Public Hearing Tuesday on Forcing Catholic Hospitals to Provide Chemical Abortions
March 1st, 2007 by Peter
A public hearing will be held Tuesday, March 6 at 9:00 a.m. on one of the most outrageous pro-abortion attacks on religious liberty ever attempted in Connecticut. From the Connecticut Catholic Conference’s urgent action alert:
Senate Bill 1343 “An Act Concerning Compassionate Care For Victims of Sexual Assault”, which seeks to aid rape victims, is also a serious threat to religious freedom in Connecticut. Catholic hospitals do already provide compassionate care to rape victims and in most cases will provide emergency contraception. The hospitals will not provide this medication only in cases where it believes a human life will be destroyed, which are extremely rare. Catholic hospitals should not be forced to perform an abortion, a serious violation of the Catholic faith. Information on where the medication can be obtained, and in some cases transportation to another facility, will be provided to a woman when the medication cannot be administered. Read below for more detailed information.
A public hearing is scheduled for this coming Tuesday, March 6th, at 9:00 a.m., in the Legislative Office Building, before the Human Services Committee. Come early if you would like to sign-up and speak. Speakers are limited to three minutes.Even if you do not wish to speak please attend this hearing to show your support for the long tradition of religious freedom in Connecticut. This bill is aimed directly at the pro-life practices of Catholic hospitals. Catholic institutions should not be forced to violate deeply held religious beliefs by the State.
The Connecticut General Assembly’s Human Services Committee, with the urging of abortion-rights advocates is proposing a bill that would require all Connecticut hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to provide emergency contraception (commonly known as Plan “B” or the “morning after pill”) to rape victims. Catholic hospitals do adhere to special rape protocols, but will only administer emergency contraceptive medication following tests to insure the woman is not previously pregnant, or that the chance of destroying a fertilized human egg does not exist.
Catholic moral teachings and the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, require that Catholic health care providers care for victims of sexual assault in a caring and compassionate manner. In considering issues involving the administration of contraceptive medications to women who are the victims of sexual assault, Catholic moral teachings allow the woman to protect herself from the possible effects of the assault, so long as the medications administered to do so do not act as an abortifacient, which is contrary to the natural law and Catholic moral teaching.
Nationwide efforts have been launched by pro-abortion groups to change the policies of Catholic hospitals concerning the administration of emergency contraception. If this policy can be legislatively altered, then will the next effort be to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.
The Catholic health care system has provided the citizens of Connecticut with a high standard of care for decades. These institutions should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs, especially those concerning the human dignity of every person, no matter at what stage of life.
BACKGROUND:The media has been full of misinformation on this issue and the procedures Catholic hospitals follow. Catholic hospitals are not opposed to emergency contraception for rape victims, which has been stated many times in the media. This legislation is supported by all the major national abortion rights organizations. When all the facts are considered the issue is really one of a conflict between abortion rights and religious freedom.
The four Catholic hospitals of Connecticut issued a new protocol concerning the treatment of rape victims with Plan B effective January 1, 2006. The purpose of this protocol was to insure that all Catholic hospitals were providing quality, consistent and compassionate medical care to rape victims, while acting within Catholic teaching concerning the sanctity of all human life. The protocol adheres to Directive 36 of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, “Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault…”
You can read the actual protocol and more information from the Chuch regarding this pathetic assault on human dignity in the links we provided here. Make no mistake: this is not about rape victims, it’s about abortion. The media rarely mentions the role of NARAL and Planned Parenthood in pushing this bill. And even one of the bill’s front groups, CT Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc. is a member of the pro-abortion CT Coalition for Choice. We join state Victim Advocate James Papillo in deploring the exploitation of sexual assault victims–by those who should have been looking out for their best interests–in order to further a pro-abortion attack on religious liberty:
“What’s being proposed here is a solution in search of a problem. Victims are not being denied services,” [Papillo] 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.”
Please attend the hearing if you can. We will have more to say about this in the days ahead.
[Update: The CT Catholic Conference now says the hearing will not be held on Tuesday. Watch for more information as it becomes available.]
Private institutions – including the church’s hospitals – can do what they want about abortion, assuming they don’t receive any federal funding. If the do get federal funding, than the feds can put whatever conditions they want on the money. The church can always turn down the money.
