State’s Pro-Abortion Lobbyists Renew Attack on Religious Freedom
January 19th, 2007 by Peter
From the front page of today’s Courant:
Even as the Plan B emergency birth control pill was heading toward more widespread availability at pharmacy counters, 40 percent of rape victims who sought care at Connecticut hospitals in the first half of 2006 were not offered the medication or were sent home without the full dose of the drug needed to prevent pregnancy, rape counselors say…
In Connecticut, Catholic hospitals will dispense the pill only after a woman has taken a test to ensure that she is not ovulating.
Barry Feldman, general counsel to St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center in Hartford and a spokesman for the state’s four Catholic hospitals, said that requiring the Catholic hospitals to provide Plan B would violate a law that restricts the state from interfering with religious freedom.
“I hope we can find a solution that does not interfere with the Catholic hospitals’ freedom of religion,” Feldman said Thursday…
State Sen. Mary Ann Handley, D-Manchester, filed a bill last week requiring all hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims. The bill has 53 co-sponsors, but still might face opposition even from some Democrats, advocates said.
One fact mentioned in the above excerpt that isn’t getting enough attention in the commentary about this issue is that the Catholic hospitals–by their own protocol–DO provide “Plan B” to rape victims. It is only in the VERY RARE instance when medical data indicates the victim may be pregnant that the drug–which could chemically induce an abortion–is not given.
Once again, Victim Advocate James Papillo’s 2006 testimony on “Plan B” is worth recalling:
“What’s being proposed here is a solution in search of a problem. Victims are not being denied services,” he said, adding that Catholic hospitals refer victims to places where they can obtain the pills.
Papillo, who told legislators he was speaking as the victim advocate and not as a deacon, accused private advocacy organizations of using crime victims to further an anti-Catholic agenda.
“I see this for what it is. It is not a victims’ rights issue. It is not a victims’ services issue,” Papillo said. “Victims here are being used as a hook to further an agenda they are hiding … The issue is an attack on the Catholic institutions.”
One fact mentioned in the above excerpt that isn’t getting enough attention in the commentary about this issue is that the Catholic hospitals–by their own protocol–DO provide “Plan B” to rape victims.
From what you quoted to back this up (emphasis mine):
“What’s being proposed here is a solution in search of a problem. Victims are not being denied services,” he said, adding that Catholic hospitals refer victims to places where they can obtain the pills.
So do Catholic hospitals provide Plan B to rape victims or refer rape victims to places that provide Plan B?
They provide Plan B if the medical data indicates that it could prevent a pregnancy and refer the victim elsewhere if the data indicates she could already be pregnant.
Peter – Do you have a link to the protocals that lay this out. Also, do you know which datum they are relying on to determine the possibility of pregnancy?
I’m about to leave for Washington, DC. After I return I’ll get that information for you as soon as I can. If this controversy stems from a misunderstanding of the protocol–and an amicable solution is, therefore, possible–that would be a good thing.
The article says the hospitals will provide the pill after testing to make sure the rape victim is not ovulating. Which is it: ovulating or pregnant?
Chele – Thats what I was getting at. If the test for “pregnancy” is ovulation, then data is not indicating that she is already pregnant…
Chele & Gabe,
The Church has not yet posted the protocol online but I’ve acquired a hard copy. Here are the 2 key sentences that address your question:
“If through use of the methods identified above it has been determined to be more likely than not that the patient is ovulating, the patient should be informed it is possible that she has already conceived, either through the assault or through prior sexual activity. Use of anovulatory medications in this circumstance may in actual practice have an abortifacient effect and is therefore not permitted.”
The full protocol repeatedly emphasizes compassionate care and, claims to the contrary notwithstanding, seems to require “Plan B” in almost all cases. In the rare case where the Catholic hospital cannot provide it, they discuss options with the victim and may even provide transportation.
If activists are still pushing the Plan B bill after having read the full protocol, it would seem that their concern is one beyond compassionate care for a rape victim and that this does come down to a pro-abortion vs. religious liberty issue.
