Michigan Woman Sues Catholic Bishops for Negligence After Miscarriage


A Michigan woman is suing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), claiming the bishops’ anti-choice directives are negligently affecting the medical care delivered at Catholic-owned and -sponsored hospitals.

Filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the lawsuit, believed to be the first of its kind, argues that patients’ lives are put at risk by unnecessarily denying pregnant women in crisis proper medical care.

In 2010, a then-18 weeks pregnant Tamesha Means showed up at Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, Michigan, in the middle of having a miscarriage. Her water had broken and she was experiencing severe cramping. Mercy Health, a Catholic-sponsored facility, told Means there was nothing it could do for her and sent her home. Means came back the next day, this time in more pain and bleeding and was again told the course of action was to wait and see.

It wasn’t until Means, a mother of three, returned to Mercy Health a third time, this time suffering from a significant infection as her miscarriage persisted untreated. In response, the hospital gave Means some aspirin to treat her fever and prepared to send her home. Before the hospital discharged Means for a third time, she started to deliver. It wasn’t until then that the hospital decided to admit Means and to treat her condition. Means eventually delivered a baby who died within hours of birth.

Mercy Health is required to adhere to the “Ethical and Religious Directives,” a set of rules created by the USCCB that govern the delivery of medical care at Catholic-run hospitals. The directives prohibit a pre-viability pregnancy termination, even in cases when there is little or no chance that the fetus will survive, and the life or health of a patient is at risk. The rules also direct health-care providers not to inform patients about alternatives inconsistent with the directives, even when those alternatives are the best option for the patient’s health.

According to the ACLU, that is exactly what happened to Means at Mercy Health, where attorneys claim the directives are put above medical standards of care. According to the complaint, at no point in the three times Means showed up at the hospital did anyone tell her that she had little chance of a successful pregnancy. The ACLU also alleges that the hospital, as a direct result of the bishops’ directives, failed to tell Means that her health and life were at risk if she tried to continue the pregnancy, and that the safest course of care for her was to end it. “They never offered me any options,” said Means in a statement. “They didn’t tell me what was happening to my body. Whatever was going on with me, they discussed it amongst themselves. I was just left to wonder, ‘What’s going to happen to me?'”

The lawsuit alleges that because she received neither the information nor the care appropriate for her condition, Means was unable to direct her course of treatment, and suffered unnecessarily. “A pregnant woman who goes to the hospital seeking medical care has the right to expect that the hospital’s first priority will be to provide her appropriate care,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Louise Melling said in a press call. “Medical decisions should not be hamstrung by religious directives.”

According to the ACLU, Means’ story is not unique. In support of their complaint, attorneys representing Means point to research showing that other patients have been denied information and appropriate care at hospitals bound by the bishops’ directives. “The best interests of the patient must always come first, and this fundamental ethic is central to the medical profession,” Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan, said on the call. “In this case, a young woman in a crisis situation was put at risk because religious directives were allowed to interfere with her medical care. Patients should not be forced to suffer because of a hospital’s religious affiliation.”

But, according to the ACLU, patient care does suffer, significantly. The group’s research shows that over half of OB-GYNs working in Catholic-sponsored hospitals have run into conflicts with the directives. In one example, a doctor describes a miscarrying patient who was gravely ill and who was carrying a fetus that had no chance of surviving. Even though this patient had sepsis and a 106-degree fever, the hospital’s policy would not allow the doctor to treat the patient by terminating the pregnancy until the fetal heartbeat ceased on its own. In another example cited by the ACLU, a cardiologist was reprimanded for telling a patient with signs of a potentially fatal condition that if it worsened, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association would recommend terminating the pregnancy in order to save her life.

Because this lawsuit is believed to be the first of its kind, there are a lot of unanswered questions, like whether or not the bishops can be sued for negligence in this way, and the effect, if any, a ruling on the issue would have for other Catholic-owned and -sponsored hospitals.

More importantly, though, the lawsuit forces a look at the question of what role, if any, religious doctrine should play in the delivery of medical care. And it does so in the venue of negligence and malpractice claims, which is far more patient-centered than any intellectualized debate about medical ethics, religious faith, and the First Amendment. Notably, Means’ attorneys don’t claim that her constitutional rights were infringed on in any way. Instead, they argue the bishops are negligent in putting forward directives they know will endanger patients’ health and conflict with professional standards of care. In some ways, it’s a much more straightforward claim to make, and one that, presuming the lawsuit is allowed to move ahead, will require the bishops to defend the directives on the merits and against claims they violate the standard of care for pregnant patients. With Catholic-owned or -sponsored institutions making up a significant percentage of health-care providers in this country, these are questions that need answers.

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

Follow Jessica Mason Pieklo on twitter: @hegemommy

  • lioness

    Go for it!

  • respectfully_disagree

    I would ask this: If I believe a medical practice is fundamentally morally evil, should I be forced to perform it because I am a provider of other medical services? That is what many people fail to see Christians see abortion as morally evil because we believe unborn children to be human beings, actual and whole. This is not a belief born of ignorance or doctrine but of scientific fact.
    Biologically when scientists look for life they look for these traits: The ability to maintain an internal environment, composed of cells in an organized fashion, metabolism of nutrients into energy to maintain homeostasis, Growth over the course of its life, response to stimuli, eventual reproduction.
    An unborn child meets all of those qualifications. that means its alive. The next two questions are: is it human? and is it a separate organism from the mother? The answer to both is DNA. genetically an unborn child is just as human as anyone else on this planet. Also, it is a separate organism from the mother because its DNA is distinctively different. Take a tissue sample from the mother and the child, analyze them in the lab and you will come to the conclusion they are separate organisms.
    By this I conclude that The unborn child Is just as human and therefore just as entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the mother. is. Until I can be convinced through scientific fact and plain reason that an unborn child is not a human being I hold these beliefs as rational ethical justifications for refusal to perform an abortion.

    In this specific case where the hospital is at fault is in not informing the mother of medical treatment that could not be offered at the hospital because of ethical objections to the procedures.

    That being said, I will guarantee that an attack on the rights of Christians to behave in the manner they believe is right when it comes to providing health care, will result in many of them leaving the field of medicine entirely. This is a statement of fact. Our ethics and morals are not a hat we put on when we go out the door, they are part of who we are and we do not change to suit popular demands. We believe in objective morality. We believe that it would be evil to perform an abortion. In this country there exists the freedom to disagree. Leave catholic hospitals alone they have a right to not perform procedures they see as unethical regardless of what others believe.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You mean, the right of ‘pro-life’ Christians to let pregnant women DIE. Yes ..pro life, for fetuses, not women.