When did blatant lying in the name of religious dogma become morally acceptable? Catholic hospitals (voluntarily) receive a very large portion of their funds from taxpayers. They have to be willing to accept the conditions that come with the funds, or refuse to take it. Anything else is simple hypocrisy.
There is not, nor has there ever been any attempt to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. “Plan B” is emergency contraception. Let me repeat that: contraception. Not abortion. Contraception prevents pregnancy, abortion terminates it. While the Church has had a relatively consistent opposition to contraception for the last 40 years, it is not absolute – see their statements on condoms to prevent AIDS in Africa. Given a Hobson’s choice, even the Church admits to preferring the lesser of two evils.
Despite the desperate statements from the Church and the hospitals, they are denying services. If a black man walks up to a lunch counter, and is told that he can’t be served there, but the place around the corner will serve “his kind,” then the law has been broken, because the man was denied service. The same applies here. Refusing to provide medical treatment, even if it is available elsewhere, is denial of service. No if, no ands, no buts.
Catholic hospitals provide a great service to Connecticut, in part due to favorable financial rules and regulations. But those goin tandem with operational rules. If you don’t like one, you can give up the other. But you don’t get to have it both ways. Not even the Church
Pardon me, but how do these two statements jive?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
“If the do get federal funding, than the feds can put whatever conditions they want on the money.”
The first quote is the first amendment to the US Constitution. The second is a quote from Scott above and, admittedly, is currently the enforced law of the land. A constitutional lawyer I’m not (and I don’t think I could be one given that I could never find the right to abortion or sodomy in there,) but it seems to me that the feds putting “whatever conditions they want on the money” is a “law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
About Plan B. This link explains how plan B works. It says that “It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus…” Interesting that it does not say that Plan B does not affect a fertilized egg not attached to the uterus. Plan B can and does prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. This is precisely what the Catholic Church takes, and has always taken issue with.
If the state attempts to force Catholic hospitals to administer Plan B, then it would be better to close the hospitals. Let the state pick up the full tab.
Scott,
This bill involves only state funding, not “federal.” There is no federal requirement similar to the proposed legislation that I am aware of. You can take that up with your congressman.
I am surprised that you would make a mistake on such basic facts.
imajoebob,
The manufucturer of the Plan B drug describes it as, among other things, an “abortifacient.” If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with the manufacturer rather than calling the Church a liar.
At present there is no requirement that Catholic hospitals perform abortions on demand. If the bill passes, then you can make your point about the hospitals accepting conditions that come with funding. Until that time, your argument is baseless.
You complain about taxpayer funding going to pay for medical care of patients at Catholic hospitals. Would you prefer that those patients be denied services because the government refuses to allow them the hospital of their choice?
You analogizing preserving life to Jim Crow discrimination. That is unsustainable on any level and demonstrates a complete lack of sensitivity to those who lived through segregation.
You appear to be new here. You really should read some of the prior blogs on this issue so that you can speak intelligently on the issue instead of coming across as ignorant.
Scott & imajobob,
By the way, the bill(s) would require that the hospitals perform abortions whether or not they receive state funding.
How is that NOT an attack on religious freedom?
The irony is that all of the Catholic hospitals in the state except for one all quietly provide the Plan B pill already, but organizations like FIC won’t tell you that
Um, Lisa, I DID say that the Catholic hospitals provide Plan B already. Go look at the item I posted on January 19.
NaCN,
Defending a lie with a lie does not produce a truth. Plan B CAN be used as an abortifacient. However, in this case (less than 72 hours after a sexual assault, it is being used to PREVENT a pregnancy, not terminate it. AS THE MANUFACTURER CLEARLY STATES.
Where do I “complain” about taxpayer funding going to Catholic hospitals? I complain that I don’t like hypocrites who think they should be able to take taxpayer funding, but shouldn’t follow the rules that come with (voluntarily) accepting the money.
My analogy with Jim Crow is spot-on. The Catholic hospitals claim no harm is being done because the service is available elsewhere. How is that different from someone claiming lunch service is available elsewhere? In fact, it’s worse. Lunch service is not considered basic to human survival and dignity. Medical care is. Even the Catholic Church supports this – that’s the whole point of Catholic Hospitals.
No one is demanding that Catholic hospitals perform abortions. Nobody’s even demanding that Catholic hospitals provide Plan B on demand to everyone. This is about people who have been assaulted, and putting an end to that assault. It’s medical, not philosophical or religious. It’s about protecting a victim, not an ideology or dogma. it’s about the Hippocratic Oath, and about providing necessary medical treatment for people who need it.