But, again, if this stems from a misunderstanding of the protocol that could be easily cleared up, that would be great. I hope the Church posts the protocol online soon so we can watch the reactions and see which it is.
There is no way to talk intellegently about this without a full description of “the methods identified above,” but “more likely than not that the patient is ovulating” and “it is possible that she has already conceived” is a very questionable way of deciding that Plan B is an abortion rather than birth control and declining to provide it to rape victims.
I also take issue with your catagorization of this issue as a “pro-abortion vs. religious liberty” issue for two reasons.
One, as I don’t believe, and most if not all of the “activists pushing Plan B” to rape victims who want it don’t believe, that Plan B is an abortion, this clearly is not a “pro-abortion” argument for us. In fact, since it is likely that a rape victim would not want to carry her rapist’s baby to term and thus seek an abortion, my view of making sure that Plan B is available in every emergancy room for rape victims is precisely to prevent abortions down the road. Also, it is important to note that Plan B becomes less likely to be effective witheach hour that passes, so it is not a neutral action to discuss options with and provide transportation for the rape victim – each passing moment makes it more likely that she may face a decision about whether or not to abort her rapist’s baby at a later date.
Two, this is not a religious liberty issue either. If there was some proposal to force Catholic hospitals to distribute Plan B no matter what, it would be different. The proposal on the table does not do that however – it simply says that all hospitals that accept public monies must have Plan B available. If Catholic hospitals, because of deeply held religious beliefs, decide that they can’t conform to that, they are free to opt out of the public money system and operate as a hospital according to their religious beliefs. But, if the bill passes, what the legislature will be saying is that all hospitals that accept public monies must have Plan B available to prevent rape victims from becoming impregnanted with their rapist’s babies.
I am interested in what, exactly the “methods identified above” are.
In the absence of The Church posting the protocol publically, is there some way it could be scanned and posted here?
And Gabe is absolutely right. This is NOT a religious liberty issue. It is a healthcare issue.
Gabe, I appreciate your analysis but several of your conclusions are clearly at odds with the facts. You conclude that “this is not a religious liberty issue,” that all the bill would do is “prevent rape victims from becoming impregnanted [sic].” If that were true there would not be the present controversy. Put another way, the only way to hold that those conclusions are true is to also hold that the Catholic hospitals really do not know why they object to the bill.
You also suggest that the Catholic hospitals “are free to opt out of the public money system and operate as a hospital according to their religious beliefs.” My response to Semant Ick earlier this month on a related thread addresses that notion:
“Ick, I would support your proposal that the Catholic hospitals refuse state funds . . . on one condition; that the state reimburse those hospitals for all the free medical care they provide to those who can’t pay.
“The last I checked, the Catholic hospitals provide more in charity care than the state provides in funding. Seems like the state is making out pretty well with the current arrangement.
“Ick, if you are really concerned about rape victims being able to get an abortifacient wherever they want, why not ask the state to set up small clinics in the same neighborhoods as the Catholic hospitals. That would provide rape victims with the services that you imply they are currently denied. At the same time, it would allow Catholic hospitals, as [pro-plan B] Miss Connecticut put it, ‘their freedom to make treatment decisions based on their own beliefs.’ It would prevent the Catholic hospitals’ closing to maintain their freedom to preserve *all* life.
“That solution should be acceptable to any rational person. However, it probably would not fly at the legislature for two reasons. First, the legislators would say, ‘Why set up a clinic when all they have to do is drive to a pharmacy?’ Second, and related to the first, this bill never has been about ready access to an abortion. It is all about shutting down opposition to abortion in Connecticut. Period.”
This sort of begs questions regarding the Catholic Church’s feelings about “charity.” If the State is reimbursing the hospitals for care of the uninsured and the indigent, then the treatment is hardly “charity” on the part of the hospital.
You claim that “Catholic hospitals provide more in charity care than the state provides in funding.”
Can you provide a citation for that, or otherwise direct me to the figures which bear out that the cost of unreimbursed charity care at Catholic hospitals is GREATER than the total state funding they receive?
