Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Old Blue Collar Joe

TrueLore

Old Blue Collar Joe

You haven't provided an argument other than 'they should have to do them cuz it makes life easier for dumbasses!, which isn't an argument, it's whining.

Suicidesoldier#1

TrueLore

Suicidesoldier#1

lol you are way off base.

It's evident you have no idea what you are talking about.


Any who, while it's theoretically easy to preform and abortion I don't think we should allow anyone to preform them that isn't specifically set up to preform them.

Nor should we with any theoretical medical operation; heart surgery is easy, all it requires is a scalpel!


Just saying.

"No you" is a very childish form of argument. It's clear because you've completely ignored my entire argument and instead are trying to push this nonsense as an argument when it's clear that you don't even know what you are talking about. But sadly the President has decided to reverse his decision, thus making this discussion pointless.

So I suppose you win, and employers continue to violate the law by ignoring that for the past 10 years they've been supposed to supply birth control to female workers per legal mandate, and that hospitals in many areas, including my own, which are all controlled by Catholics can continue to oppress women including non-Catholic women by pushing religious rights down their throats. Huzzah?

Go to a different hospital?

I mean it's really not that difficult.


And I didn't ignore your argument.

Your argument is that abortions are an easy operation that anyone can do- my argument is that while this CAN be true, we shouldn't preform delicate medical operations with individuals or in places that aren't absolutely amazing at it.


Saying we could use some surgical tubing and sharp knives to get it done is ridiculous.

The same could be said about any surgery but the issue isn't ever cutting into a person but getting them to survive with little complications afterwords.


You knick the wrong blood vessel a person could ******** die, let alone get an infection.

Let's leave the job to professionals who WANT to do the operation eh?

Oh look I can hit two birds with one stone as I can respond to both of you with the same exact message. You both have ignored my original argument. This was my original argument.

TrueLore

The argument that the government should respect an establishments rights for choosing to not partake in abortion and related services that it finds unethical fails when you replace abortion with... just about anything else. Because of this I feel that the comparisons to allowing racism is permissible and accurate.

Really, the point is that medical facilities should perform medical operations, regardless of religious affiliations. If they care so much about their conscience then they should liquidate their medical operations and let people who are actually serious about performing medicine take over.

TrueLore

It works because it fits.

Establishment Catholic Church should not perform Abortions because it finds it unethical.

Establishment X should not perform Y because it finds it unethical.

Establishment Catholic Church should not perform Medical Operations with Jews because it finds it unethical.

Establishments that are medical should perform medical operations, regardless of politics or religious opinion. If a Catholic Church wants to run a respectable medical facility it should perform medical operations, even ones that it disagrees with for religious reasons. If they don't want to perform abortions and sterilization, then they shouldn't be practicing medicine. Allowing them to be prejudiced over such operations opens up a valid slippery slope for allowing any facility to choose not to do whatever operation for whatever reason, including explicitly racist ones. If you are going to make an exception for one religious belief, you must do so for all, including ones that are disagreeable. If the Catholic Church was complaining because it was being forced to operate medical procedures on Jews, I highly doubt you would be trying to argue in favor for it. But logically speaking, you must should the case arrive if you support their choice to not perform abortions and sterilization.

Either religious opinions are important or they are not. You can't pick and choose the religious opinions you are in favor of and ignore the ones you aren't. It is my opinion and stance that it is far easier and efficient and makes far more sense to simply state that religious opinions are not important with regards to medical facilities performing medical operations. To do otherwise to set a precedence that can, not that it will- but can, lead down a road none of us would support (religious reasons to opt not to perform operations due to race/ethnicity, gender, social status, etc.).

Suicidesoldier jumped in a little later so I suppose he has an excuse as I didn't reiterate my point, allowing this tangent to go on too long, but this is the point that has been completely ignored by all parties.