It’s about putting people first – which far too many people who claim to be devout seem to misplace when charity and humanity conflict with their personal canon. That’s the same thinking that drives someone to murder a person simply because they’re gay, that drives communities to stone people to death for engaging in extra-marital sex (including victims of sexual assault!), and drives crazy old men to convince vital young people to blow themselves up to punish “non-believers.”
I’m quite familiar with the FIC. So stop playing coy, stop lying, stop being a hypocrite. Just come out and say it:
Your true goal is and political agenda is to make this country a theocracy based solely on your (interpreted) beliefs – just like the Taliban did in Afghanistan, and the Shiites did in Iran. You don’t believe in true Freedom of Religion. Just freedom for YOUR religion.
Joebob – despite your stupendous effort at intellectual honesty and your oracle-like talent of discerning liars over the internet, you’ve omitted a simple fact:
Plan B prevents a fertilized egg from implantation.
It seems likely that you know this, as also the fact that the Catholic Church considers the fertilized egg a person. It makes me wonder who’s being dishonest in this thread. (Well, not really. I think you are, but apparently unlike you I’m willing to listen to your explanation before I call you a liar.) It also makes me wonder why people like you don’t seem to understand that attempting to force a religious institution to kill what they consider unborn children is a clear violation of their religious liberties. I wonder if you care.
And, please spare us the Muslim extremist inanities. You’re the one insisting on forcing people into doing things they consider immoral.
A fertilized egg is not a pregnancy.
The medical definition of prengnancy is when a fertlized egg is implanted in the uterus.
An abortion ends a pregnancy; you can’t have an abortion unless you have a pregnancy. Plan B, which prevents ovulation and may prevent implantation (though there is no proof that it does this), by definition does NOT end a pregnancy.
By the way, what is your source for the claim that Plan B’s manufacturer calls the contraceptive medication an “abortifacient”?
Steve, I’ll not question your honesty, just your intelligence. Catholic hospitals are not religious institutions, they are MEDICAL institutions that are operated by charity that is under the aegis of the Catholic church. They operate under licenses and rules of the State of Connecticut. If they do not wish to operate under these rules they are allowed to dissolve these charities, forgoing all the benefits and responsibilities they VOLUNTARILY accepted, and reestablish themselves as a different entity.
But the Church knows very well that they can better serve their community and their mission by adapting to these rules, and understanding that religion and medicine are never in complete agreement, but they are compatible in their goals. Each makes compromises to maintain this relationship. Since Abortions and sterilization are rarely life-saving interventions, Catholic hospitals are not required to provide them. But when the religion is in conflict with the immediate health and welfare of the community, there is a minimum level of care they are REQUIRED BY LAW to provide.
If a nurse is a Christian Scientist are they allowed to refuse to give blood transfusions? No. Is a Catholic pharmacist allowed to refuse to fill a prescription for birth control pills? No. They are licensed by the state, and understand they are required to provide care that they may not like. The same is true for hospitals. They can’t pick and choose. They either follow the rules, or they get out of the business.
Theocracy is theocracy. If you think jamming your superstitions and mythical beliefs down my throat is Freedom of Religion then you must be a brainwashed zealot. Perhaps you’d think it less inane if I used the Spanish Inquisition, the French Huguenots, or the Occitan? Those are all fine examples of Catholic theocracy and how it benefits society.
Stop claiming this is anything but an attempt to force your religion on others, and trying to take advantage of a system that is always supported by the Church, until it’s no longer to their best advantage.
And the choice is all the Churches: if they don’t like the rules of the game, they can simply leave. But since that might mean they would have to sell some of their vast real estate holdings, or sell some of those Vatican art works, or maybe even melt down a few of those wholly functional gold and sterling candle sticks on the altar, we shouldn’t expect it anytime soon (no, not all churches have them, but enough still do).
The shine on your cross is obviously blinding you to the facts – or you simply choose to ignore facts that conflict with your beliefs. After all, as we’ve seen countless times here in Connecticut, the Church never let the PRINCIPAL of providing a quality Catholic education override their duty to preserve PRINCIPAL in their bank accounts. And we know they’ll protect that most important principal here, too, when it comes to a choice.
imajoebob,
I enjoyed reading your post. Thanks. I needed a good laugh. But, as amusing as your displays of ignorance and intolerance may be, I still have to suggest that you read some of the prior posts here on the topic. They (and Steve) address all of your points . . . all, save one.
