Some states only have ONE clinic that preforms abortion. In the ENTIRE state: just one. (see Mississppi).

            Not even getting into lower income women and the struggle to raise money for an abortion, and the new laws that require TWO trips before an abortion is preformed (requiring women to have to take more days off work or find babysitters for thei kids AND pay for gas AND have a friend to come drive them home ect).

            Women’s access to Plan B and abortion is being chipped away from GOP politians.

          • BJ Survivor

            Sadly, the Obama administration is itself also complicit in denying fertile females access to Plan B.

          • Katikam

            Not all women, just teens which are now required to get a prescription to buy Plan B while other women (or men!) can get it over the counter. However that’s not right. Teens need to have the right to make that choice. At the same time many American teens don’t know enough about contraceptives and sexuality because sex ed in schools now (since Bush Sr. who never ever had sex till he got married — ha!), so the US has the highest rate of teen pregnancies of all Western countries.

          • Lolly

            Not only are US politicians, colluding with catholic bishops restricting all kinds of access to reproductive health care or as Senator McCain calls it – air-quote “women’s health”, such as affordable contraception and pre-natal care, they have been imprisoning women for miscarrying and stillbirths, and writing legislation to increase the rate of incarceration for this “crime”. So, this is how the catholic church, who you just ooh’d and aaaahh’d and gushed over as striving to save mothers, and oh just mourning over deaths, is helping women, Yeah, helping them right over a cliff.

            Ingrid, so sorry you feel so “uncomfortable” that you may not have access to the purest of perfection of the halo encircled pro life doctors of your dreams to tend you at your bedside. Yes, possibly you may have to settle with just a very qualified, caring doctor, who maybe isn’t your ideal, but who will safely deliver you a healthy baby while keeping you intact, in spite of your “discomfort”. Your noble concerns about yourself and your ideals pale in comparison to the real suffering real women are going through. Try to keep things in perspective.

          • cjvg

            Because every single woman in Ireland that needs an abortion goes to England or abroad.
            It is such a large sector of travel that travel agencies offer abortion packages (travel, hotel, appointment, return trip)

          • Katikam

            Abortion is NOT widely available in the US and it is getting harder and harder to get one. Haven ‘t you heard that doctors performing abortions are getting murdered?

            The US maternal mortality rate is high because many people don’t have access to medical care. This is particularly a glaring contradiction in the so called prolifers’ actions because they have succeeded in forcing the closure of Planned Parenthood clinics which were one of the very few, or actually only, clinics where women could get pre-natal care (along with gynecological care and cancer screenings) and pay for it on a sliding scale based on income. The lack of access to prenatal care is one of the primary factor in miscarriages.
            Yes we do have Medicaid in most states in the US but you have to be totally indigent to be elligible and then there are few facilities that take Medicaid patients. If you have an income of just one $ above the limit, you’ll not be elligible for any health care. So prolifers in the US are causing miscarriages and maternal deaths (the dying of women in the process of giving birth), not just by denying access to prenatal care but also by opposing all social programs (including nutrition) aimed at helping babies and their low income parents. It is quite clear that many US prolifers actually don’t like babies and children.
            I suspect you have no idea how bad the US health care system is and how many Americans don’t have access to it.

          • Lolly

            “Here we only have a pro-abortion hospital.”

            There is no such thing.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Trying to force an abortion on a patient seems pro-abortion to me… I noticed my comments here are not popular, it very interesting actually because it DID happen, she was just too far along. But theyt tried

          • Lolly

            “Trying to force an abortion on a patient seems pro-abortion”

            Apparently, there’s no such thing as that either.

            Nevertheless, even if it is true, clearly that would be indicative of systemic ethics violations, imposing dogma on an unwilling patient. And clearly you feel it’s wrong. Clearly, you feel it limits your choices. Well, amazingly enough, it’s the other side of the same coin, the exact same way women feel when they want to save their own lives to do silly things like be able to raise the children they already have. They don’t want to leave that choice to catholic bishops. You are so busy being indignant about the choices you want to make, you fail to see you are continuously making the same argument presented in the article.

            Although it seems that over and over again, your forced abortion theory has been debunked.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            You think my friend lied, well how is that a view of women? I didn’t say it was widespread, I said it happened. Obviously you are too blind with the “noone is forced to have an abortion”, which is untrue. Violation of ethics, absolutely.

          • Lolly

            I don’t know about your friend, who you repeatedly said was diagnosed with mental illness, but the people on this site in the medical field in your country say there’s no such thing. Chances are they are women too, since this a site on reproductive health.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Again, I ave not said it is widespread, I said it happened. I work at the hospital, usually I am aware of what happens in my own unit, not nessessarily what happens at other hospitals with the same services we provide. So how likely is it that the people running this site knows absolutely everything?

          • Lolly

            And, yes, with a little research, the medical practitioner is, indeed, a woman. So I have a choice of what to believe, from one woman or another.

            “I didn’t say it was widespread, I said it happened.”

