Lysander... the Bishops do not have to respond to man's directives but to the directives of God that all life is precious, no abortions. Not sure which decisions the Bishops made that were poor and this time it was not a bad decision either but a directive of what the Catholic faith stands for... and you are right, they do have to make tough decisions which are most of the time against the flood of correctness...
Religious Freedom Vs. Personal Health
- Thread starter RiverJordan
- Start date
- Status
Lysander... the Bishops do not have to respond to man's directives but to the directives of God that all life is precious, no abortions. Not sure which decisions the Bishops made that were poor and this time it was not a bad decision either but a directive of what the Catholic faith stands for... and you are right, they do have to make tough decisions which are most of the time against the flood of correctness...
The truth is that this article is quoted from the ACLU website, and if anyone knows the ACLU they are extremely active against Christians but especially Catholics... this lawsuit was started now but this all happened 3 years ago, and Tamesha claims she had no knowledge that Mercy Hospital is Catholic (hmmm...) even though it is the only hospital in the area...? The ACLU's aim is not necessarily to protect women's health because if they did they would sue Planned Parenthood who uses the killing of children as a business enterprise while trying to say they also perform other health related women's issues, and never do they tell the woman she has an alternative to abortion and that is to go to a Life Center and have them help her... or clinic where as Fr. Pavone states perform ghastly procedures on women, and children are killed horribly during an abortion/
Here is the letter from Fr. Pavone, who is a very active Catholic priest in saving children's lives from mothers that would kill them thru abortion...:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/131205
Father Pavone responded as follows:
Here is the letter from Fr. Pavone, who is a very active Catholic priest in saving children's lives from mothers that would kill them thru abortion...:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/131205
Father Pavone responded as follows:
First of all, it would be a better business decision for the ACLU to start suing all the abortion clinics that continue to maim and kill women thanks not only to the dangers of the procedure itself, but to the shoddy, Gosnell-like conditions that are prevalent across this country. Politically, this suit against the USCCB is another tool for abortion supporters to use to distract from the far greater numbers of women harmed and killed by abortion.
Secondly, abortion is not medicine. There is no medical benefit to the procedure, and no disease that abortion cures. Moreover, there is never a reason to kill a baby to save a mother's health or life. Priests for Life works not only with its own expert medical advisory board, but also with groups like the Pro-life Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine. These experts handle every complication of pregnancy in a way that acknowledges the commonsense reality that we are dealing with two patients, the mom and the baby.
Good morals is good medicine, and vice-versa. Catholic teaching is based on the fact that you always treat both patients, and the fact that to fail to save one or another, despite one's best efforts, is quite different from killing one or another deliberately.
Finally, many doctors advise abortion not for medical reasons but in order to avoid liability. They don't want the risk involved in helping two patients through a complicated situation. It's easy to eliminate a risk or a problem by eliminating a person altogether. God bless Catholic institutions for being willing to take risks to save lives rather than eliminate risk by sacrificing lives !
This is what the Catholic faith stands for and they do not make any excuses for upholding God's commandment...
This really just isn't an example of religious dogma vs. common sense. The issue here isn't a rule that was made by the church, but in the way the doctors apparently were very calloused towards the needs of one of their patients, and it is the rule that is getting blamed. This is what the Pharisees did. When they saw a rule, they applied it above the people and even above God. I sincerely doubt that there is anything in the rule that states "Ignore the needs of the patient completely, even if you know that the baby will die anyway, just ignore the patient's needs and complaints and don't even tell her that there is something wrong. Let them go on thinking that everything is normal so that you can cause as much emotional and physical damage to them as possible." Seriously, even if the rule is super-strict against abortion, that doesn't mean that there is NOTHING that the doctors could have done. Either THEY are blaming the rules and are using this case to stubbornly protest the rules (meaning that they intentionally caused harm to a patient for the sake of a political statement), or the reporter is twisting the entire situation around to make his own political statement.
Precisely.
RiverJordan
Inactive
Nobody said the doctors should have done anything, except give her all the information about her medical condition.