You insist that your analogizing the preservation of life with Jim Crow segregation is “spot-on.” Let’s break that down to see if it works. I’ll change your man to a woman so you can see the obvious.
[SCENE: Lunch counter. Woman walks in and sits down.]
WOMAN: Give me a strong drink. I just had a test that indicates I might be pregnant.
WAITER: What? Lady, if you might be pregnant you shouldn’t be drinking. Alcohol can hurt your baby.
WOMAN: Yeah, I know. That’s why I want it. You provide food here, so you have to provide alcohol too.
WAITER: [Indignant] Lady, if you want to hurt your baby, I want no part in that. If you want alcohol you’ll have to go elsewhere.
WOMAN: It’s because I’m black, isn’t it?
WAITER: [Pause] Lady . . . you’re white.
WOMAN: But imajoebob told me you wouldn’t serve me because I’m black. He said it’s “spot-on” the same thing; “No if, no ands, no buts.”
WAITER: Well, that imajoebob person is an idiot. I won’t serve you for one reason and only one reason–that would hurt a human life. I believe that every life is precious and deserves protection. If you want alcohol, there are plenty of other people who do not feel the same way as I do.
WOMAN: You’re right. imajoebob is an idiot.
Progressive Catholic,
My American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines the term “pregnant” as “1. Carrying developing offspring within the body.” By definition, that includes a fertilized ovum prior to implantation. Most english dictionaries and most medical dictionaries also define conception as occurring at fertilization. (See http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/pregnancy/Medical-definition-pregnancy-conception.htm)
It is true that in 1964 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed its definition of conception from occurring at fertilization to occurring at implantation, but it is also true that it was done for political reasons. A 1998 study shows that 73% of Ob/Gyns in a sample disagree with that definition and hold that conception is a synonym for fertilization. (See http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/30000120/ABSTRACT.)
The package of the Plan B drug states that it “may also prevent . . . attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation).” This is consistent with what the FDA has said. “If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation).” (See http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm.)
I stand corrected on the manufacturer using the term “abortifacient.” I remembered their using that term but have been unable to locate it. Rather, it appears in testimony before the FDA.
All of this is really beside the point, however. The issue is this: Can a Catholic hospital refuse to perform a procedure that it believes terminates a human life? How you or anyone else defines pregnancy should not, in my view, dictate what a church may hold as religious doctrine regarding the commencement of life or what harms life.
Joebob – Have you considered that if you’d only refrain from religious bigotry, you could, quite literally, cut your posts by better than half? And if you did that, you wouldn’t even come off as a lunatic fringite either. Imagine…
You know, one real downer in this whole debate is that a reasonable solution could be found. With a little thought, the “care” that you guys claim to want to provide can be easily given without the state usurping religious liberties. It has even been discussed within the threads on this blog. But it seems, so far anyway, that the fringe left will have none of it. It makes me wonder what the real motivation is – but if your sentiments are any indication, it seems evident that religious intolerance is certainly a contributing factor.
Dear FIC,
Take a poll. How many Roman Catholics use (other) forms of contraception? Are your faces turning pink? Are you going to purgatory?
There are stats on this. Most Catholics use birth control and you know it.
It’s okay, though, with me. I’m cool. It’s between you and your partner.
Best wishes!
The real and the legal definition is what matters:
a·bor·ti·fa·cient Pronunciation (-bôrt-fshnt)
adj.
Causing abortion.
n.
A substance or device used to induce abortion.
“There is controversy as to whether pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization, or at the moment the blastocyst implants in the uterine lining. Some substances are believed to prevent implantation and thus destroy the blastocyst, although their primary effect is to prevent fertilization. American federal law and British law mark the beginning of pregnancy at implantation; thus, these substances are labeled as contraceptives, rather than abortifacients. They are generally not effective if taken after implantation. Labeling of these agents as abortifacient is supported by some opposed to abortion, usually due to their belief that human life begins at fertilization.” (Wikipedia)
Don’t inject your minority right wingnutty, personal, and/or religious beliefs into what the real and legal definition is. It is not an abortifacient. It is a contraceptive. And while I am at it, there is no such thing as a “partial birth abortion”. Just another fabrication of right wing talking points.
“Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.