      • respectfully_disagree

        In this specific case I think the hospital definitely overstepped their boundaries. I’m of the personal opinion that when it comes down to the mother’s life verses the babies life then its the mother’s decision. The danger with this lawsuit however is that it opens the door for others to make similar claims for medically unnecessary abortions. The hospital should have told this lady the options she had then told her they could not perform the surgery should she choose that option.

        • Quis ut Deus

          That is always the excuse and it is weak. No, saving a woman’s life or at least informing her that the pregnancy is doomed and that the catholic hospital prefersc to let her go untreated will not “open the door to elective abortion”. That is just asinine.

          • respectfully_disagree

            I would like to agree except that the example presented by other social issues shows otherwise. I am not saying the hospital should not have done more. They should have admitted her and at least monitored her. I would argue though that it is still their prerogative to not perform abortions at their hospital. Why this lawsuit is dangerous is that it could force hospitals to perform procedures that are held to be unethical.
            Again, the hospital in question screwed up. But, if the court upholds the decision that the hospital should have performed the abortion, it could and would be interpreted as grounds to make the option of abortion mandatory in other situations as well.
            For a scenario, suppose a minor was pregnant and wanted an abortion. Could they then sue a hospital for not offering abortion services? It would fall under the same argument that not providing the service is detrimental to the health of the mother. After all, it is not healthy for teenagers to be pregnant and If we are talking only in terms of the well being of the mother the best thing would be to terminate the pregnancy.

            The case in the article is an extreme one, I personally think the hospital is guilty of malpractice for not informing the woman and not admitting her and not doing everything they could apart from an abortion. What this lawsuit will do however, is decide whether medical professionals can be forced to provide services and procedures that are contrary to what they believe is right. This case is of importance because with either outcome it will set a precedent for how conflict between the ethical position of a health care provider and the request of the patient is resolved.

          • Quis ut Deus

            The slippery slope argument is just used as an excuse to deny people medical care.

            Heaven forbid Saudi Arabian women be allowed to drive! Because then they’ll all sleep around and lose their virginity! No driving for women! Slippery slope!!

            That’s your argument, and it’s weak.

          • respectfully_disagree

            I am curious as to what motive would be behind denying people medical care. I would ask this though, Is the scenario I proposed that far fetched? You claim my argument is of the slippery slope variety. I would ask then what you think the long term implications of this case are. I can’t predict the future. Here is the evidence for why I believe this case will have a profound impact on the medical industry and why if the court rules that the hospital should have performed the abortion.
            Firstly, this court verdict will end up changing hospital policies. How could it not? Medical malpractice is a serious charge to face and it can cost a hospital its reputation as well as money. A prudent hospital owner/ manager would pay attention to this case because they will likely face a similar scenario. So, the next time a women comes in wanting an abortion and claiming it is medically necessary, the hospital is under significant legal pressure to provide that service even if it violates their code of ethics.

          • fiona64

            So, the next time a women comes in wanting an abortion and claiming it
            is medically necessary, the hospital is under significant legal pressure
            to provide that service even if it violates their code of ethics.

            A BISHOP IS NOT A DOCTOR. A BISHOP DOES NOT GET TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS. ANYONE OTHER THAN A PHYSICIAN MAKING MEDICAL DECISIONS IS BEHAVING UNETHICALLY.

            There. Maybe if I shout, you’ll get the freaking picture.

          • Quis ut Deus

            Amen.

          • L-dan

            Good. They should be under that pressure. They should not be risking lives for their non-existent conscience. Hospitals do not have feelings, thoughts, or consciences.

            This is not even a case of individual conscience denying women care, but the ‘policy’ of a hospital system. I do not see any value in allowing the whole ‘corporations are people’ bullshit to spread any further and allowing corporations (or hospitals) to somehow claim consciences. There’s the slippery slope we’re on.

            What we have right now is already the result of a slippery slope where we allowed Catholic hospitals to go “yeah, we won’t provide certain types of health care.” That has now extended to them refusing care even in cases where it only tangentially butts up against those policies…like providing ambulances elsewhere, or telling someone what’s going on so they can go get the care they need. It extends to allowing doctors to lie to pregnant people if they suspect that telling them about anomalies would cause them to consider abortions. There’s your slippery slope, and it’s full of lies and not remotely ethical.

          • Quis ut Deus

            A BISHOP IS NOT A DOCTOR. A BISHOP DOES NOT GET TO MAKE MEDICAL
            DECISIONS. ANYONE OTHER THAN A PHYSICIAN MAKING MEDICAL DECISIONS IS
            BEHAVING UNETHICALLY.

          • JamieHaman

            The woman in this case did NOT claim to want an abortion, nor did she claim it was medically necessary. She went in to find out what how and why this medical event was happening…the lack of appropriate medical response, medical counseling, or intelligent treatment is NOT ETHICAL.
            The lack of ethics here is two-fold, the non medically licensed bishops interfering with medical treatment, and the lack of spine by the doctors who pretended to treat her.

          • Quis ut Deus

            A BISHOP IS NOT A DOCTOR. A BISHOP DOES NOT GET TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS. ANYONE OTHER THAN A PHYSICIAN MAKING MEDICAL DECISIONS IS BEHAVING UNETHICALLY.-fiona64

          • HeilMary1

            The child-raping, mother-killing, planet-poisoning RCC should get out of hospital care.

          • CJ99

            Reminds me of a pic I spotted online last year with 3 female USAF pilots on the flightline with a caption that read “hey Taliban: American women drive jut fine!”

          • fiona64

            Why this lawsuit is dangerous is that it could force hospitals to perform procedures that are held to be unethical.

            By whom?

            Abortion is a perfectly ethical medical decision. If it’s not your pregnancy, it’s none of your business.

          • respectfully_disagree

            I would agree but that doesn’t mean a hospital that doesn’t agree with it should have to perform one either. Its not my business what medical treatment someone gets, it is my business what medical treatment I provide.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If a woman is dying, in a situation where every second and minute counts, why should her life be endangered because of someone else’s ‘conscience’? In fact, shouldn’t her needs and her conscience take precedence? She is the patient, after all. In fact I’ve actually heard of Catholic Hospitals who not only refuse to perform a procedure, but also refuse to transfer patients to a place which would be able to help them.