            So ok, it is true. You are making the same argument presented in the article. Yes, it is violation of ethics. Yes, it should be investigated. And, what should happen, as is what should happen in catholic hospitals is either they come clean and clean up their practices, or lose their license for putting ideology above patient care. You feel one is OK and one is restricting your choice.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            It doesn’t have anything to do with me. My friend was almost forced into an abortion. That is not wrong because it is an unwanted procedure, it is wrong because a child is killed. Or would have been, had she been only a few weeks earlier. That is why abortion is wrong. And that is the reasion catholic hospitals try to save both. And I cannot understand that a catholic hospital should see a womans life as inferior to her fetus’. In my mind, abortion IS ok to save the mother when she would otherwise die. And I don’t know any christians IRL that does not share that view. Even the pro-life OB/GYNs agree on that. So who are these docs that don’t agree with that? They of course should be fired

          • Lolly

            IRL, that’s not what is happening, catholic hospitals are killing women, that’s what this article is about. I think people here have been trying to tell you that, including me. You may not understand why a catholic hospital should see a woman’s life as inferior, but that’s just how they see it, whether you understand how that could possibly be or not.

            So many women are dying, how many more have to die before you realize that your beliefs in the goodness of “pro life” hospitals is false? Some of have living daughters we love and we don’t want to see them die.

            The article is asking that catholic hospitals be held to medical standards for all patients. You immediately took this to be a violation of your choice.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I read the article, and I read this http://www.ascensionhealthDOTorg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95&Itemid=172
            I agree with you, catholic hospitals cannot be completely trusted in this, but a woman should still have the option to choose this hospital if it is her conviction

          • Lolly

            “I agree with you, catholic hospitals cannot be completely trusted in this, but a woman should still have the option to choose this hospital if it is her conviction

            OK, wow, well, that’s is… uh… never thought this question would come up but, if a woman wants to choose a hospital with questionable medical practices that cannot be trusted, how is that best for her pregnancy. If this is the case, then it should be known up front for all women, and dealt with honestly, and it should be known that the hospital isn’t a licensed medical facility, I guess… I don’t even know how to address this one. Has this ever come up before?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            The practice may not be questionable should one believe that fetal life equals the mothers life. Quite a few women take comfort in knowing the OB views the fetus as their patient and are willing to go all the way for it

          • Lolly

            “Quite a few women take comfort in knowing the OB views the fetus as their patient and are willing to go all the way for it”

            Yeah, pretty much all women feel comfort knowing their needs and the fetus’ are being cared for. So you know, they’re prescribed vitamins, instructed to go on bed rest if needed, even if the doctor has performed abortions in the past, believe it or not, they care deeply about their patients and the fetus. “pro life” doctors haven’t cornered the market on caring for the woman AND the fetus.

          • cjvg

            A medical facility that places adherence to religious doctrine above adherence to best medical practice, has no business being in the healthcare field.
            These are religious facilities and as such should lose their license and accreditation as a hospital

          • cjvg

            A medical facility that practices medicine that does NOT adhere to the best medical practices, should not be licensed as an accredited medical care supplying hospital.

            A medical facility and refuses to offer complete and full knowledge of all and best medical options available to a patient, should not be licensed as an accredited medical care supplying hospital.

            A medical facility that places the practice of religion above the practice of medicine, should not be licensed as an accredited medical care supplying hospital.

            A medical facility that places their needs and wishes above those of their patient should not be licensed as an accredited medical care supplying hospital.

            A medical facility that has no interest in saving the life or health of their patient when it is contradicted by a two thousand year old religious doctrine, should not be licensed as an accredited medical care supplying hospital.

          • Katikam

            In my town there is only a Catholic hospital. There is no alternative.

          • canaduck

            “That is not wrong because it is an unwanted procedure, it is wrong because a child is killed. ”

            Really? The fact that it’s an invasive, unwanted medical procedure doesn’t bother you?

          • canaduck

            Nobody said that no woman is ever forced to have an abortion. In fact, PictishMonster specifically said that pro-choicers would disagree with that practice, and that she is sorry that you had to deal with something like that in Norway. But the way you keep bringing it up as a regular occurrence is a ridiculous attempt at derailing.

            I’d love for you to find some evidence of your wholly pro-abortion hospital. Surely there are some links online that you can point us to.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Our hospital as a unit are not pro-abortion, I would not work there, but the women’s division absolutely are

          • Lolly

            They force abortions on women without the woman’s consent?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            They tried with her, yes, but the sonogram showed she was 3 weeks to far along

          • Lolly

            Is there evidence of systemic forced abortions in these pro abortion hospitals that force abortions on women without their consent?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            No

          • canaduck

            Evidence?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I was not in the exam room, and has only her words for it,but she is not psychotic, and her refusal to abort was used in the court when they took the child away. I g
            uess the forced abortion attempt was one last ditch attempt to stop her from having that baby that she did not plan but was hellbent on not aborting

          • Katikam

            On what ground was that child taken away by the court? It gives the impression that the mother wasn’t able to take care of the baby or that she was abusive, or let someone else abuse her child.

          • cjvg

            You claim that a story you heard from a friend you met through a friend is absolutely true.
            We have no proof, there is no logic presented, it is not known and acknowledged law or doctrine in the country you claim the story took place.

            The country you claim it took place in, has no long well known history of violating human or woman’s civil rights, this country does not make proud public announcements stating that women have no rights other then what the church and the state grants them.
            In fact if true it would be multiple criminal acts that are punishable by law in the country you say it took place in.