By deliberately withholding such information and sending her home as if everything were ok, they were lying by omission. No matter how you cut it, that is not Christian behavior.
By deliberately withholding such information and sending her home as if everything were ok, they were lying by omission. No matter how you cut it, that is not Christian behavior.
I agree. The doctors were in err here, and either they or the woman are blaming a rule. The doctors stand between the woman and the rule. If they chose to do nothing and say nothing, then use the rule to protect themselves from their responsibilities as not only Christians, but humans, that is where the fault lies. If they did do something, but the woman felt it wasn't enough, then perhaps it is the woman, her lawyers, or some other third party that has an ax to grind that is using this as an opportunity to attack some rule that is made.
Honestly, I don't know much about it. I'm not Catholic. I wouldn't fit particularly well into the Catholic mindset on many, many issues. I'm also not a doctor, or a lawyer. However, I am a Christian, and I know above all else, love is always greater than the law. There can be no law that trumps loving God first, and loving and treating our neighbors with compassion. That is what has happened here.
Banarenth, thank you for your response... but i differ. Abortion is not a dogma, nor a rule, as you state being the same as the Pharisees, but a directive from God that it is against all He commanded us.
We only know from reading the article how it is seen from the ACLU perspective, an organization which is rabidly against anything Christian... i can only say that if i am in the hospital and some surgeon is giving me his prognosis i will ask for a Catholic doctor to confirm it since i know that i will have a truer prognosis than i can rely on general doctors... and with the new Obamacare i would not rely on just any doctor. There have been instances where the general doctors have been quick in making decisions about the dire condition of the patient and declare it to be terminal.
We do not have the real dialogue that went on between the two, we have a lawsuit which is directed not at the hospital but the Bishops because of their belief, which is also mine. Bishops being sued because they adhere to God's laws against abortion...? Why didn't the ACLU then sue God, since He is the one that commanded us that children are precious to Him and no one is to touch them or hurt them... Does anyone here feel that a Catholic doctor that works in a Catholic hospital that believes in all that God commanded should advise this woman that she should have an abortion...? There are studies which find that even though the water breaks there is no need to induce labor, and of course no need to abort.
-this happened 3 years ago...
-if anything it should be hospital and not the Bishops being sued, hence we see what is really behind this lawsuit...
-she is an adult, had 2 prior children, this is the only hospital and she doesn't know it is a Catholic hospital, nor does she also go to her doctor for follow up... where is her regular doctor ...?
-who decided that the baby would die anyway ''due to her condition'' , the only thing i see here is that she should have been hospitalized, but that has nothing to do with the Bishops.
No, these doctors are not purposely blaming the rules to change it so they can perform abortions, they would not elect to work in a Catholic hospital otherwise but in a butcher shop like Planned Parenthood... and i beg forgiveness for using this word about PP but this is my true opinion of that organization. Due to the nature of the website this article is biased and will adhere to their agenda, i feel we have to wait and see what transpired between patient and doctors.
I'm not referring to Abortion. I'm referring to the fact that the doctors did not do much of anything to help the lady, and then either they used the "rule" to protect themselves, or the people creating the lawsuit is using the "rule" as a means to attack the bigger wallet. Either way, it's not the rule, or the reason behind the rule that is at fault. The fault lies with the people. Faults never lie with rules or laws, either Biblical or manmade, but with people.
Banarenth... please see this article written by two different doctors on this subject... i do know from my own experience, that when the water breaks it does not necessarily mean the child will perish. During my second pregnancy i arrived at the hospital and ready to give birth, the water broke, the contractions stopped... i was being told i may have to go home because baby was not ready to be born, but in knew the water broke the child would be dry inside and didn't like that, though i also knew that many women have had water break and went on for days before giving birth. At any rate my doctor induced labor which was the most painful thing i remember... only up to the point of birth then joy.
Here is an article that has two different opinions about what happens when the water breaks : http://www.nbcnews.com/health/when-water-breaks-does-labor-need-be-induced-733244
When water breaks, does labor need to be induced?