          • Quis ut Deus

            I went on welfare and food stamps while pregnant, and I’m grateful for
            the church food bank that fed me better than my food stamps and WIC
            checks combined. Then there was the crisis pregnancy center that kept
            clothes on my back and expanding belly, provided baby supplies, and
            helped me find medical providers who could meet my needs and (very high)
            standards.

            How many times have we heard this, almost word for word, this week?

            I think it’s a canned response that they get from their pro-life rhetorical guides.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, I think they copy and paste it.

          • CJ99

            It’s a common tactic especially online from many organizations caught out after engaging in corrupt actions. Deny & lie about the victim.

          • Quis ut Deus

            Ayup.

          • fiona64

            You know I know it’s bee-ess? WIC isn’t checks … it’s vouchers for specific, nutritious whole-food products.

            And that’s aside from the lies about how much help the CPC allegedly gave.

          • Quis ut Deus

            Really? LoL. What liars. Princess jasmine and Valerie both repeated the same lie – about cpc’s that is.

          • fiona64

            Yep, really. I was engaged to a guy who was a cashier at our local Safeway. WIC vouchers had to be handled in a completely different manner. For example, a voucher might be for one gallon of Berkeley Farms 3.8 milk. You couldn’t substitute Cowgirl Creamery 3.8; it had to be for the brand on the voucher. Each one had to be checked, and all of the WIC items run up separately so that WIC would reimburse the store. There is no such thing as a “WIC check.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            Where is Valerie posting?

          • Quis ut Deus

            Libby Anne’s big abortion article (why I lost faith…) But it is closed for comments now. Valerie flounced after demanding our medical credentials – since you cannot say that pregnancy is dangerous if you are not at least a nurse – like her. She also accused me of being ‘racist’ against fetuses.

          • Quis ut Deus

            Oh, and who the hell talks about their pregnancy in such terms ‘expanding belly’. That was written by a professional.

          • Jennifer Starr

            They like to push this meme about chuches and cpc’s helping out more than the government. Just ridiculous and untrue.

          • Quis ut Deus

            Jennifer, I have to share this. I am giggling. On that tfa thread, starship just compared feti to defenseless rape victims…and pregnant women to rapists. And he keeps bragging about his superior intellect ..

          • Quis ut Deus

            This is like Bizarro world.

            My logic is bad, and I am the intellectually incompetent one because don’t believe that the fetus is a rape/slavery victim???

            WTF?

            I feel like I am in some sort of alternate reality right now.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It doesn’t make much sense. Then again, neither does this Starship Maxima guy.

          • Quis ut Deus

            It’s the religious mindset at work. They are good at twisting reality.

          • Quis ut Deus

            Your precious catholic hospitals have refused to ambulance women to other hospitals for a therapeutic abortion…

            in cases where the woman is *dying*

            Because it ‘violates their conscience’

          • CJ99

            Any hospital that does that should be violated right out of existance. Letting patients die from treatable conditions is no way defensible, I call it criminal.

          • L-dan

            A hospital doesn’t have a conscience. If they want to let some doctors opt out of certain procedures, fine, so long as they are still meeting standards as a whole. Standards like, not endangering women’s lives by waiting until the doomed fetus’s heartbeat stops to begin appropriate treatment.

          • fiona64

            If you are a physician, which I highly doubt, and you are an OB/GYN, you will sometimes have to perform an emergency abortion (as in the case cited above). An 18-week fetus is NOT viable. Period, end of report (if you were a physician, you would know that).

          • JamieHaman

            Take your “conscience” that willfully allows women to die and get out of hospital employment. Use your medical training at a doc in the box treatment center.
            Women shouldn’t have to pay with their lives for YOUR so called conscience.

          • KellyLynne

            But it’s your choice what career you go into. Don’t want to perform medically necessary abortions, then don’t work as an ob-gyn in an emergency room.

          • lady_black

            But as a physician, you have no business allowing a woman to die because her pregnancy becomes complicated. That is not living up to your profession. At the very least, you are obligated to inform her what is going on, explain that you are unwilling to do what needs to be done, and transfer her to the care of a more suitable practitioner. Perhaps under the circumstances, you ought to find another area of medicine to practice in, because you are a danger to vulnerable pregnant people.

          • bitchybitchybitchy

            By the way, as a taxpaper who is not a member of the Catholic church, I would prefer that NONE of my tax dollars ever go to any grants or funds that in any way support a Catholic institution of any kind. You can take your church, worship as you choose, but please leave those of us who do not adhere to its dogma alone.

          • CJ99

            No, you are not a medical professional, you are not professional anything at all. It’s the patients biznet what treatment they get since its their life NOT YOURS.

          • billfalls

            The corollaries the hospital drew from its religious directives in this particular case included: Do not inform the patient that her pregnancy is failing and that she faces infection and other complications. Do not treat her high fever with anything stronger than aspirin. Do not tell her that treatment is available that will protect her health and perhaps her life, but that this hospital cannot provide it (one can even imagine their not naming the treatment or an alternate hospital if that would violate their rules, but at least it would have spared her repeated useless visits to the same hospital, with the delays and increased risk that entailed).

            Someone at the hospital should be examining his or her conscience about these multiple ethical failures.

          • L-dan

            This is not a remotely extreme case. This happens all the time. When half of the ob/gyns serving in Catholic hospitals have run into conflicts with these supposedly ethical directives, there’s a problem.

            No, hospitals, as places where people expect medical treatment–a necessary service that most are not educated enough to do a lot of shopping around for–should be held to medical standards, not religious ones. Sometimes there is only one hospital for a long ways around. I’d prefer the church to get out of the hospital business. Yes, that would likely throw a large monkey wrench into the system, which we, as a nation, would have to deal with.

            I’d prefer that we deal with that mess and have a properly secular medical system than accept any ‘charity’ that comes with religious strings attached that do not recognize the full humanity and diversity of the people they’re treating.