            None of the parties involved have any ideological, financial, professional, economical, political or personal interest in committing these crimes but did them any way for no reason what so ever.

            In fact these highly educated professional and a state regulated hospital decided to risk severe economical, criminal, personal and professional risk to them self and their families, just so they could
            abort your friend against her will?!

            You must admit that is sounds extremely unbelievable!

            And then you use this quite fanciful story as a rebuttal to the cases of well documented openly admitted by all authorities and religious leaders involved as acceptable and enforced religious and political doctrine, of letting pregnant women die rather then allowing a therapeutic abortion!

            Once you publish the name of the hospital, physician and social worker involved, as well as a public and shameless admission that this is the right thing and yea they do it all the time.
            The news paper links, reports, court records etc, then you can claim your story has the same credibility as these stories that routinely provide all of them!

          • colleen2

            I think you lie.

          • cjvg

            So your “friend” who told you her side of the story only, claims she was in a hospital that illegally and without following the law tried to have her declared incompetent in order for them to do an abortion on her?!

            That same hospital was unaware and unable to recognize that she was 26 weeks along and far to pregnant for the forced abortion that they , a doctor and a social worker risked criminal charges and the loss of their license for ?!

            To be declared incompetent a competency hearing must be held in front of a judge, otherwise she would not be legally incompetent and her consent would required!
            You claim that she claims that was never done, she can have them arrested right now!
            Is the hospital shut down, are the one doctor and the social worker in jail?
            You need to do better then that!
            By the way I own a unicorn, he lives in my garage and eats invisible golden apples, would you like to buy a shaving of its horn?

          • Lolly

            Yes, it’s the old “I have a friend who…” routine followed by unsubstantiated claims and a story that kind of falls apart at the end. It is intended to redirect the conversation, with the expectation that we’re all going to swoon over it and suddenly see the light. Seen it before. I know a girl who…

          • colleen2

            you are lying.

          • PictishMonster

            Ingrid, perhaps you should educate yourself about what happened to Savita and Beatriz before you go off declaring “those cases were not about saving the fetus on the expense of the mother”. That’s exactly what those cases are about – Savita wanted to live but the Irish hospital killed her by waiting until the non-viable, miscarrying fetus was dead before giving her the life-saving abortion she kept begging for. Same with Beatriz, though she may live, thank heaven.

            You seem to be confused about the meaning of the term ‘pro-choice’. It means we support the right of the mother to choose whether to give birth or not. Reproductive coercion includes forcing a person to terminate against their will. It sounds like you have experienced something like that is Norway. If so, that’s deplorable, and also anti-choice.

          • cjvg

            I grew up and worked in neurological and pharmaceutical research in northern Europe for years.
            What she claims is patently not true!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            It is true, I can say at LEAST ONE doctor, at least ONE hospital, at least ONE CPS servise tried. I can’t say it happens everywhere, it happened her

          • cjvg

            Crime happens everywhere, and what you describe is a crime
            What you describe is not doctrine or accepted law in Norway

            Your hearsay story has nothing to do with choice!

          • cjvg

            In savita’s case the infection cased by the dying fetus is what killed her!
            In general dying and dead tissue in our bodies causes raging infections that lead to almost uncontrollable sepsis in hours not days!
            There was ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE SINGLE WAY that savita’s 17 week pregnancy could ever be saved.

            She presented to the hospital with broken membranes.
            In a 17 week pregnancy there are generally only three major causes for this to happen, in all those cases the fetus will die but with adequate (not even good or superb treatment , just adequate) treatment there is no reason at all for the woman to ever die from this!!!!!

            Savita died from septic shock caused by chorioamnionitis, an bacterial infection of the foetal membranes.
            The hospital was aware that there was an infection since several CBC and cultures were done.

            The hospital was aware that the fetus was irretrievably lost since NOT ONE single attempt was made to stop labor. NOT ONE!
            Think about that for a second, they never even attempted to “save” the fetus since they were fully aware that there was no point, but they still required savita to continue to suffer unbearable pain that they did not treat, from the ongoing miscarriage!

            This is what your position does, it kills women just to ensure that non viable fetuses can eek out the last few non sentient seconds of presence in the womb and, will take their mother with them when they go!!!

          • HeilMary1

            Ingrid, YOU don’t live under deadly pedophile priest-serving Catholic tyranny as do we here in the U.S. and in Latin America, etc. Catholic hospitals are LYING to ALL mothers about various pregnancy risks, fetal anomalies and treatment options, and women are needlessly DYING as a result. Moreover, unhealthy women aren’t given the option of sterilization or effective contraception to avoid guaranteed future deadly pregnancies. That is why my mom felt compelled to disfigure me as her permanent abstinence excuse.

          • CT14

            The Catholic hospital KILLED Savita. Her pregnancy was nonviable and they let her die of sepsis–a particularly ugly and painful way to go–needlessly because they wouldn’t perform an abortion to save her life.

            We have a hospital here in the US that lost its Catholic affiliation because it performed an abortion to save the life of a mother of 4. The ethic committee decided that since the fetus had no chance to survive, they would save her life–the nun who ran the hospital was excommunicated! The bishop will not recertify the hospital as a Catholic facility until they apologize, which amazingly they have continued to refuse to do.