Linda Carroll NBC News contributor
April 24, 2012 at 6:33 PM ET
Pregnant women have long been told that when their water breaks, they should be ready to deliver the baby within 24 hours to avoid infection. But a small new study suggests labor may not always need to be induced.
Dutch researchers concluded that in situations where the baby is three to six weeks early or pre-term, and when a woman's amniotic membranes have ruptured before labor has started, it’s best to simply wait and monitor the baby’s progress rather than forcing labor to begin, according to the study published in PLoS Medicine.
There were no fewer fetal blood infections nor breathing problems in babies when labor was induced compared with waiting and monitoring, the researchers found. However, inducing labor did lead to a slight reduction in uterine environment infections, a condition known as chorioamnionitis.
To take a closer look at whether there were any benefits of inducing labor, a team of researchers led by Dr. David van der Ham of the Maastricht University Medical Center randomly assigned 536 women whose water broke at 34 to 37 weeks gestation to be induced or simply to be watched and monitored.
Van der Ham and his colleagues found that among babies born late preterm with pre-labor rupture of the membranes -- water breaking before labor started -- the rate of sepsis and breathing problems did not go up if the babies were allowed to deliver on their own without intervention.
“We conclude that in pregnancies complicated by [preterm pre-labor rupture of the membranes] between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation that the incidence of neonatal sepsis is low,” the researchers wrote. And that means that induction of labor does not substantially improve pregnancy outcomes, they added.
Dr. Christian M. Pettker isn’t convinced that the new data support van der Ham’s conclusions, especially since the researchers also found that induction didn’t lead to an increase in the rate of C-sections.
The study wasn’t large enough to show definitively that waiting and monitoring doesn’t lead to an increased rate of blood infections in newborns, said Pettker, an assistant professor and medical director of the labor and birth section of maternal fetal medicine at the Yale University School of Medicine.
The fact that there was a higher rate of chorioamnionitis among deliveries that weren’t speeded up by induction suggests that the researchers might have seen a higher rate of blood infections if there had been more women in the study, Pettker explained.
That’s because chorioamnionitis raises the baby’s risk of blood infection.
“The study is too small for them to detect if induction is preventing infection in neonates,” Pettker said. “But it appears to be preventing infections before and during labor -- which might translate into a reduced risk of infection in the newborn.”
Ultimately, Pettker reads the data very differently than the Dutch researchers.
“There doesn’t seem to be a lot of risk in doing an induction,” Pettker said. “And there’s a possible benefit. Usually we worry about an increased Cesarean rate [with induction], but in this population there was not an increased risk for Cesarean in the group that was induced.”
Even if a larger study were to confirm this study’s results, Pettker believes that doctors will still offer to induce pregnant patients if their membranes rupture too soon.
“If there does not seem to be a difference between waiting and inducing, it ends up being a discussion between the patient and her providers. Some patients will prefer no intervention in their birth process, while others will feel more comfortable with moving on with things and going forward with an induction.”
Here is an article that has two different opinions about what happens when the water breaks : http://www.nbcnews.com/health/when-water-breaks-does-labor-need-be-induced-733244
When water breaks, does labor need to be induced?
Linda Carroll NBC News contributor
April 24, 2012 at 6:33 PM ET
Pregnant women have long been told that when their water breaks, they should be ready to deliver the baby within 24 hours to avoid infection. But a small new study suggests labor may not always need to be induced.
Dutch researchers concluded that in situations where the baby is three to six weeks early or pre-term, and when a woman's amniotic membranes have ruptured before labor has started, it’s best to simply wait and monitor the baby’s progress rather than forcing labor to begin, according to the study published in PLoS Medicine.
There were no fewer fetal blood infections nor breathing problems in babies when labor was induced compared with waiting and monitoring, the researchers found. However, inducing labor did lead to a slight reduction in uterine environment infections, a condition known as chorioamnionitis.