          • lady_black

            Maybe you aren’t aware of this. A successful lawsuit hinges on damages, economic and non-economic. Mere negligence isn’t grounds for a lawsuit unless some harm follows. Example: The nurse gives you the incorrect dose of medication, but you suffer no harm. This will not cut it as a lawsuit because there are is no damage to you as a result of the mistake. Example: The doctor amputates the wrong leg. This undoubtedly results in harm. You will still have a diseased leg that needs to be removed, and you have been deprived of the healthy limb. Refusing to perform a medically unnecessary abortion will not result in any harm as a direct result of the denial. She is otherwise healthy, and can walk out the door and go to someone who will do the abortion. Refusing to perform a medically necessary abortion will definitely result in harm, up to and including death. I think no one can argue about the difference between the two situations.

          • Quis ut Deus

            And the woman suffered.

            Unnecessarily.

            They caused harm.

          • lady_black

            Of course the hospital caused harm. Pain and suffering and mental distress. This was the whole gist of my comment. Both the hospital and the bishops deserve to be sued in this case, because harm did follow.

          • lorimakesquilts

            This case is not about abortion per se, it is about not providing adequate or appropriate medical care as promised by the presence of an ER. In other words It’s about malpractice. If this case paves the way for anything it is for medical standards of care not being trumped by a religion that may not be shared by the patient or the medical professionals.

          • HeilMary1

            You let medically unlicensed PEDOPHILE PRIESTS dictate female patients’ lady parts treatments? You and the priests have no ethics!

        • BJ Survivor

          Get some reading comprehension skills, please. The lawsuit referenced in the above article is being brought because that Catholic hospital provided substandard care and unnecessarily risked her life over misogynist superstitions rather than allowing physicians to apply medical standards to the situation. Any competent physician or nurse understands that premature rupture of membranes is a serious threat for infection. The standard of care is to either deliver the fetus if it is viable or to provide an abortion (yes, contrary to forced-birther rhetoric, inducing labor on a nonviable pregnancy is an abortion procedure).

          When the plaintiff went to the ER for the third time, she was indeed showing signs of sepsis. Lucky for her that her body spontaneously aborted the pregnancy or she would have ended up like Savita Halappanavar. And that is unconscionable. Why doesn’t she have a right to life?

        • LisaC

          I’m of the personal opinion that when it comes down to the mother’s life verses the babies life then its the mother’s decision.

          The Catholic bishops could not possibly care less about when you think it should be the woman’s decision. They think it should always be their decision. Hence the need for the lawsuit–so that women who want to live will not be denied the information they need to decide best how to go on living.

          • lady_black

            His obvious problem is that this was NOT such a case. There is no argument for the “life” of an unviable fetus. There is only an argument for the life of the woman.

        • KellyLynne

          Okay, at least you agree they should have been honest with her. That’s some common ground. Here’s where I would go further. The suffering she underwent by virtue of their unwillingness to provide her with a medically necessary abortion is their responsibility because they had an ER. They made the claim that they would treat a medical emergency, and then chose not to do so. No one forced them to make what turned out to be a false claim.

          *If* they had done right by her and immediately told her about her actual options (and also not charged her for the ER visit, since they refused to provide care), and *if* they had provided her with transport to another hospital that would actually take care of her, they would *still* be responsible if her condition worsened during the ambulance ride.

          They want to have it both ways. They want to make medical decisions that harm people and not be held responsible for those actions.

          • lorimakesquilts

            Exactly. A hospital makes a contract with it’s community promising it can provide specific medical care. When an ER refuses to provide emergency care the hospital has broken that contract and must be held accountable.

          • fiona64

            Yep. EMTALA is very clear: unless the hospital is on divert (which does happen), care must be provided. If the hospital is on divert, an ambulance to another facility must be provided … and the diverted hospital is responsible until patient hand-off.

            I didn’t work in medical centers for all those years and fail to learn something. This is one of the most clear-cut cases of medical malpractice I’ve ever seen.

          • HeilMary1

            “They want to have it both ways. They want to make medical decisions that harm people and not be held responsible for those actions.”

            Exactly! And they wonder why we hate them!

        • lady_black

          Your (obvious) problem in the instant case is that this was NOT a situation of “the mother’s life versus the baby’s (not babies) life.
          This was a case of the mother’s life versus dead mother only. There is no case to be made here for the fetus, which is doomed no matter what is done to treat the mother. An 18 week fetus cannot survive the miscarriage, it isn’t viable. Sending a miscarrying woman with ruptured membranes (or even simply admitting her and doing nothing) is nothing but RANK MEDICAL MALPRACTICE based upon misguided theology. If the Jesus of the Bible were real, he would have lived his entire life as a Jew. In the Jewish religion, the life of the mother comes first, and the right thing to do would have been to remove the fetus (in pieces if necessary) to save the life of the mother. Only in the instance where the majority of the fetus’s body has emerged does the fetus have rights that equal that of the mother. We now know for sure what was only suspected in ancient times. There is a line of viability in pre-term births where survival is not medically possible. Forcing the mother to play host to an infection that will kill her is NOT providing medical care, and giving her an aspirin as treatment just won’t cut the mustard.

          • L-dan

            Honestly, that “giving her an aspirin” is just contemptuous shit. Miscarriages hurt…a lot. Aspirin doesn’t even touch that.

            Seriously, what it says is, “you’re miscarrying your wanted pregnancy and we’re not going to tell you what’s going on, and here’s some aspirin. Women who can’t carry pregnancies to term like they’re supposed to don’t warrant any better care than that.”

          • lady_black

            As I understand, the aspirin was to treat the fever, which it will definitely do. That being said, to send her home without addressing the obvious cause of the fever (sepsis caused by ruptured membranes) is unconscionable, and medical malpractice. Even in cases (like my daughter’s recent induction of labor) where the membranes are deliberately ruptured, there is an expiration date upon remaining pregnant with ruptured membranes of about 24 hours more of less. After this, aggressive methods must be used to start labor and if unsuccessful then the pregnancy must be ended surgically. In this case, a D&X abortion. At full term, a cesarean delivery. To delay is to risk infection and sepsis.

          • Quis ut Deus

            Ruptured membranes – isn’t that what happened to Savita?

            And they just left her to get sicker and sicker?

          • BJ Survivor

            Yep.

        • CJ99

          Even your online alias is widly innacurate. you in no way respect anyone but yourself.

        • Mandy

          Yeah this reasoning is bullcrap. Exactly how much danger does a mother’s life have to be in before you allow her to choose a legal medical proceedure? If there is a 40% chance of developing a fatal health problem is that enough for you to so ~graciously~ allow her access to medical care? No? What about 60% chance? What about that mother diagnosed with cancer weeks after finding out she is pregnant? What about the depressed women who goes off her meds for pregnancy and becomes suicial? Does mental health even matter for this reasoning?