            The bishop has said it would have been better for the mother to die–windowing her husband and orphaning her 4 children–it would have been a beautiful sacrifice.

            THAT IS WHAT WE FACE IN THE US. They don’t take both lives equally, the fetus is primary and even if nonviable takes precedence over the mother.

          • colleen2

            Those cases were not about saving the fetus on the expense of the
            mother, those fetuses were non-viable, and catholic hospitals do
            abortions in case of life endangerment

            How can we have a conversation if you persist in saying things that are demonstrably untrue? Catholic hospitals do NOT do abortions to save the lives of women whose bodies cannot sustain a pregnancy and the Church excommunicates nuns who allow such abortions.. they KILL women whose bodies cannot sustain a pregnancy by withholding the option of abortion. If those women had been in a decent hospital where the lives of women are valued they would be alive today. Try to adapt to reality just a little.
            You are welcome to die in a Catholic hospital along with your non-viable fetus. Nobody is denying you that right. What you may NOT do is insist that we all devalue and sacrifice ourselves for your ‘faith’.

        • cjvg

          Are just absolutely daft?!
          Did you even read the link she provided, or was that to much effort since it is not your life you so breezily throw away?!
          These women were so ill that they were told they might die but still no one was willing to provide the needed abortion!

          NOT ONE SINGLE AMERICAN INSURANCE will pay for multiple day ambulance rides if they can get out from under that bill.
          If her insurance had any credible deniability that they were aware the woman would die if no abortion was provided, they would have insisted on delivery since that is cheaper!

          Insurances routinely let people die here if they even have the slimmest of claims to be able to deny that they were aware that the insured would die if no treatment was provided ASAP.

        • cjvg

          Choice, can you at least take the effort to look up what that means?

        • JCNow

          You apparently can’t read. Or choose not to. These fetuses were not viable, you stupid wingnut. They were never expected to be able to live outside of the womb. They had no brain function. Sort of like you. And yet, they forced these women to have a c-section to deliver what was for all purposes an already dead fetus. That is a violation of medical ethical rules. They need to be sued, shut down, burned down, whatever it takes.

  • canaduck

    What in the world is going on with disqus? You can’t see nested comments at all past a certain point.

  • lou4

    In America, the Catholic hospitals should receive no tax dollars until the Bishops repeal their order to let a woman die rather than have an abortion. Their edict is no different from a mob boss ordering the death of someone and both are murder. They should lose their tax-exempt status until they comply with the Hippocratic Oath and current laws that require doctors to do whatever is necessary and possible to save someone’s life. No more tax dollars should go to the “women’s clinics” that have no medical personnel and are only in existence to talk women out of getting an abortion. That is, also, illegal use of tax dollars.

    Unfortunately the only way to try to save a woman’s life in other countries is the news media and even that didn’t result in the best choice for the health of Beatriz. However, our foreign aid policies should be able to help influence those kinds of decisions of foreign countries.

  • Rob

    To the author: Apparently you believe that Catholic doctors who refuse to provide abortions are violating the Hippocratic oath. Well, you must have missed the part of the oath that states, “I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”

    • Lolly

      Religious people will happily let women die before violating their precious, precious oaths. Women get tossed aside like so much afterbirth so “holy men” can pat themselves on the back and just feel oh so halo-encrusted.

      • Rob

        So apparently the Hippocratic Oath is only important to you when it furthers your argument (this entire article, for example). Once you realize that it is actually contradictory to your beliefs, then suddenly the other side becomes the bad guy for following it? Amazing double-standard and hypocrisy on your part.

        That said, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated, “In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one
        instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother’s life.” Additionally, Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Alan Guttmacher acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any
        patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a
        fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be
        unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”

        • Lolly

          So valuing the life of a woman is somehow utterly hypocritical on my part. Well, I’ll just have to take a long look at my totally mixed up priorities then. By all means, 3 or 4 words in an oath is waaaaay more valuable than a living, breathing human life. More valuable than, let’s say, my daughter’s life. What was I thinking. Sure, she should die.

          And, wait, WHAT? But that’s what some pro life people say, that they would “allow” abortion in case of danger to the health of the mother, that’s the big sticky wicket, you mean to say it doesn’t ever ever happen? Well, then one wonders why they’re so carefully lying about those pronouncements they make.

          • Rob

            “So valuing the life of a woman is somehow utterly hypocritical on my part.” That’s not what I said, but by all means continue to twist my words into something that suites your desire to be willfully ignorant regarding the Pro-Life position so as to continue to justify your beliefs by demonizing the opposition.

            I am quoting two highly regarded physicians, one of whom even shares your views, but you clearly will not accept any facts that contradict your point of view.

          • Lolly

            Demonizing the opposition, is that what it is now. Every word ever written down and spoken must be taken at full faith no matter what, such as, let’s see, that 3/5ths compromise that’s written in the constitution. The blessed constitution, whose words we must live by constantly. Some things get overridden by others, sometimes things improve, and change and sometimes the intent is taken over every single last word ever written. That’s just how it is. If you want to keep score, that’s your problem, but you’re not helping your cause or helping us understand your position, if that’s really what you want to do. As far as Koop goes, he is notoriously anti abortion and find me that quote,on the guttmacher site itself, not some anti choice propaganda site.