To take a closer look at whether there were any benefits of inducing labor, a team of researchers led by Dr. David van der Ham of the Maastricht University Medical Center randomly assigned 536 women whose water broke at 34 to 37 weeks gestation to be induced or simply to be watched and monitored.
Van der Ham and his colleagues found that among babies born late preterm with pre-labor rupture of the membranes -- water breaking before labor started -- the rate of sepsis and breathing problems did not go up if the babies were allowed to deliver on their own without intervention.
“We conclude that in pregnancies complicated by [preterm pre-labor rupture of the membranes] between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation that the incidence of neonatal sepsis is low,” the researchers wrote. And that means that induction of labor does not substantially improve pregnancy outcomes, they added.
Dr. Christian M. Pettker isn’t convinced that the new data support van der Ham’s conclusions, especially since the researchers also found that induction didn’t lead to an increase in the rate of C-sections.
The study wasn’t large enough to show definitively that waiting and monitoring doesn’t lead to an increased rate of blood infections in newborns, said Pettker, an assistant professor and medical director of the labor and birth section of maternal fetal medicine at the Yale University School of Medicine.
The fact that there was a higher rate of chorioamnionitis among deliveries that weren’t speeded up by induction suggests that the researchers might have seen a higher rate of blood infections if there had been more women in the study, Pettker explained.
That’s because chorioamnionitis raises the baby’s risk of blood infection.
“The study is too small for them to detect if induction is preventing infection in neonates,” Pettker said. “But it appears to be preventing infections before and during labor -- which might translate into a reduced risk of infection in the newborn.”
Ultimately, Pettker reads the data very differently than the Dutch researchers.
“There doesn’t seem to be a lot of risk in doing an induction,” Pettker said. “And there’s a possible benefit. Usually we worry about an increased Cesarean rate [with induction], but in this population there was not an increased risk for Cesarean in the group that was induced.”
Even if a larger study were to confirm this study’s results, Pettker believes that doctors will still offer to induce pregnant patients if their membranes rupture too soon.
“If there does not seem to be a difference between waiting and inducing, it ends up being a discussion between the patient and her providers. Some patients will prefer no intervention in their birth process, while others will feel more comfortable with moving on with things and going forward with an induction.”
Here is another writing that if water breaks it does not necessarily mean to induce labor... :
http://www.parents.com/advice/pregn...ns/what-happens-if-my-water-breaks-too-early/
What happens if my water breaks too early?
What happens if my water breaks too early? Does it mean I'll have to deliver my baby right away?
Submitted by Parents.com Team
Water breaking is a normal part of going into labor, but if it happens before your baby's ready to be born, the condition is called premature rupture of the membranes (PROM), which affects up to 10 percent of pregnant women. The main symptom is fluid that may either trickle or gush. If this happens before 37 weeks, it's called preterm PROM; this occurs in up to 3 percent of pregnancies. Having PROM or preterm PROM can lead to complications and may cause you to go on bed rest, but it doesn't necessarily mean your baby will be born right away.
The biggest risk from PROM is infection, since amniotic fluid prevents bacteria and other germs from infecting your baby. Once those membranes are broken, your baby is more vulnerable, and so your doctor will most likely have you go to the hospital where he or she can check you out and decide what to do next.
If you're near your due date (more than 34 weeks) you might go into labor on your own, or your doctor might decide to induce labor to minimize the risk of infection. Babies this age are usually born totally fine without any complications.
If your water breaks before 34 weeks, your doctor will probably give you antibiotics to fend off potential infections, plus steroids to help your baby's lungs develop. You may have to stay in the hospital to be monitored for signs of labor. Once you reach 34 weeks, your doctor will check to see that your baby's lungs are mature, and if they are, your baby will most likely be delivered then.
Although the causes of PROM aren't fully understood, certain women are more at risk, like those who smoke, are pregnant with twins or multiples, or have conditions like high blood pressure. Seeing your doctor regularly can help your doctor spot and treat issues that may increase your risk.