          This whole, well I guess I’m allow you access to a medical abortion if you might die is bull because most wouldn’t even give you an abortion if you were bleeding out in front of them. We only need remember Savita Halappanavar in Ireland 2012. The Catholic run hospital didn’t think she deserved a medical abortion even though there was ZERO chance that the fetus would survive as it wasn’t developed enough and she’d be miscarring for hours. Nope. This claim of only if the mother’s life is in danger is a lie used to chip away at women’s reproductive rights while dangling a hopeful carrot in front of us to try and mask the fact that these religious nutbags are taking away women’s rights.

        • HeilMary1

          ALL abortions are medical SELF-DEFENSE.

    • Jennifer Starr

      To deliberately endanger the life of a woman who is actively miscarrying a non-viable fetus is deliberate medical negligence. 18 weeks is non-viable, unable to live outside of the womb. There’s only one life you can save in this instance and that is the life of the pregnant woman. If you can’t even manage to do that, how can you call yourself pro-life? You can’t. A woman does not deserve to die for the sin of not being able to carry a pregnancy to term, and should not be made to suffer because of a hospital which places adherence to doctrine above people’s lives.

      • bitchybitchybitchy

        You’re forgetting that for the “pro-life” community, the woman is simply a vessel carrying their precious fetus, which always takes precedence over a woman.

    • Quis ut Deus

      An unborn child meets all of those qualifications. that means its alive.
      The next two questions are: is it human? and is it a separate organism
      from the mother?

      That applies to cancer. Hydratiform moles, and most of the cells in your body.

      The ability to maintain an internal environment, composed of cells in an
      organized fashion, metabolism of nutrients into energy to maintain
      homeostasis, Growth over the course of its life, response to stimuli,
      eventual reproduction.

      Well if the zygote/embryo/fetus is capable of all of the above, then it certainly doesn’t need the woman’s body for sustenance! It doesn’t need her body to process it’s wastes for it! It doesn’t need her kidneys, or her blood sugar, or calcium from her bones if it’s so goddamn autonomous!

      Also, it is a separate organism from the mother because its DNA is distinctively different.

      Not if it’s a clone. If a woman is implanted with a clone of herself she can abort it then? because it isn’t genetically ‘unique’

      And that also applies to cancer.

      And to you.

      You are genetically distinct from me, but that doesn’t give YOU the right to use my body as life support without my consent. Why should an embryo be treated any differently?

      By this I conclude that The unborn child Is just as human and therefore
      just as entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the
      mother. is.

      We are all entitled to life. BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

      This is why organ donation is not mandatory.

      This is why parents are expected to care for the children, but not expected to donate blood and tissue to their children.

      This is why we don’t force people to go into burning buildings to save lives.

      The right to life does not override another person’s right not to be used as an object and/or harmed.

      We believe in objective morality.

      Objective morality from the bible? Where infanticide is acceptable? Where genocide is totes ok? Where slavery is in fact condoned?

      Oh, and where, in Numbers 5, a woman suspected of adultery is given a concoction composed of bitter water + ergot (from the temple floor) which will cause a miscarriage (ie abortion) if she is guilty of sleeping around.

      • L-dan

        I wish I could double-up-arrow this one.

        Objective morality = asshole. People leaning on this one are the “I’m always completely honest” ones who use that as an excuse to say hateful things. Humans are nuanced, as is morality. IIRC the famous ‘how far as your morality developed’ tests rate objective morality below fully developed morality. (The one I recall from high school involved someone stealing super expensive medicine for his wife dying of cancer. Objective morality means tossing him in jail because theft is wrong and leaves it there.

        • Quis ut Deus

          I also get a kick out of the people who argue for extreme subjective morality.

          One fella argued that slavery would be totes moral if society agreed that slavery was the cat’s ass (my phrasing:)

          But uhm, he left out one important component – how the f’ing slaves feel about it???

          • L-dan

            yep. Black and white is rather bad in most cases.

          • BJ Survivor

            Might makes right, dontcha know! Obviously superior morality there.

          • Quis ut Deus

            Which is what pro lifers argue that we do. That we pick on poor defenseless, tiny babies and kill them all cus we are big and tall…

          • lorimakesquilts

            What babies?

          • Quis ut Deus

            the ones that you can only see under a microscope!

          • lorimakesquilts

            Oh, you mean zygotes and embryos. Gotcha!.

      • lorimakesquilts

        Yes, yes and a lot more yeses. Bottom line — no one gets to use my body without my consent, especially not someone that is, at best, only a potential person.

      • Mandy

        Well said! Very articulate smack down of the religious nutter’s reasonsing that women should be forced to give birth against their will.

        ‘Nowhere in that biological development do you have a right to life at the expense of another’s body.
        A fetus doesn’t any more than a fully grown woman does.’

        • marshmallow

          Which is why they say that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. If the woman can be cast as the guilty party then no one has to feel bad about enslaving her. They also say that making babies is what women are for in order to further erase her

          • JamieHaman

            Thank you marshmallow for completing a thought loop very clearly for me. :-)

    • JamieHaman

      What you are really saying is this…”I conscientiously object to providing the best medical care to pregnant women.”
      What you are also saying is “I prefer two dead people (mother and child) to one dead fetus.
      If your conscience prevents you from providing a medically necessary abortion, you and your conscience have no business working where a medically necessary abortion is a possible part of the job.
      Quit that hospital job, pay the price for your conscience…
      If you aren’t willing to do that, STFU.

      • BJ Survivor

        This. So fucking much this! Religitards want to have their cake and eat it, too. They’ve managed to institute bullshit “conscience clause” laws that make the patient suffer for their misogynist superstitions. Notice how it’s only ever medical care specific to women that gets these so-called “conscience clauses” applied?

        • JamieHaman

          Yes. It isn’t conscience where I come from, I call it malicious misogyny.
          These creeps don’t care what woman dies…as long as their poor little “conscience” is safe from adulthood.

        • Anon rust

          @BJ: Yeah. Fucking true that.

          “it’s only ever medical care specific to women that gets these so-called “conscience clauses” applied?”

      • fiona64

        ::standing ovation::

        • JamieHaman

          fiona64, what a nice thing to do! You have made my week!