            Ask Savita Halappanavar all about risks to the mother’s health, oh you can’t because after it was determined that her fetus had zero chance of survival and was dying, the catholics let her die. Right, oh you’ll say it was something else, a cold perhaps. George Tiller risked his life to help women who needed late term abortions to save their lives, ask him all about whether that can happen or not. Oh, you can’t. He’s dead, killed by “pro lifer”, where was it,in his church?

            You want the respect you feel you deserve, not be “victimized” by people “demonizing” you, you can start by having your people not firebombing buildings and killing doctors. You can also help by actually working towards helping women gain access pre-natal care instead of working to shut out all access to care. Anyone who cares about babies would want them to have the best care. You can start by helping girls get birth control and access to education, not shutting off information and turning against them before they’re even given a chance. You can start actually doing things that actually sound like people who are pro life instead of just being panty sniffers wondering who is having illicit sex and how they can be punished for it.

          • Rob

            So absolutely everything that is ever stated that is contrary to your opinion is automatically biased and untrue, but absolutely everything that is ever stated that agrees with your opinion is completely reliable? What a sad, willfully ignorant world you live in.

            I personally don’t care what you say about me. What I am saying is that you are demonizing my beliefs so that you don’t have to acknowledge what they actually are. It is easier to reject someone’s opinion when you change their beliefs into something easier to reject. I believe that killing humans is wrong, thus, I have a problem with abortion.

            Catholics provide an absolute plethora of maternity services. Another basic fact that you conveniently ignore. No, they don’t provide contraceptives, because the Church believes that contraceptives are wrong, and the Church and individual Catholics have a right to conscience.

            What about Planned Parenthood? Abortions? Yes. Contraceptives? Yes.

            “According to Tait Sye, national spokeswoman of Planned Parenthood, 63 of the more than 800 Planned Parenthood facilities in America provide the option of prenatal care to pregnant clients—that’s 7.8% of the clinics. On the other hand, 321 of the clinics—about 40%— provide abortion services, and every one refers for abortion, according to Planned Parenthood’s website.”

          • Lolly

            “So absolutely everything that is ever stated that is contrary to your opinion is automatically biased and untrue, but absolutely everything that is ever stated that agrees with your opinion is completely reliable? ”

            No, I’m asking you to provide the information from the source, the source is the guttmacher institute.

            “What I am saying is that you are demonizing my beliefs so that you don’t have to acknowledge what they actually are”

            Yes, they are your beliefs. I don’t know you so I couldn’t possibly acknowledge, demonize or even care what they are. It’s what you do with your beliefs that is the problem.

            ” It is easier to reject someone’s opinion when you change their beliefs into something easier to reject. I believe that killing humans is wrong, thus, I have a problem with abortion.”

            Which is perfectly fine, and we know you exactly what you believe. Your beliefs on abortion are just that, your beliefs. Have them, hold them, keep them close. As long as you don’t take your beliefs and use that to force anyone to do what they don’t want to do, then there’s no problem. As long as you don’t take your beliefs and use them to scream at, threaten, harass and shame women, withhold medical care, you are welcome to them.

            “No, they don’t provide contraceptives, because the Church believes that contraceptives are wrong, and the Church and individual Catholics have a right to conscience.”

            Absolutely and as long as they don’t force it on the rest of society, then there’s simply no problem. Catholics can believe whatever they want and practice however they want, as long as they leave the rest of us out of it. At the moment that’s not what they’re doing though. They’re working hard to take away that choice through legislation, which is why they should also have their tax exempt status removed. It has moved past the church and into politics, into our public healthcare system, where it doesn’t belong. They can do whatever they want with their own Catholic hospitals as long as they stay out of the other institutions, which they are not doing. Other people have their own beliefs that need to be respected every bit as much as yours. Also, it seems that a lot of catholics like their birth control.

          • Rob

            So only once source, the source that you’ve approved, can possibly have quoted Dr. Guttmacher correctly? Just search for the quote on google. You’ll find it quoted on a multitude of sites.

            I understand the principle of freedom of conscience for everyone. That is my very point. If you want to force me to give out contraceptives, then you are forcing me to go against my conscience, which is unconstitutional and wrong. I can’t stop you from going to a public facility to get them, which is exactly why I am not violating your right by refusing to give them to you, while you would be violating mine by forcing me to violate my conscience.

            “They can do whatever they want with their own Catholic hospitals…”

            This article is about what happened at a Catholic Hospital, yes?

            This article also argues that Catholic Hospitals should not be able to provide maternity care. That would be tragic because, as I’ve stated before, Catholic Hospitals are consistently rated as the best in the nation. So basically, because Catholic Hospitals do not want to perform what they view as an immoral act in killing children, you want to shut them down? How many people would be harmed and die if this were ever to happen? Not to mention that I’ve already given statistics showing how little maternity care is actually provided by Planned Parenthood.

            Basically, what you are telling me, is that the right to choose a morally dubious action is so much more important than anything else that it trumps the needs of literally millions of people who count on Catholic Hospitals for good healthcare as well as the freedom of conscience of those Catholics who do not wish to be forced to violate their own consciences. Bravo.