Copyright 2009
http://www.parents.com/advice/pregn...ns/what-happens-if-my-water-breaks-too-early/
What happens if my water breaks too early?
What happens if my water breaks too early? Does it mean I'll have to deliver my baby right away?
Submitted by Parents.com Team
Water breaking is a normal part of going into labor, but if it happens before your baby's ready to be born, the condition is called premature rupture of the membranes (PROM), which affects up to 10 percent of pregnant women. The main symptom is fluid that may either trickle or gush. If this happens before 37 weeks, it's called preterm PROM; this occurs in up to 3 percent of pregnancies. Having PROM or preterm PROM can lead to complications and may cause you to go on bed rest, but it doesn't necessarily mean your baby will be born right away.
The biggest risk from PROM is infection, since amniotic fluid prevents bacteria and other germs from infecting your baby. Once those membranes are broken, your baby is more vulnerable, and so your doctor will most likely have you go to the hospital where he or she can check you out and decide what to do next.
If you're near your due date (more than 34 weeks) you might go into labor on your own, or your doctor might decide to induce labor to minimize the risk of infection. Babies this age are usually born totally fine without any complications.
If your water breaks before 34 weeks, your doctor will probably give you antibiotics to fend off potential infections, plus steroids to help your baby's lungs develop. You may have to stay in the hospital to be monitored for signs of labor. Once you reach 34 weeks, your doctor will check to see that your baby's lungs are mature, and if they are, your baby will most likely be delivered then.
Although the causes of PROM aren't fully understood, certain women are more at risk, like those who smoke, are pregnant with twins or multiples, or have conditions like high blood pressure. Seeing your doctor regularly can help your doctor spot and treat issues that may increase your risk.
Copyright 2009
RiverJordan
Inactive
But the doctors in this case did none of that. They just sent her home with no information.
The fundamental question here is, when you go to a hospital in an emergency situation, are you looking for religious dogma, or medical treatment?
The fundamental question here is, when you go to a hospital in an emergency situation, are you looking for religious dogma, or medical treatment?
The doctors were not performing ''religious dogma'' as you state, where is religious dogma when it comes to abortion or telling a woman to go someplace else for abortion...? Where in the Bible, please show me...
She broke the water, she was sent home, as many other women have been sent home when their water breaks and the child is not ready to be born... did you not read any of the articles i just posted from doctors ? And as a woman who has had 2 prior children she had no idea what was going on...? Where is her regular doctor she probably was seeing and why did she not call him...? i have 2 children and 99.99% of women know , maybe not the first time around but by the third they know...
Religeous dogmas is a scapegoat here. Either the Doctors used it to justify their lack of compassion, or the lawyers are using it to ensure a bigger payout, or someone else is using it to further the abortion cause. That is all that has happened.
At the risk of sound like a know-it-all, this wouldn't be considered religious dogma. If this action was caused by Catholic diocese policies, this would fall under the "little t" tradition. This wouldn't be a dogmatic position of the Catholic Church.
That is if we're strictly speaking on the subject of abortion. In that case, abortion is regarded as an act of unjust killing and would in that case be a violation of the 5th commandment.
That is if we're strictly speaking on the subject of abortion. In that case, abortion is regarded as an act of unjust killing and would in that case be a violation of the 5th commandment.
Last edited:
If you want to draw an informative opinion, you must hear both sides of a story ..
1st of all, our Constitution says: the Gov can make no law restricting religion .. meaning it cannot force a religion ran hospital to give an abortion ..
2nd I know of no one not aware of the Catholic stance on abortion, so why if she was refused an abortion (because it was a Catholic hospital) did she go back to it ???
3rd the Hospital could not give prenatal care to her under the current Obama Care ..
Cardinal Timothy Dolan explained recently that the Catholic Church wanted to support President Barack Obama’s health care reform law but could not because it was “excluding the unborn.”
In an interview with NBC’s David Gregory that aired on Sunday, Dolan insisted that the Affordable Care Act put Catholic bishops in a “tough place because we’re for universal comprehensive life-affirming health care.”