      • Ella Warnock

        “Price for your conscience,” exactly. Maybe it’s “inconvenient” for a doctor to move into a job where he will never be called upon to deal with an emergency abortion, but his responsibility is to the *patient* first. If he’s asking patients to make personal sacrifices for the sake of HIS morals, it’s time to move on to a practice that isn’t so fraught with “moral” danger.

        • KellyLynne

          Exactly! If you have a conflict between your job and your conscience, you should probably consider finding a different job.

        • BJ Survivor

          This should be a no-brainer, right? But, suddenly, when it’s a health issue specific to women, it’s entirely okay to discriminate against them. But that’s not misogyny, oh no, it’s just the natural way of things!

          • Ella Warnock

            And that birth control is (usually) also specific to women – and they’re beating the drum ever louder that only the most undependable contraception is “acceptable” – tells us exactly what they believe about health care for women. I KNOW they don’t care about my health because they don’t even think I have the right to remain unpregnant in the first place. I just don’t know who they think they’re fooling with this bullshit.

            I don’t even know if discrimination is a strong enough word. It’s not only erasing women when speaking of abortion, it’s also erasing us from any other decision we make that doesn’t involve being house- and childbound.

    • fiona64

      is it a separate organism from the mother

      Not as long as it’s attached via the umbilicus, it isn’t …

      • L-dan

        Eh…I’d still say it’s a separate organism. But in pretty much the same way as a tapeworm is.

        It’s a ‘different’ organism; which is how he seems to be using it. But, It’s also attached to the body of another organism in an obligate parasitic relationship. So you’re correct that it’s not strictly separate.

        That said, he’s still an idiot to think that religiously abstaining from doing abortions is remotely close to having a hands-off attitude in the case of dangerous miscarriages; or that the latter is ethical in any fashion.

        • Quis ut Deus

          Consider this.

          What is the fetus composed of?

          It builds itself from chemicals taken from the woman’s body..

          It uses HER calcium

          It uses HER iron

          It uses HER sugar

          If a woman did not eat during a pregnancy, the fetus would effectively cannibalize her body to build itself.

          • L-dan

            Pretty much like a tapeworm, yes. :)

            The main difference from an attachment standpoint is that the tapeworm brings it’s own attachment parts to begin with, while the fetus builds even those from material derived from the person carrying it.

            Which will get quoted elsewhere as “pro-aborts think babies are tapeworms!!” *shrug*

          • fiona64

            Look for that on Liar Rose’s site in 5 … 4 … 3 …

    • fiona64

      That being said, I will guarantee that an attack on the rights of
      Christians to behave in the manner they believe is right when it comes
      to providing health care, will result in many of them leaving the field
      of medicine entirely.

      You’re talking about excusing willful medical malpractice. I don’t care what religion you are, that’s bullshit.

      Leave catholic hospitals alone they have a right to not perform
      procedures they see as unethical regardless of what others believe.

      When Catholic hospitals are the only medical care available (which is the case in many cities), women *die* for your so-called “ethics.” Ever heard of Savita Halappanavar?

      Wouldn’t it be novel if some of you anti-choice nutters decided to take the position that a *woman* is an actual human being? You’re very busy erasing her from the picture in your hurry to afford rights to fetii.

    • L-dan

      “Ethical and Religious Directives,”

      What, exactly, is ethical about allowing a woman to suffer in the fashion they did in the case highlighted above?

      What is ethical about forcing, as reported, half of ob/gyns in those hospitals to come into conflict with these directives because they believe their patient requires care that is prohibited by them?

      If Christian doctors who are unwilling to set their god aside to treat their patients…many of whom do not share their religious beliefs…I am not going to shed a single tear if they leave the profession. Make room for someone with a conscience that does not require them to force their beliefs onto their patients in contradiction to sound medical practice.

    • KellyLynne

      If you undertake responsibility for a female patient’s health and safety, then you owe her honest information and care that meets the standard of informed consent. If you cannot do that, you should not *choose* to put yourself in a position where you will have to. There are plenty of doctors who never ever have to even consider performing an abortion, and people with those beliefs are free to become orthopedists or endocrinologists or any number of other specialties.

      Also, conscience comes with a price. It’s up to each individual to structure his or her life in the way that best complies with their conscience. No one forces any Catholic church to open a hospital, or any particular doctor to practice there. No one forces a Catholic hospital to have an ER, where miscarrying women might come, wrongly thinking that they’ll be taken care of. *However,* when you do open a hospital, and you do have an ER, and that pregnant woman comes in, you’re responsible for her care. You don’t get to tell her to go home and cross her fingers that she doesn’t die of an infection because you refuse to help.

      And if your conscience really truly dictates letting her die, you should be willing to pay the price for that—in both monetary cost and jail time. It’s a weak conscience that won’t accept the consequence of its choices.

    • lorimakesquilts

      If you undertake to be a physician and offer your services as such then you are ethically required to follow the standard of care and make sure your patient is fully informed or make arrangements for someone else to if you cannot. There’s not a lot of wiggle room there, either you’re a doctor or you need to do something else.

      So you’ve solved one of the most controversial philosophical/scientific matters of our time?!! Wow, that would be impressive … if it were actually true.

    • colleen2

      If I believe a medical practice is fundamentally morally evil, should I
      be forced to perform it because I am a provider of other medical
      services?

      I don’t believe that you should be supplying medical services at all if you view your patients with this degree of disrespect. You have absolutely no right to demand that others sacrifice our lives for your beliefs and that is certainly no way to practice medicine.

    • Ella Warnock

      “That being said, I will guarantee that an attack on the rights of Christians”

      Demanding that my life be saved in an emergency situation is hardly an “attack on the rights of Christians.” We’re speaking of situations in which doctors and clergy are dithering about “directives” and “intent” all the while someone is in perilous condition. Are ya SURE it’s the christians being attacked here? Because it SOUNDS rather more as if the attack is on the PATIENT.

    • cjvg

      The one suffering the actual consequences of your religious and “moral” believes is NOT you. How can you possibly justify forcing others to suffer and die for your believes (not theirs) is your right?

      Your believes, your consequences, NOT my believes and that is why I have the right to force you to live and die for the consequences of what I believe regardless of the fact that you believe something different.