Plan B® is approved by the FDA and contains the hormone levonorgestrel, the same hormone in the birth control pills that healthcare professionals have been prescribing for more than 35 years. The difference is that Plan B® contains a larger dose of levonorgestrel than the amount found in a single birth control pill.
Remember that Plan B® is not RU-486 (the abortion pill). Because Plan B® is used to prevent an unplanned pregnancy, it will not work if you’re already pregnant. If you take Plan B® and are already pregnant, it will not affect your existing pregnancy. ” (Plan B website)
Just another time that FIC needs to learn to be honest about the facts. sigh… Speaking of which: How’s the hit count coming? lol 😉
One solution might be to institute policies for emergency personnel (police, ambulance drivers, EMTs, firefighters, etc.) to automatically bring all emergency patients to secular hospitals’ emergency rooms, rather than to Catholic ERs, especially victims of crimes.
Or perhaps, rather than cut funding for Catholic hospitals entirely, the state might consider just rescinding their ER certifications/licenses.
chele,
Your idea of transporting rape victims to alternative facilities is worth exploring. I would not extend that solution to all emergency care situations because there is no conflict in other situations. Thanks for trying to meet the Catholics part-way on this issue.
By the way, I followed your link to the kitty cat video. It was enjoyable . . . in an off-the-wall sort of way. Thanks.
Any hospital – Catholic or not – should be able to offer the services they want to offer and not be dictated to by the state. If the hospital is not fulfilling needs then people will not go there and they will go out of business, otherwise they will remain a choice for people who want care that is religiously affiliated.
I do agree that Catholic hospitals who refuse to accept mandates from the state should not take state money.
Private enterprises only hurt themselves when they take public funding because they inevitably destroy their autonomy and sovereignty. I support the Catholic hospital’s commitment in not wanting to dole out birth control or perform abortions, but that being said they should give up state funding and be their own master.
What the liberals on this comment board are spouting is nothing more than State/government takeover of private hospitals. This is also going to happen to private schools if they continue to take public funding.
Autonomy is freedom.
As to certifications and licensure of medical practitioners, chele (above post) is suggesting that the State dictate how they practice medicine as well.. I believe Socialist, Communist and Fascist States espouse that type of medical system delivery. Will you also say that I must accept only certain treatments as well? I don’t think so pal.
Judy,
Are you opposed to the CT Dept. of Public Health maintaining the standards of, and certifying, Connecticut hospitals and health care facilities — and the doctors who practice in the state?
Judy, I think your described situation – an unregulated medical system – would be quite problematic, in that there would no longer be any enforceable standards of care. But while I think that your preferred system would leave a lot of people disabled or dead without recourse from our legal system, it is at the least consistent ideologically. Kudos.
NaCN,
On reflection I’d have to say that I really do belief ALL emergency patients should be automatically transported to non-Catholic hospitals by emergency personnel, not just victims of rape. One wants to believe that one is, in all cases, going to receive the best medical care available under the applicable standard of care, in all situations. One doesn’t want to think that religious beliefs, perhaps incompatible with one’s own, might stand in the way of receiving the best, medically-indicated, care and treatment. Rape/EC is the topic du jour, but how can we be sure there aren’t other, subtle, “accomodations” to religion being made at religious hospitals?
Judy wants to bring in the whole market thing, which I don’t believe is applicable to emergency care — or medical care in general. After all, medical care is just a bit different than shopping for fresh produce at a good price: lives are often at stake (although with falling inspection standards people certainly ARE dying from produce).
After suffering trauma of any sort, a patient is not always able to choose the medical facility in which they are treated. I think it best to err on the side of caution and always take them to a secular facility where ALL options for care and treatment are on the table.
If we are to find a proper balance between religious liberty and quality of health care for patients, the solution will probably need to have both (1) regulations that define standards of care, and (2) suitable provisions within the law to honor the “right of conscience”, by which I mean the right of a health care provider to refuse to be involved in any type of service to which they object on moral, ethical or religious grounds. I agree that a completely unregulated medical system would be unwise, because citizens expect their government to ensure a reasonable degree of safety in the services that are provided by health care practitioners. Nevertheless, conscience clauses are essential to respecting religious liberty, for individuals as well as institutions. And if such rights to refuse objectionable care are coupled with an obligation to cooperate in the referral of patients to alternative health care providers, then the patient’s “right of choice” is also suitably protected.