“We’ve been asking for reform in health care for a long time, so we were kind of an early supporter in this,” he said. “Where we started bristling and saying, ‘Uh oh, this isn’t comprehensive because it’s excluding the undocumented immigrant and its excluding the unborn baby.’ So, we began to bristle at that.”
“And then secondly, we said, ‘And wait a minute, we Catholics who are among the pros when it comes to providing health care, do it because of our religious conviction and because the dictates of our conscience, and now we’re being asked to violate some of those,’” Dolan added. “So that’s where we begin to draw back and say, Mr. President, please, you’re really kind of pushing aside some of your greatest supporters here. We want to be with you, we want to be strong. And if you keep doing this, we’re not going to be able to be one of your cheerleaders.”
“And that, sadly, is what happened.”
In fact, the Affordable Care Act mandates that all insurance plans include maternity coverage for the so-called “unborn,” which was usually only offered as an rider prior to 2014.
And the law maintains the status quo on abortion coverage. Private insurance companies have the option of offering coverage, which some states have banned. Government funds can only pay for an abortion in the case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is at stake.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/...s-obamacare-because-its-excluding-the-unborn/
1st of all, our Constitution says: the Gov can make no law restricting religion .. meaning it cannot force a religion ran hospital to give an abortion ..
2nd I know of no one not aware of the Catholic stance on abortion, so why if she was refused an abortion (because it was a Catholic hospital) did she go back to it ???
3rd the Hospital could not give prenatal care to her under the current Obama Care ..
Cardinal Timothy Dolan explained recently that the Catholic Church wanted to support President Barack Obama’s health care reform law but could not because it was “excluding the unborn.”
In an interview with NBC’s David Gregory that aired on Sunday, Dolan insisted that the Affordable Care Act put Catholic bishops in a “tough place because we’re for universal comprehensive life-affirming health care.”
“We’ve been asking for reform in health care for a long time, so we were kind of an early supporter in this,” he said. “Where we started bristling and saying, ‘Uh oh, this isn’t comprehensive because it’s excluding the undocumented immigrant and its excluding the unborn baby.’ So, we began to bristle at that.”
“And then secondly, we said, ‘And wait a minute, we Catholics who are among the pros when it comes to providing health care, do it because of our religious conviction and because the dictates of our conscience, and now we’re being asked to violate some of those,’” Dolan added. “So that’s where we begin to draw back and say, Mr. President, please, you’re really kind of pushing aside some of your greatest supporters here. We want to be with you, we want to be strong. And if you keep doing this, we’re not going to be able to be one of your cheerleaders.”
“And that, sadly, is what happened.”
In fact, the Affordable Care Act mandates that all insurance plans include maternity coverage for the so-called “unborn,” which was usually only offered as an rider prior to 2014.
And the law maintains the status quo on abortion coverage. Private insurance companies have the option of offering coverage, which some states have banned. Government funds can only pay for an abortion in the case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is at stake.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/...s-obamacare-because-its-excluding-the-unborn/
If you want to draw an informative opinion, you must hear both sides of a story ..
1st of all, our Constitution says: the Gov can make no law restricting religion .. meaning it cannot force a religion ran hospital to give an abortion ..
2nd I know of no one not aware of the Catholic stance on abortion, so why if she was refused an abortion (because it was a Catholic hospital) did she go back to it ???
3rd the Hospital could not give prenatal care to her under the current Obama Care ..
Cardinal Timothy Dolan explained recently that the Catholic Church wanted to support President Barack Obama’s health care reform law but could not because it was “excluding the unborn.”
In an interview with NBC’s David Gregory that aired on Sunday, Dolan insisted that the Affordable Care Act put Catholic bishops in a “tough place because we’re for universal comprehensive life-affirming health care.”
“We’ve been asking for reform in health care for a long time, so we were kind of an early supporter in this,” he said. “Where we started bristling and saying, ‘Uh oh, this isn’t comprehensive because it’s excluding the undocumented immigrant and its excluding the unborn baby.’ So, we began to bristle at that.”