Now Suicidesoldier brings up a good point, we need trained professionals to perform abortions, else we have stories like this. I think a lot of people don't understand exactly what lengths a person will go to not have a child they don't want. A lot of people assume that a facility that does abortions can do all abortions, that they won't turn down people because they don't have insurance- they do; that they won't throw women through several hoops often delaying the abortion indefinitely- they do. That often the only option is a shady back-ally doctor with a rusty knife, or yourself with a clothesline. This isn't a simple matter of "just find another hospital". There are numerous areas where that is the only hospital around, and not everyone has access to the Internet, access to money, access to transportation, access to any amount of information. Catholic hospitals systemically refuse to provide even information for how to obtain an abortion, and they will sooner let the woman die than provide medical care that isn't friendly to the fetus, such as much-needed chemo-therapy for rapidly growing cancer cells.

Another appeal to emotion. The hospitals are religious owned and operated. They do not, and should not, have to perform abortions. Period. 'Ease' has nothing to do with it. Don't what to get pregnant? Don't ******** or take it up the a**, or learn to swallow. But the stupid belief that a group should have to bend THEIR hospital to make someone else life less hard? Besides, insurance for poor people is government funded predominately, and doesn't cover abortions anyway, so what was that about? It's a fallacy.
The hospital also does NOT turn away emergency abortions, which are an entirely different issue and just proves you're a blatant liar.

Or we might say that religious beliefs are not an excuse to make the lives of unwillingly pregnant women harder by denying them abortions.

It is all very well to argue that it is appropriate for a religious organisation to be exempt from performing certain procedures due to their beliefs, but you are ignoring the facts of what this causes and the role of values in this situation.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

TrueLore

Old Blue Collar Joe

TrueLore

Old Blue Collar Joe

You haven't provided an argument other than 'they should have to do them cuz it makes life easier for dumbasses!, which isn't an argument, it's whining.

Suicidesoldier#1

TrueLore

"No you" is a very childish form of argument. It's clear because you've completely ignored my entire argument and instead are trying to push this nonsense as an argument when it's clear that you don't even know what you are talking about. But sadly the President has decided to reverse his decision, thus making this discussion pointless.

So I suppose you win, and employers continue to violate the law by ignoring that for the past 10 years they've been supposed to supply birth control to female workers per legal mandate, and that hospitals in many areas, including my own, which are all controlled by Catholics can continue to oppress women including non-Catholic women by pushing religious rights down their throats. Huzzah?

Go to a different hospital?

I mean it's really not that difficult.


And I didn't ignore your argument.

Your argument is that abortions are an easy operation that anyone can do- my argument is that while this CAN be true, we shouldn't preform delicate medical operations with individuals or in places that aren't absolutely amazing at it.


Saying we could use some surgical tubing and sharp knives to get it done is ridiculous.

The same could be said about any surgery but the issue isn't ever cutting into a person but getting them to survive with little complications afterwords.


You knick the wrong blood vessel a person could ******** die, let alone get an infection.

Let's leave the job to professionals who WANT to do the operation eh?

Oh look I can hit two birds with one stone as I can respond to both of you with the same exact message. You both have ignored my original argument. This was my original argument.

TrueLore

The argument that the government should respect an establishments rights for choosing to not partake in abortion and related services that it finds unethical fails when you replace abortion with... just about anything else. Because of this I feel that the comparisons to allowing racism is permissible and accurate.

Really, the point is that medical facilities should perform medical operations, regardless of religious affiliations. If they care so much about their conscience then they should liquidate their medical operations and let people who are actually serious about performing medicine take over.

TrueLore

It works because it fits.

Establishment Catholic Church should not perform Abortions because it finds it unethical.

Establishment X should not perform Y because it finds it unethical.

Establishment Catholic Church should not perform Medical Operations with Jews because it finds it unethical.