The principles at stake here are much more substantial than the current example of “Plan B” emergency contraception (EC). A more fundamental question is – if health care providers are denied the ability to object to this particular service on moral, ethical, or religious grounds – what will be the next type of service to be similarly categorized? In short, what’s next? Because the situation with EC begins to set a precedent, whereby the “right of conscience” is being narrowed for health care providers, we start down a slippery slope towards other services that would be viewed by many as unethical and contrary to religious beliefs.
We need only look to California’s proposal to see that this slippery slope extends beyond abortion to include euthanasia. Legislators have proposed a bill (A.B. 374) that would have the net effect of requiring Catholic nursing homes to permit assisted suicides to occur within their premises!
People of conscience need to stand firm and oppose this encroachment upon their rights, rather than yielding to the culture of death. For that is exactly what this attack is, at its root, even though it is cleverly concealed beneath the veneer of protecting the rights of rape victims. The attack is designed to villanize people of conscience, by making us appear unsympathetic to the plight of these women. In truth we are sympathetic to both the rights of the victim, to receive appropriate and compassionate care, and the rights of a newly conceived life, to be treasured as a precious gift rather than being extinguished. And if you believe in the sanctity of human life, then failing to stand firm against the culture of death would be tantamount to an abandonment of your moral and religious principles. Therefore we must continue to fight for the “right of conscience” to be recognized in law.
To those who advocate for “choice”, let me ask this simple question – doesn’t “choice” imply the ability to say “no”? It seems rather hypocritical that we should value one person’s ability to choose, and yet deny another person that same ability. At heart, it seems that the “right of conscience” and the “right of choice” are essentially similar …except that one label is applied to people who desire to protect life by exercising their religious freedom (a concept that is literally constructed into the U.S. Constitution) and the other label is applied to people who desire to exercise an alleged personal freedom to destroy life (a concept that is only supported by judicial inference from the constitutional right to privacy).
Traditionally, physicians swear an oath to “do no harm”. Indeed, the original oath, despite being sworn to “Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, Panaceia, and all the gods and goddesses”, still valued the sanctity of human life by including the following: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”
Why we would choose to abandon such moral principles, based on the history of civilization across thousands of years? Oh yes, I forgot … we live in newly enlightened times, where even the basic definition of the family unit is subject to reinterpretation. How silly of me!
Oh yes of course I want every dead because of bad medical care.. you people are too much… LOL
Bad medical care would not be a result of more market involvement in medicine – it would give people more choices in caregivers which is precisely what you seem to NOT want.
How about independent private organizations comprised of doctors and professionals who set the standards, and perhaps do the licensing instead of the state and it’s legislature? How about liscenses obtained based on ability and knowledge of the caregiver instead of mandating to them what kind of care they can dole out? After all, a doctor can know how to perform abortions but should not be forced to do them under threat of having their license revoked which is what Chele suggested.
I was not suggesting an unregulated system at all – I was suggesting one that does not include legislators and the state making the rules. I certainly don’t think our legislators and agencies know nearly enough to mandate any specific care. I certainly don’t want my health care determined by my legislators. Who are they to mandate what tests I should be able to get or whether I can or cannot avail myself of exploratory procedures? After all, now you have Women in Government being funded by Merck to push mandatory vaccinations of a little tested vaccine that can affect the entire female population – yeah – that sounds like a great idea (NOT). And you want me to put my trust in these people? You want them to make the rules and the appointments to these agencies.
As for the CT Dept of Health – I wonder what the commissioner did to get that appointment from Rowland, and that goes for any other “appointments” in that agency. I am not saying that the current commissioner is not qualified, but until agencies like this no longer contain positions that can be filled by politicians doling out favors, or bought by appointees, – then I maintain that government needs to be less involved.
No, medical care isn’t like shopping for “produce”, but it certainly should allow for people to choose. As it is, we just go for treatements and don’t even know what treatments cost until we get the bill. No wonder cost of care has skyrocketed – it’s essentially treated as a blank check. No one cares about the cost because usually “someone else” pays for it.
Sorry but the market can be part of emergency care – when I ever had an emergency care situation, such as a broken bone, I was always asked what hospital to be brought to (if I didn’t go in my own vehicle) – and in most cases that could even be determined by what coverage system your provider belongs to as well. If I understand, as a consumer, the level of care being given by any particular hospital I can make it known where I want to go. If I am in a car crash and unconscious then my next of kin can make the choice or I just take my chances with the nearest place. Maybe we can even have people who feel strongly wear a bracelet or carry a card designating where they want to be treated. But let’s face it not all emergency patients are unconscious and most can make choices for themselves. You don’t seem to think they are capable of that especially if they are raped.