On numbers, here’s an excerpt from my April 6th blog on the Archbishop of Hartford’s Catholic Concerns Day homily:
“No report noted the anger in the Archbishop’s eyes when discussing the “extortion” and how the $5 million at issue is “a fraction of a fraction” of the 100 million or so dollars that the Catholic hospitals save the state every year. The Archbishop noted that St. Mary’s Hospital is the state’s second largest recipient of patients with Medicaid–which only covers 65% of the costs–and that the Church covers the difference. He spoke about the low dropout rate among the nearly 40,000 Catholic school children in our state and drew attention to the cities and neighborhoods where the drop-out problem has contributed to societal ills. There was no mistaking his implication that the State gains far more from the Church than it gives back.”
Also, Gabe in comment # 8, above, writes:
“Two, this is not a religious liberty issue either. If there was some proposal to force Catholic hospitals to distribute Plan B no matter what, it would be different. The proposal on the table does not do that however – it simply says that all hospitals that accept public monies must have Plan B available.”
In fact, I posted a link on FIC Blog yesterday to the actual bill and it doesn’t say anything about public monies. So even by Gabe’s own low “extortion is ok” standard the current bill qualifies as an attack on religious liberty.
The Archbishop’s homily is all well and good so far as it goes, but it is not facts and figures and does not address your claims.
Chele, your posts are often wearying, and your most recent is especially so.
You ask for proof that the good Archbishop is telling the truth that charity care exceeds state funding, and, that, right after Peter has clearly explained that your point is moot because the bill forces hospitals to dispense an abortifacient whether or not they get state funding. I can find only one good thing to say about your post. It proves *false*, once and for all, the old adage that skepticism is the highest form of intelligence.
I really don’t have time or disposition to re-confirm facts just to satisfy one who will not be satisfied. So, tell you what, look it up yourself. Contact an archdiocese or the secretary of state and ask to see the audited financial statements of the hospital(s). Next, look for the reported amount of charity care. Here’s a hint. You will not find that number on the face of the financial statement. Rather, it is disclosed in the notes to the financial statements because several decades ago the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants determined that charity care was so large that it would distort the financial statements to report that foregone revenue. Next, look for the amount of state funding. Here’s another hint. You will not find that number broken out separately because it is too small to matter to reasonable readers. So, call the hospital finance department and ask them how much state funding they got. Oh, wait. That means you would have to take their word. Never mind.
I’m still waiting to hear from chele, TrueBlueCt and Gabe on that earlier post’s comments, http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2007/01/18/tr-rowes-pro-life-pro-woman-bill
Come on, chele, you can’t tell me you gave up on that thread after posting on it last on Jan.25 , when I posted the answer to your taunting question not two hours later?
Let’s hear what you have to say in response.
AND in answer to your taunts HERE a la “Gabe is absolutely right. This is NOT a religious liberty issue. It is a healthcare issue….”
You’re both wrong that it isn’t a religious liberty issue firstly, but forgetting that for just a minute: let me ask you why you’re both so rabidly eager to victimize rape victims A SECOND TIME by giving them a drug that is 20 to 40 times the dosage of something that’s already been deemed by cancer experts to be “fueling breast cancer in women” and is five times the dosage of a Group 1 (highest kind) carcinogen??
Are you really that obsessed with your unfettered sex lives that you’ll do anything (or allow anything done) to a woman so long as you get yours??
It sure as hell is a healthcare issue, but not the way you thought it was.
I guess you haven’t read my reply that points out all the science and proven sources here: http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2007/01/26/courants-2007-priorities-redefine-marriage-attack-religious-liberty/#comments
As far as it not being a religious liberty issue, you want to force someone(s) to break a key fundamental moral law by which they live, work and have their being. The Catholic hospitals refer someone somewhere else in timely fashion in order to satisfy the secular law while not breaking with the practice of their faith. There is no way that a law will be passed to force a person of faith, never mind a hospital run on those principles, to go against their faith.
Change a few words: Try to force a Muslim healthcare practitioner to perform abortions or make abortion referrals, when that person believes as all schools of Islamic law do, that abortion is only allowed if the mother’s life is in serious danger otherwise, after 120 days of pregnancy.