“And then secondly, we said, ‘And wait a minute, we Catholics who are among the pros when it comes to providing health care, do it because of our religious conviction and because the dictates of our conscience, and now we’re being asked to violate some of those,’” Dolan added. “So that’s where we begin to draw back and say, Mr. President, please, you’re really kind of pushing aside some of your greatest supporters here. We want to be with you, we want to be strong. And if you keep doing this, we’re not going to be able to be one of your cheerleaders.”
“And that, sadly, is what happened.”
In fact, the Affordable Care Act mandates that all insurance plans include maternity coverage for the so-called “unborn,” which was usually only offered as an rider prior to 2014.
And the law maintains the status quo on abortion coverage. Private insurance companies have the option of offering coverage, which some states have banned. Government funds can only pay for an abortion in the case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is at stake.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/...s-obamacare-because-its-excluding-the-unborn/
1st of all, our Constitution says: the Gov can make no law restricting religion .. meaning it cannot force a religion ran hospital to give an abortion ..
2nd I know of no one not aware of the Catholic stance on abortion, so why if she was refused an abortion (because it was a Catholic hospital) did she go back to it ???
3rd the Hospital could not give prenatal care to her under the current Obama Care ..
Cardinal Timothy Dolan explained recently that the Catholic Church wanted to support President Barack Obama’s health care reform law but could not because it was “excluding the unborn.”
In an interview with NBC’s David Gregory that aired on Sunday, Dolan insisted that the Affordable Care Act put Catholic bishops in a “tough place because we’re for universal comprehensive life-affirming health care.”
“We’ve been asking for reform in health care for a long time, so we were kind of an early supporter in this,” he said. “Where we started bristling and saying, ‘Uh oh, this isn’t comprehensive because it’s excluding the undocumented immigrant and its excluding the unborn baby.’ So, we began to bristle at that.”
“And then secondly, we said, ‘And wait a minute, we Catholics who are among the pros when it comes to providing health care, do it because of our religious conviction and because the dictates of our conscience, and now we’re being asked to violate some of those,’” Dolan added. “So that’s where we begin to draw back and say, Mr. President, please, you’re really kind of pushing aside some of your greatest supporters here. We want to be with you, we want to be strong. And if you keep doing this, we’re not going to be able to be one of your cheerleaders.”
“And that, sadly, is what happened.”
In fact, the Affordable Care Act mandates that all insurance plans include maternity coverage for the so-called “unborn,” which was usually only offered as an rider prior to 2014.
And the law maintains the status quo on abortion coverage. Private insurance companies have the option of offering coverage, which some states have banned. Government funds can only pay for an abortion in the case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is at stake.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/...s-obamacare-because-its-excluding-the-unborn/
as you can see from the map, there are 5 more hospitals in that location ..
https://www.google.com/maps/vt/data...jjcLdqmpZcBqPuQJnmvQWBHaS0gx3nFRcHDHFLmhUDxNg
https://www.google.com/maps/vt/data...jjcLdqmpZcBqPuQJnmvQWBHaS0gx3nFRcHDHFLmhUDxNg
With all due respect here, but what is the dogma...? Would any other non-Catholic doctor but one that follows Christ tell her she should go and have another doctor perform abortion...? The Bishops are very clear when it comes to LIFE of the unborn, and does it say anywhere in the Bible that the mother has to be saved if the choice is either mother or child...? Why are so many transgressing from the teachings of the Bible when it comes to the Catholic stance on abortion...? i have shown in two different expert writings that just because a woman breaks her water does not necessarily mean to induce labor... but we ALL know that the ACLU is anti-Christian and by their action of suing the Bishops they are trying to destroy the Catholic faith, one of the few that makes no qualms about the ''line in the sand''... of course the millions $$$ they think they will get is what they are truly after ... look at all the lawsuits they have brought against Catholic churches or anything Christian for that matter...
- Status