You folks just want to destory another option in care – which is religiously affiliated hospitals and health centers. You were successful in preventing Catholic charities to continue doing adoptions and now you are going to kill the cathoilic hospitals over abortion. You make it sound like they don’t offer any care for rape vitims and that is nonsense. They have their own protocols. I ask you this, has any emergency care rape victim ever gone to a Catholic hospital and ended up having a baby as a result, that they did not want?
“What the liberals on this comment board are spouting is nothing more than State/government takeover of private hospitals.”
No. What we want is what the MAJORITY of Americans want.
And I would note that there are very few “liberals” that are commenting in this thread. In fact, I am very likely the only one. 🙂
Too bad that “liberal” doesn’t carry the same sort of weight as an insult anymore as “neocon” or “far-right-wing Heritage think tank” does in today’s politics, since they are both associated with complete and total policy failures now.
The Great Republican Experiment, from Reagan to present times, failed so miserably that only the most incompetent would ever try and cling to it as policy today.
Connecticut man1 I don’t think anyone knows what the MAJORITY of Americans want – only what the media says they want. I don’t take any of the polls mentioned on the Courant’s front page as gospel. Let’s face it, Socialized medicine is a failure – we see it over and over again in the UK and Canada and other countries. Those countries are being bankrupted and cutting back their care as we speak. Our system may have it’s flaws as it is but it is far better than the mess in socialized care in other places.
Government controlled medicine Does Not Work !
I didn’t mean liberal as a slur – one either believes in liberal doctrine or does not. If you take it as an insult I guess you have an issue with that term and what it stands for.
I got a kick out of your passive aggressive name calling with inferring “incompetency” if people don’t believe as you do. Honestly, some of you just aren’t capable of civil discourse without resorting to name calling? God forbid anyone has a different perspective on things than you do. Where’s your “tolerance” pal? In any case I sure get the gist of the incompetent public policy that you cling to.
Perhaps if homosexuals are so scary to you that you can’t let them adopt, and the rights of rape victims are less than the rights of a 2-hour-old potentially fertilized egg, then your institutions are simply too bigoted for our times. At a certain point the government said “you just cannot run a segregated school” and if principals or school staff couldn’t cope with that, they got out of the business.
Of course, thus was the homeschool movement born, to protect children from learning dangerous knowledge and interacting with dangerous minorities! But now, at least, the government is not complicit in damaging our youths 🙂
Oh, do let’s. America is weaker than nearly every country with universal healthcare in life expectancy, pays more per capita with less care delivered, and has a higher infant mortality rate than basically every other industrialized nation. Yeah, got your “pro-family values” right here. How many infants die because of your juvenile free-market ideology?
Judy,
Can you please attempt to operate with some intellectual honesty?
I no where and at no time said that doctors who refuse to perform abortions should lose their licenses.
“we see it over and over again in the UK and Canada and other countries. ”
Yes… Let’s compare their failure to ours, shall we?
The average Canadian lives longer than the average American.
Every Canadian has healthcare.
It costs a company about 4 dollars per hour less for employees in Canada because of their healthcare system.
Where is their failure compared to the USA?
The United States is #1 in dollars spent on healthcare and does not even come close to the top ten (I don’t think they are even in the top twenty?) as far as care provided to it’s citizens.
Face it… Healthcare for profit only profits the insurance companies. Even the minor cuts in Canadian healthcare don’t even come close to the cuts in services that the insurance companies routinely make to increase their bottom line. And the Canadian system is better. Sad but true.
You should be ashamed of the American system, not touting its failures as some sort of wonder to behold.
Yeah, Judy.
That was me 🙂
Wait no, that wasn’t me, I was saying that hospitals who can’t get it together to distribute EC to rape victims should lose their license, not doctors who practice a different kind of medicine.
It’s probably be a bad idea to force ENT doctors to perform abortions anyway.
Matt,
What is your basis for applying a different standard to the individuals who provide medical services versus the individuals who employ them to do so?
NaCN,
Wow, you’re not an idiot. Just a blatant, hypocritical, closed-minded [word deleted–ed]! My apologies
Excuse, and what you think concerning forthcoming elections?
cool blog!