          • Lolly

            “So only once source, the source that you’ve approved, can possibly have quoted Dr. Guttmacher correctly?”

            I don’t see what the problem with that is. The Guttmacher institute is where the quote should be.

            “This article is about what happened at a Catholic Hospital, yes?”

            As long as there are other choices for other people. in some countries that isn’t the case, and Increasingly here this isn’t the case.

            “I can’t stop you from going to a public facility to get them, which is exactly why I am not violating your right by refusing to give them to you, while you would be violating mine by forcing me to violate my conscience.”

            But that’s exactly what catholic bishops are trying to do. You don’t have to buy contraception if you don’t want to.

            “So basically, because Catholic Hospitals do not want to perform what they view as an immoral act in killing children, you want to shut them down?”

            If a religious hospital denies needed and wanted medical care based on their ideology, they are committing malpractice. The patient should come first and In any other situation, they would have their licenses revoked. You can get great care at many different kinds of hospitals without the risk of being denied needed care.

            “Basically, what you are telling me, is that the right to choose a morally dubious action”

            That’s your belief.

            ” is so much more important than anything else that it trumps the needs of literally millions of people who count on Catholic Hospitals for good healthcare”

            Because in many cases such as catholic countries, there is no other option. Women who seek medical care have to leave their countries in order to gain access to it. So that’s “counting on” based on there being no other option, which isn’t “counting on” anything, it’s default, especially for poor women who can’t afford to travel.

            “as well as the freedom of conscience of those Catholics who do not wish to be forced to violate their own consciences. Bravo.”

            As long as it’s not being forced on them. Beatriz didn’t have a choice. She lives in a catholic country and she wanted to continue to live. This wasn’t her ideology, her conscience or anything, it was forced on her.

          • Rob

            But in response you are saying that it is acceptable to force Catholics to go against their conscience.

          • Lolly

            I would like them to practice their beliefs and leave the rest of us alone. They should stay out of politics and stay out of our private insurance plans. Their intrusion is unacceptable. In the US insurance is part of pay, it should not be administered based on someone else’s ideology.

            If doctors won’t give care to a patient who wants it based on their ideology, then either they should refer the patient to someone who will give care, or lose their license. To do otherwise would be considered malpractice in any other situation, and since religious people want to be given the same respect given to others, they should follow the same rules as everyone else, not get special dispensation to do whatever they want to whomever they want because of what they believe. Patients deserve better than that.

          • Rob

            I’m pretty sure that it’s pretty abundantly clear where you can receive such services.

          • Lolly

            Going back to the hippocratic oath, though, which in its original form swears to all the gods and goddesses: “I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion” Specifically it’s a pessary and a pessary only, and absolutism and following all the words of the oath is of the utmost importance, otherwise we’re all hypocrites here, just picking and choosing what we like from the oath when we argue that medical care should not be withheld from a woman at any time.

            Fortunately, pessaries are not administered to induce abortions, nor as far as I know, was it ever suggested in this particular case to save Beatriz’ life. Nor does the oath mention any other type of method to terminate a pregnancy, including D&Cs, which is what it’s called when wealthy women, or the wives, daughters and mistresses of “pro life” politicians and ministers seek to terminate a pregnancy, After all, their abortions are always moral so they call it something else.

          • Rob

            You seem to be forgetting that it was the author of this article, not me, who first brought up the oath. I was simply calling her out on her hypocrisy.

            Another translation of the oath from Greek states, “I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”

            What do D&Cs have to do with this? I disagree with that, too, as do most who are Pro-Life.

          • Lolly

            Having trouble replying, trying one more time. I know what you’re trying to accomplish here, but the author is referring to the patient protection intent of the oath, the commonly known intent of the oath. She’s not dissecting an ancient Greek oath into pieces. Not all doctors take this oath, there are others, some take no oath at all anyhow, so its inclusion in the article is rendered meaningless. Perhaps the author will read all this and next time will know it’s not necessary to include it as an argument that no one should be denied treatment based on someone else’s ideology, just because it’s not always used.

            If you want to take a look at real hypocrisy, look up Dr. Scott DesJarlais, the pro life politician who sought out an abortion for his girlfriend.

          • Rob

            You keep bringing up Pro-Life politicians who are hypocritical or the fact that there have been some bombings at abortion clinics. These points are not relevant. I do not condone such behavior and nor do most who are Pro-Life. At best they are simply arguments used to distract from the actual issue.

          • Lolly

            “These points are not relevant. I do not condone such behavior and nor do most who are Pro-Life. At best they are simply arguments used to distract from the actual issue.”

            They are entirely relevant. It is the pro life people who are pushing their beliefs on others, beliefs that they don’t practice themselves. Every single provider has performed abortions on the same people who are out there screaming at other women. Their abortions are always moral. All the escorts have seen it happen.