      If you are not willing or able to adhere to best medical practices when treating patients then YOU (and not your female patients) should live (at least you won’t die for the personal believes of another) with the consequences of that personal believe and stop practicing medicine!

      If you can not fulfill the needed requirements of the job you should stop insisting that we should accept your willful and deliberate self imposed short coming and just let you muddle on (especially since the consequences are so devastating to others)

    • Mandy

      “Doctors in emergency rooms have no right to refuse to provide medical care to someone who overdosed on heroin, even though heroin is illegal and many people are morally opposed to its recreational use. They have to care for drunk drivers, even though driving drunk is both illegal and a pretty universally assy thing to do.

      Why, then, should a hospital be forced to bend over backwards to accommodate people’s religious beliefs surrounding abortion, a legal medical procedure protected by the Constitution?”

      — Erin Gloria Ryan, “Nurses Fight For Their Right To Refuse Women Care”

    • HeilMary1

      Since fetuses maim and murder their captive hosts, ALL abortions are moral acts of self-defense.

    • anja

      “If I believe a medical practice is fundamentally morally evil, should I
      be forced to perform it because I am a provider of other medical
      services?” Sure, you can have your beliefs but to abuse those beliefs in ways that harm others is obscene. You should 1) not be in such a medical practice when you can’t not offer appropriate services, or 2) refer them to someone who will proved such medical practice.

      ” I will guarantee that an attack on the rights of Christians to behave
      in the manner they believe is right when it comes to providing health
      care, will result in many of them leaving the field of medicine
      entirely.” GOOD. If they can’t provide proper care, they shouldn’t be in the position to endanger others with their biased negligence

  • Jennifer Starr

    This just reinforces my belief that a Catholic hospital is the worst possible place for a pregnant woman to be. I don’t want the health care I receive to be decided by a bishop. And I don’t want my life and health to be sacrificed because a doctor cares more about his personal ‘conscience over my well-being or is scared of being excommunicated or whatever.

    • PernRider

      Unfortunately, that’s often the only option. In my area, we have FIVE different hospitals within easy access, two of them within two miles of each other in my small city. ALL of them are either Catholic run or affiliated with the church. My midwives recently left their practice and started their own, because they were tired of having their hands tied by a practice that was run by the church and located in a Catholic hospital; unfortunately, they still have to have admitting privileges there, and they refer back to their original practice when necessary (they’re CNMs, so they can prescribe and treat, but past a certain point, an MD is required).

      When my middle daughter was born, I had to jump through massive hoops to get birth control, between my insurance and the hospital regulations; I ended up having to use a hormonal rather than get the IUD I had wanted. At one point, after my oldest was born, I was on a monthly injected birth control; I had to go to the pharmacy myself, pick up the injection, then bring it TO the hospital, because “it’s bad enough we prescribe them, the nuns won’t tolerate it in the pharmacy.”

      Forget trying to get a tubal ligation, regardless of how many children you have; I was told point blank that my fiance was better off getting a vasectomy than my trying to get my tubes tied, even though I was 27 and had three children, and had had complications with all of my pregnancies (none overly serious or life threatening, but serious enough for ME to not want to be pregnant again … )

      • HeilMary1

        Those nuns should have been criminally prosecuted for committing Munchausen by Proxy abuse against you on behalf of their spoiled pedophile priests!

      • Arachne646

        This (too bad you couldn’t name the city) is just an example of Catholic hospitals metastasizing throughout a region, probably by taking over struggling institutions. Many places, I’ve heard, are like this, in areas larger or smaller than yours, so that women have to travel unreasonable distances to get reproductive health care that’s not restricted by someone else’s religion.

  • JamieHaman

    “They argue the bishops are negligent in putting forward directives they know will endanger patients health and conflict with professional standards of care.”
    Bishops are not doctors. To put forth this type of directive is to practice medicine without a medical license.
    This is not negligence. This is malicious.

    • fiona64

      Exactly. A bishop is not a physician, and should not be making medical decisions as a result.

      • lorimakesquilts

        Yep, neither are our legislators, yet they continue to do so. Perhaps they should be next in line to sue for wrongful injuries/death.

        • fiona64

          Exactly. That’s why I call it out for what it is: legislators practicing medicine without a license.

          • anja

            It’s a felony in the U.S. for anyone else who does it, why not them?

    • HeilMary1

      The bishops should be criminally prosecuted.

  • billfalls

    Louise Melling and her staff of attorneys at the ACLU are among the real heroines of the reproductive rights movement. We can dare to hope that this time they’ve hit on a way of righting the terrible wrongs done to women and families as religious organizations take over increasing numbers of hospitals in the U.S.

  • BJ Survivor

    Until women speak up about the substandard care they’ve received at Catholic hospitals, this will just continue, as it did in Ireland until Savita Halappanavar’s husband actually raised a stink at the medical negligence practiced against his wife. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that women actually have died and been unnecessarily maimed here in the U.S. due to the bishops’ directives that place misogynist superstition above medical standards.

    • HeilMary1

      And since most states don’t require hospitals to report maternal deaths, the U.S. probably ranks 100 instead of 50 in maternal safety.

  • Kclairch

    Assuming no one is going to bother to actually read the ERDs, here is what they say about a case like this:

    47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a
    proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they
    cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

    • Jennifer Starr

      This was a miscarriage. You treat it by directly removing the non-viable fetus to save the woman’s life.

      • Ella Warnock

        Double effect is nothing more than doublespeak. It’s an abortion, and the purpose is to save the life of the woman. The fetus IS going to be harmed to whatever degree and possibly die. Dithering about “intent” is dishonest and disingenuous and is exactly what leads to such a massive amount of cognitive dissonance and the resulting emergency care clusterfuck that these kinds of cases are. Anyone consulting with ANY sort of clergy before TREATING ME does not have my best interests in mind and has NO business practicing medicine.

        • Quis ut Deus

          I will never forget the asshat who told me that intent is immaterial and that all abortion is murder. Cuz.

    • lorimakesquilts

      So? How does this change anything? It certainly doesn’t change the facts of their negligence. A policy, that in practice requires medical malpractice, is hardly a defense.

      The hospital did not provide medically necessary emergency care, as promised by the existence of an ER, neither directly by performing the medically indicated procedure, nor indirectly by informing the patient that they could not provide the medically indicated procedure and providing emergency transportation to a hospital that could.