Establishments that are medical should perform medical operations, regardless of politics or religious opinion. If a Catholic Church wants to run a respectable medical facility it should perform medical operations, even ones that it disagrees with for religious reasons. If they don't want to perform abortions and sterilization, then they shouldn't be practicing medicine. Allowing them to be prejudiced over such operations opens up a valid slippery slope for allowing any facility to choose not to do whatever operation for whatever reason, including explicitly racist ones. If you are going to make an exception for one religious belief, you must do so for all, including ones that are disagreeable. If the Catholic Church was complaining because it was being forced to operate medical procedures on Jews, I highly doubt you would be trying to argue in favor for it. But logically speaking, you must should the case arrive if you support their choice to not perform abortions and sterilization.

Either religious opinions are important or they are not. You can't pick and choose the religious opinions you are in favor of and ignore the ones you aren't. It is my opinion and stance that it is far easier and efficient and makes far more sense to simply state that religious opinions are not important with regards to medical facilities performing medical operations. To do otherwise to set a precedence that can, not that it will- but can, lead down a road none of us would support (religious reasons to opt not to perform operations due to race/ethnicity, gender, social status, etc.).

Suicidesoldier jumped in a little later so I suppose he has an excuse as I didn't reiterate my point, allowing this tangent to go on too long, but this is the point that has been completely ignored by all parties.

Now Suicidesoldier brings up a good point, we need trained professionals to perform abortions, else we have stories like this. I think a lot of people don't understand exactly what lengths a person will go to not have a child they don't want. A lot of people assume that a facility that does abortions can do all abortions, that they won't turn down people because they don't have insurance- they do; that they won't throw women through several hoops often delaying the abortion indefinitely- they do. That often the only option is a shady back-ally doctor with a rusty knife, or yourself with a clothesline. This isn't a simple matter of "just find another hospital". There are numerous areas where that is the only hospital around, and not everyone has access to the Internet, access to money, access to transportation, access to any amount of information. Catholic hospitals systemically refuse to provide even information for how to obtain an abortion, and they will sooner let the woman die than provide medical care that isn't friendly to the fetus, such as much-needed chemo-therapy for rapidly growing cancer cells.

Another appeal to emotion. The hospitals are religious owned and operated. They do not, and should not, have to perform abortions. Period. 'Ease' has nothing to do with it. Don't what to get pregnant? Don't ******** or take it up the a**, or learn to swallow. But the stupid belief that a group should have to bend THEIR hospital to make someone else life less hard? Besides, insurance for poor people is government funded predominately, and doesn't cover abortions anyway, so what was that about? It's a fallacy.
The hospital also does NOT turn away emergency abortions, which are an entirely different issue and just proves you're a blatant liar.

While it is strictly against the law to deny emergency abortion in the ER, Catholic hospitals have been known to do so.

You've been increasingly hostile towards me, have shifted your argument numerous times, and seem to be fond of blatantly misinterpreting or ignoring points in my argument if not the argument altogether. At this point I'm tempted to just toss you on Ignore unless you become more civil as well as stick to your argument.

Are you honestly taking the stance that having a child should be punishment for women who who don't abstain from having sex that isn't a**l or oral? I'm not talking about insurance for poor people but people who don't have insurance. The existence of hospitals is essentially making life easier. Not having a child makes life easier by allowing greater choice in how one lives their life, and gives them time to gain an education and establish better living conditions for future children they may plan to have. Being religiously owned and operated should have nothing to do with performing basic functions of being a hospital. If these were operated by the Jehovah's Witnesses would you argue that they have every right to deny people blood transfusions?

Not one time have I called for the outlawing of abortion, nor will you hear me do so. But I will defend any organizations rights to NOT provide a non-emergency abortion to anyone if that is against their beliefs.

[TrueLore]

Old Blue Collar Joe

TrueLore

Old Blue Collar Joe

TrueLore

Old Blue Collar Joe

You haven't provided an argument other than 'they should have to do them cuz it makes life easier for dumbasses!, which isn't an argument, it's whining.

Suicidesoldier#1

Go to a different hospital?

I mean it's really not that difficult.


And I didn't ignore your argument.

Your argument is that abortions are an easy operation that anyone can do- my argument is that while this CAN be true, we shouldn't preform delicate medical operations with individuals or in places that aren't absolutely amazing at it.