            Why should there be a need for escorts? Not only are there firebombings at abortion clinics, threats made against the lives of providers, but women are screamed at, harassed and terrorized for accessing care that is within their full legal rights to obtain. Some of them are going for pap smears, and yet they get screamed at. I figured you’d dismiss it rather than own up to it because like it or not, it is the ugly face of your movement, the reason why no one really believes your movement is actually about “protecting the sanctity of life” as opposed to merely controlling and shaming women, keeping them in line, punishing them for illicit sex, and why you’re not getting the respect for your beliefs that you demand. It seems like it’s something that would be entirely relevant to you, since you want so badly to be understood, you’d be interested in how your movement is represented, marketed, and appears to outsiders. Just because you don’t condone it, that’s not our problem.

          • Rob

            You believe the most amazing false propaganda promulgated by your side for the purpose of demonizing the opposition to justify the horrific nature of your own opinion. Do such things happen? Yes. Is it even close to as widespread as you are attempting to portray? No. I could point to all the flaws and horrific individuals on your side (Gosnell anyone?) but I don’t because it is not relevant to the actual issues.

          • Lolly

            It doesn’t happen? Your groups are out there, in my state, petitioning to be able to get closer to clinics, 20 feet away is too far away they need to get right in womens’ faces. Demonizing the opposition with false propaganda? Nice try. I just have to watch the news.

            Gosnell is a good example for why we need more and better access for care, so women aren’t subjected to that kind of treatment.

          • Rob

            I never said it’s “all” false propaganda, but good job trying to twist my words into something that suites your argument.

            I love how your side always tries to attack the Pro-Life movement by talking about how Republicans want to reform welfare, as if the two are inherently and inseparably connected. I saw welfare abuse constantly when I was working as a cashier at a grocery store, and yes, I believe that parents should be taking care of their kids, not the government from taxpayer money. That said, I’m not against charity. I wish charities would increase.

            “Gosnell is a good example for why we need to keep abortion legal and to provide more and better access to care, so women aren’t subjected to those kinds of risks and that kind of treatment.”

            o.O How did you arrive at that conclusion??

            Regarding Catholic Charities. I stated that it is the largest charity organization in the nation. The article to which you refer is rating the comment of one politician who claimed that they provide half the aid in the country. THAT was what was false, but even the article you provided states, “He’s right that Catholic groups are among the biggest providers of social-service charity in the nation.” So, there you go again, trying to change my words into something that you can argue against, but once again, you’ve failed.

          • Lolly

            “I never said it’s “all” false propaganda, but good job trying to twist my words into something that suites your argument.”

            I was amused by your various excuses. Just wondering what the next one is going to be

            “I love how your side always tries to attack the Pro-Life movement by talking about how Republicans want to reform welfare, as if the two are inherently and inseparably connected.”

            Because oh the irony of it all. Pro life Republicans claim to love children and want to protect them, but instead are ripping the foundations out from under them and why? Because…

            ” saw welfare abuse ”

            I love how republicans always bring THIS one up. Welfare abuse, as if that’s what’s draining the economy, and it’s not the kids’ fault, but still, it’s better to take food off the kids’ plates because parents are unable to take

            “care of their kids,not the government from taxpayer money. That said, I’m not against charity. I wish charities would increase.”

            Much of the church’s money comes from the taxpayers, it comes from the federal government directly through federal faith based initiatives and of course, tax breaks. If kids are being helped, fed, educated, why does it matter so much where the money comes from?

            “He’s right that Catholic groups are among the biggest providers of social-service charity in the nation.” Biggest doesn’t mean best, and even as the biggest, as a percentage, they don’t even provide half the services provided overall. In other words, other groups are picking up the slack, as is the federal government.

            But even this may overestimate the footprint of Catholic-supported charities, since it doesn’t include social-service expenditures by the government. In his comment, Keating didn’t specify that he was only talking about social services funded by private groups.”

            Overestimated footprint. Other organizations have smaller footprints, maybe, but if the catholic services went away, it wouldn’t seem to mean all that much in the end, because as an entity,their footprint is still not that big.

            “o.O How did you arrive at that conclusion??”

            How can you not? If a woman feels that she is free to access care she has every right to, and has choices available to her, why would she feel compelled to go to someone like Gosnell? Gosnell would have been reported on and shut down long ago.

            And, just to repeat:

            “Just recently the Colorado courts ruled in favor of a catholic hospital in the deaths of 2 fetuses where the hospital argued that a fetus isn’t a person, and the court agreed, and now it’s on court record. Seems the catholics are willing to declare fetuses as not human sometimes, particularly when it affects their bottom line.”

            Interesting how the catholic hospital didn’t seem to provide such great care for this pregnant lady after all, and then wiggled out of being accountable for it in court, while simultaneously declaring a fetus isn’t a person.

            Plus now you’ve got cardinal dolan out there whisking away over 50 million dollars, they sure can hide their money. How much good would that 50 million have done, I wonder.

          • Rob

            So by me stating that you are overstating the amount of hypocrisy from the Pro-Life movement and that I don’t condone violence against abortion clinics, I’m just “making excuses,” but when you state that I am overstating the good done by Catholic Charities and that you don’t condone the behavior of people like Gosnell, you aren’t making excuses? Double-standard much?

            There’s a difference between tax-breaks and redistribution of wealth. Charities are also more effective at cutting down on welfare abuse than the welfare system.

            The Church believes that birth control is immoral. Here you go trying to force Catholics to violate their conscience again.