This is the only truly fair comparison even though it’s not Emergency Contraception in this instance. Why? Islamic law typically seems to accept EC because they have widely differing opinions when the unborn baby has a soul and therefore should be protected (they range from “moment of conception,” to 40 days, to 120 days but not beyond that). Catholic teaching is very clear: from the moment of conception. Not afterward by any length of time.
So in terms of fixed beliefs, these are truly comparable by virtue of the severity of what you’re trying to force the Muslim or Catholic to do that goes against their faith.
So tell me, chele and gabe: would you have the guts enought to take on THAT fight and try passing laws to force them to do that?
Good luck with THAT fight, by the way. The PC Police would stop the lawyers and politicians before you or they got to the courthouse steps.
It’s the exact same thing you’re supporting to do against Catholics.
Face it: The Catholics represent everything you hate that “stops you” from living any way you please. It’s easy and politically correct to oppose Catholics adn accuse us of “imposing our religious beliefs.” Religious freedom means just that, and neither you nor the government can impose restrictions (which is what this would be) on the practice of that religion.
If we need to do without government funding, we will. After all, those 4,800 crisis pregnancy centers worldwide (admittedly not all from Catholic efforts) for decades have survived, thrived and now outnumber abortion clinics in the states anyway, all on private donations from people like me and the folks who run and support this website. NOT A DIME FROM THE Government.
I still await your answers to all my other responses to your comments.
Chele and Gabe, have you no response at all to my comments, or to my question, “would you have the guts enought to take on THAT fight and try passing laws to force them to do that?”
NaCn,
Since the claims made here are intriguing, I have indeed begun the process of obtaining all the relevant answers re: state funding.
Go for it, chele.
Remember to eliminate federal grants that pass through the state. They are reflected in the state budget but are not state funds.
You may want to consult the AICPA audit guide, Health Care Organizations.
Oh, and remember to distinguish between state funding that represents an exchange transaction and that which is nonexchange (e.g., grants).
chele and gabe, you refuse to answer my questions above?
Why ARE you both so rabidly eager to victimize rape victims A SECOND TIME by giving them a drug that is 20 to 40 times the dosage of something that’s already been deemed by cancer experts to be “fueling breast cancer in women” and is five times the dosage of a Group 1 (highest kind) carcinogen?
And
Would you have the guts enought to try passing laws to force Muslims to go against their religious beliefs as you insist the Catholics do?
NaCN, thank you for your input, but I have the resources to get the information without your help.
chele, why are you ignoring even addressing the possibility of letting me know you are going to get to answer the questions I posed to you?
Annie, again, I had no idea that you had posted a question to me, so here goes the answer:
No, I wouldn’t take on that fight, because I reject your analogy. This is nothing like a law that would force a Muslim doctor to perform abortions. The EC bill would only require that EC be available and distributed in every hospital, but says nothing about who does the distributing – it could (and should) be done by someone who does not have to violate a religious belief to do so.
Also, I find it odd that the Connecticut Catholic Church is fighting this legislation, but the New York and New Jersey Catholic Churches have gone the opposite way, citing compassion. Any insigts would be welcome.
Are you really that obsessed with your unfettered sex lives that you’ll do anything (or allow anything done) to a woman so long as you get yours??
I find the question more than a little offputting, and its absolutely none of your business, but my sexlife is firmly fettered, thank you. And since we are talking about care for rape victims, are you implying that my supposedly “unfettered” sex life includes rape? Because that is a fairly obnoxious thing to imply.
Either way, lets say we do any more dialoguing in a thread much close to the top? I am never going two pages deep again!
“No, I wouldn’t take on that fight, because I reject your analogy.”
Of COURSE, you do. Even though they are equally as offensive to their respective religious people as a law that would force a Muslim doctor to perform abortions AFTER 120 DAYS violates their religious teachings just as badly as forcing Catholics to give EC if a woman could be pregnant does. You can’t touch that that with a million foot pole.
That is exactly the response I expected from you. You are the brave bearer of the double standard. Forever may it wave in your hands. Don’t look now, Gabe, but you’ve just been proven to be anti-Catholic.