      • Kclairch

        My point is that within the ERD there seems to have been ethical “room” for a medical intervention. The physicians apparently did not (and I presume at some point their side of this story will be told) make use of paragraph 47. Did they not understand it? Was training lacking? Is there confusion over what the ERDs do or don’t allow? But if there is negligence here, it seems to be located within the hospital administration and ER staff, yet the ACLU is suing the U.S. bishops’ conference. This seems to me, what others have called, a stunt lawsuit.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Bishops have no place making medical decisions. Period.

          • Quis ut Deus

            That TFA link is about to get inundated with pro-lifers ever since that secular pro-life lady, Kristine Kruszelnicki appeared.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And Sarah Terzo, I recognize her from the Live Action Thread.

          • Quis ut Deus

            TSM is just playing word games now, and he is sticking to ‘life is sacred’ even though I owned his ass on the rape exception.

          • lorimakesquilts

            Ugh, the worst argument ever. Life is not sacred. The entire freaking planet is covered with it. Living things die all the time, too. There’s absolutely nothing special about life, not on this planet anyways. We snuff out life constantly, as a species and as individuals, including Catholics and women-hating anti-abortionists, so they can just spare me and the rest of us their hypocrisy.

          • Quis ut Deus

            Agreed. I am sick of the asshats who won’t stfu about how ‘human life is sacred’.

          • Kclairch

            I don’t disagree; the ERDs are ethical guidelines, not diagnostic formulas and they should be written to offer staff facing these difficult calls with as much latitude and benefit of the doubt as possible.

        • lorimakesquilts

          My point is 1) that rule is not applicable, see #45 (abortion is *never* permitted) and 2) the Catholic Church, the hospital and its medical practitioners put religious rules above the medical standard of care, thereby putting every patient there at unnecessary risk.

          How can any patient at that hospital give informed consent if every doctor there is potentially required to conceal critical information by the Catholic Church? How can the Catholic Church defend itself as an ethical and legitimate provider of medical care when its policies are in direct opposition to professional medical standards of care? This is hardly a “stunt” lawsuit.

          • Kclairch

            In the past D47 was used for precisely these situations, despite language of D45.

        • bitchybitchybitchy

          If any of the physicians employed at this hospital could not diagnose a miscarriage and a non-viable pregnancy they should not be licensed to practice medicine.Period.

        • colleen2

          Ah! That Catholic ‘conscience’ expressing itself again. It must be painful to manage the degree of cognitive dissonance that folks like you carry around.

          • Kclairch

            No, it’s not easy.

          • CJ99

            Why is everything you say accompanied by the sound of burning rubber?

          • HeilMary1

            Then why waste one’s life on such pedophile priest-indulging hair-splitting crap?

    • JamieHaman

      Amusingly enough some of us did actually read the Directives.

      The vicious parts of the thing include this:
      Fifth, within a pluralistic society, Catholic health care services will encounter requests for medical procedures contrary to the moral teachings of the Church. Catholic health care does not offend the rights of individual conscience by refusing to provide or permit medical procedures that are judged morally wrong by the teaching authority of the Church. (pg.11 para 2)

      45. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or
      the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) IS NEVER PERMITTED. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo.

      Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.

      So while 47 is in there, for all practical purposes, it is ignored, as per this particular lawsuit.
      Over 50% of the doctors who have worked for Catholic Affiliated Hospitals have run into problems with the Directives pertaining to women’s health.

      Everyone recognises that anything can be said (or written down). IT’S WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DO THAT MATTERS. This isn’t the first time a pregnant woman’s life has been on the line in a catholic affiliated hospital. It isn’t likely to be the last.

      When conscience applies only to women, then it isn’t conscience any more, it is misogyny.

  • CJ99

    That hospital & the staff directly involved should be facing criminal charges, gross negligence or endangering the life of the woman involved springs to mind.

    • HeilMary1

      And all government aid should be cut off.

      • anja

        They shouldn’t be getting any money anyway, as they’re religious organizations.

  • Na_na99

    STAY AWAY FROM ANYTHING CONTROLLED BY CATHOLICS. There. Fixed.

    • Sarah B

      I’m from the area that’s mentioned in this article. unfortunately, there aren’t many hospitals to go TO if you live in northern Michigan. Mercy Health is HUGE up there. one could drive a hundred miles and not encounter a hospital what isn’t affiliated with Mercy. I knew three people who died from asthma attacks because the nearest health facility was too far away to get to in a timely fashion.

  • Na_na99

    The Catholic church are the same people known for burning ‘witches’ and allowing pedophiles to go free, and YOU TRUST THEIR UNTRAINED CLERGY WITH MEDICAL DECISIONS? Seriously?

  • Jennifer Starr

    Discussing this on NCRonline and someone there provided a link to a very insightful article –if you haven’t read it, you really should: http://escholarshipdotorg/uc/item/8dm907hm#page-1 Here’s an excerpt from the article:

    “Because the fetus was still alive, they wouldn’t intervene. And she was hemorrhaging, and they called me and wanted to transport her, and I said, ‘‘It sounds like she’s unstable, and it sounds like you need to take care of her there.’’ And I was on a recorded line, I reported them as an EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act]violation. And the physician [said], ‘‘This isn’t something that we can take care of.’’ And I [said], ‘‘Well, if I don’t accept her, what are you going to do with her?’’ [He answered], ‘‘We’ll put her on a floor [i.e., admit her to a bed in the hospital instead of keeping her in the emergency room]; we’ll transfuse her as much as we can, and we’ll just wait till the fetus dies.’’

    People who would do this have no business practicing medicine. None.

    • CJ99

      I go farther, people who mistreat another human life in such away have no business not being in prison.

    • HeilMary1

      I’ve heard of such women being kept prisoners in Catholic hospitals until they die anonymously. Such women only get rescued if they have caring partners or relatives who know what these fetal fascists are up to.

  • Jennifer Starr

    But they seem to have an inordinate amount of power and they don’t mind throwing their weight around.

    • anja

      As they say… Power corrupts.

  • BJ Survivor

    It’s truly a comic wonder to behold the forced-birth religitard’s immunity to facts, logic, or even zir own holy book’s scripture. Except that their cognitive dissonance results in dead women and unconscionable privation and misery for billions of people.

  • HeilMary1

    Love that website!

  • Arachne646

    How would Americans feel if 2% of their hospitals were run by Muslim charities, and a Muslim religious law interfered with the medical care given to patients at those hospitals?