            “Biggest doesn’t mean best.” Based upon the implication here, why don’t you provide evidence that Catholic Charities aren’t the best then?

            “…they don’t even provide half the services provided overall.” Your point? No charity organization does. How is this relevant?

            “…if the catholic services went away, it wouldn’t seem to mean all that much in the end…” I think the 7 to 8 million people served by Catholic Charities annually would disagree with you.

            “If a woman feels that she is free to access care she has every right to,
            and has choices available to her, why would she feel compelled to go to
            someone like Gosnell?” PLEASE do not pretend as if Gosnell wasn’t a legally registered abortion doctor OR that he was the only one available to the women who chose his services. I could easily state the exact reverse and say that this clearly demonstrates the true mentality of anyone who is pro-abortion.

            “Just recently the Colorado courts…” Yes, I read that the first time. I filed it in the same category of your arguments with the double-standard of me making excuses and you not making excuses. I could just as easily ask you why it is ok for a woman to kill her unborn child, but when someone murders a pregnant woman, they are charged with two murders.

          • Lolly

            “The Church believes that birth control is immoral. Here you go trying to force Catholics to violate their conscience again.”

            But you were talking about taxpayers. the church is not the government.

            “There’s a difference between tax-breaks and redistribution of wealth. ”

            Actually, in the end, there isn’t much of a difference Someone gets money. Either the government gives money directly or the government uses tax incentives for certain groups that are beneficial to them. Which is why the tax code needs to be redefined, removing things like mortgage deductions.

            “Charities are also more effective at cutting down on welfare abuse than the welfare system.”

            Abuse isn’t as widespread as you think.

            “I could just as easily ask you why it is ok for a woman to kill her unborn child, but when someone murders a pregnant woman, they are charged with two murders.”

            Why on earth would you ask me that. This was not my case, this was presumably a catholic woman’s case, she went to the catholic hospital, presuming that her fetus was a person, she brought up the charges based on that presumption, not me, the church said no it’s a person, which is what we have been saying all along. So, I guess in this one case, I agree with the church and so do the courts.

          • Rob

            I won’t support a government policy with which I have a moral issue.

            There is a big difference between taking money from taxpayers and redistributing it and allowing an organization that receives large sums of money from willful donations to keep that money and use it for its own purpose. In the case of Catholic Charities, service to the people.

            “Abuse isn’t as widespread as you think.” Source? I’ve seen it myself. I have family who work with the poor. They see it constantly. Provide your evidence to back up your argument.

            No, it isn’t your case, just like the case of the Hospital in Colorado isn’t my case. Are you seeing the double-standard yet?

            “…the church said no it’s not a person…” No, the HOSPITAL said it’s not a person. Big difference. BTW, I’d like to actually see the details of this case, because so far, you’ve done a pretty good job of twisting facts to your liking in many of your arguments.

          • Lolly

            “There is a big difference between taking money from taxpayers and redistributing it and allowing an organization that receives large sums of money from willful donations to keep that money and use it for its own purpose. In the case of Catholic Charities, service to the people.”

            The church shouldn’t take federal taxpayer money, that’s not willful donations.

            “I won’t support a government policy with which I have a moral issue.”

            We all have to do that, that’s what comes from living in a democracy, not a theocracy. Meanwhile, you’re forcing taxpayers to pay a high price to support your beliefs. Since you’re on the lookout for your fellow taxpayers, after all. Your beliefs have a high pricetag for others, for taxpayers and for children. Once you bring your religion into the public sphere, it is subjected to the public standards. Which is why the church should not accept federal money and should stay out of the private healthcare business.

            “I have family who work with the poor. They see it constantly. Provide your evidence to back up your argument.” On second thought, I don’t care. If the welfare system is so terrible and so fraught with fraud, make it better, don’t rip it out altogether. That way you feel better and children are fed. After all, children need to eat, regardless of what the parents are doing, does it really matter if children are hungry and who does the feeding? What are you hoping to achieve by your morals and beliefs?

            ” just like the case of the Hospital in Colorado isn’t my case. Are you seeing the double-standard yet?”

            No because I never said it was your case, this was about the church, not you. You can go look up the case yourself.

            Because the catholic church leaders have engaged in pedophilia and spent a great deal of effort, time and money to cover it up, instead of fixing it, they do not get my vote as the moral standard bearer. It’s just not going to happen. I do not want to live under it’s rule anytime, anywhere, ever, which is my belief and my right and is as valid as yours. You can say I’m twisting the facts as much as you want to, but it isn’t going to change, and it doesn’t really matter as long as the church keeps it’s beliefs within the confines of the church and out of my healthcare decisions.

          • Rob

            So what we have established is this: you have a double-standard in every argument you use and twist every article and even my words into what you want them to say instead of what they actually say. That, however, is not even the point. In order to protect your right to choose, you are willing to:

            A) End Catholic Healthcare to the detriment of society as a whole by eliminating some of the best healthcare providers possible harming and killing millions of people who would then flood the public healthcare system.

            B) Eliminate Catholic Charities, thereby eliminating a source of welfare for 7 to 8 million people a year.

            C) Force tens of thousands of Catholics to violate their own conscience in violation of the Constitution.

            Ok then.