Saying we could use some surgical tubing and sharp knives to get it done is ridiculous.

The same could be said about any surgery but the issue isn't ever cutting into a person but getting them to survive with little complications afterwords.


You knick the wrong blood vessel a person could ******** die, let alone get an infection.

Let's leave the job to professionals who WANT to do the operation eh?

Oh look I can hit two birds with one stone as I can respond to both of you with the same exact message. You both have ignored my original argument. This was my original argument.

TrueLore

The argument that the government should respect an establishments rights for choosing to not partake in abortion and related services that it finds unethical fails when you replace abortion with... just about anything else. Because of this I feel that the comparisons to allowing racism is permissible and accurate.

Really, the point is that medical facilities should perform medical operations, regardless of religious affiliations. If they care so much about their conscience then they should liquidate their medical operations and let people who are actually serious about performing medicine take over.

TrueLore

It works because it fits.

Establishment Catholic Church should not perform Abortions because it finds it unethical.

Establishment X should not perform Y because it finds it unethical.

Establishment Catholic Church should not perform Medical Operations with Jews because it finds it unethical.

Establishments that are medical should perform medical operations, regardless of politics or religious opinion. If a Catholic Church wants to run a respectable medical facility it should perform medical operations, even ones that it disagrees with for religious reasons. If they don't want to perform abortions and sterilization, then they shouldn't be practicing medicine. Allowing them to be prejudiced over such operations opens up a valid slippery slope for allowing any facility to choose not to do whatever operation for whatever reason, including explicitly racist ones. If you are going to make an exception for one religious belief, you must do so for all, including ones that are disagreeable. If the Catholic Church was complaining because it was being forced to operate medical procedures on Jews, I highly doubt you would be trying to argue in favor for it. But logically speaking, you must should the case arrive if you support their choice to not perform abortions and sterilization.

Either religious opinions are important or they are not. You can't pick and choose the religious opinions you are in favor of and ignore the ones you aren't. It is my opinion and stance that it is far easier and efficient and makes far more sense to simply state that religious opinions are not important with regards to medical facilities performing medical operations. To do otherwise to set a precedence that can, not that it will- but can, lead down a road none of us would support (religious reasons to opt not to perform operations due to race/ethnicity, gender, social status, etc.).

Suicidesoldier jumped in a little later so I suppose he has an excuse as I didn't reiterate my point, allowing this tangent to go on too long, but this is the point that has been completely ignored by all parties.

Now Suicidesoldier brings up a good point, we need trained professionals to perform abortions, else we have stories like this. I think a lot of people don't understand exactly what lengths a person will go to not have a child they don't want. A lot of people assume that a facility that does abortions can do all abortions, that they won't turn down people because they don't have insurance- they do; that they won't throw women through several hoops often delaying the abortion indefinitely- they do. That often the only option is a shady back-ally doctor with a rusty knife, or yourself with a clothesline. This isn't a simple matter of "just find another hospital". There are numerous areas where that is the only hospital around, and not everyone has access to the Internet, access to money, access to transportation, access to any amount of information. Catholic hospitals systemically refuse to provide even information for how to obtain an abortion, and they will sooner let the woman die than provide medical care that isn't friendly to the fetus, such as much-needed chemo-therapy for rapidly growing cancer cells.

Another appeal to emotion. The hospitals are religious owned and operated. They do not, and should not, have to perform abortions. Period. 'Ease' has nothing to do with it. Don't what to get pregnant? Don't ******** or take it up the a**, or learn to swallow. But the stupid belief that a group should have to bend THEIR hospital to make someone else life less hard? Besides, insurance for poor people is government funded predominately, and doesn't cover abortions anyway, so what was that about? It's a fallacy.
The hospital also does NOT turn away emergency abortions, which are an entirely different issue and just proves you're a blatant liar.

While it is strictly against the law to deny emergency abortion in the ER, Catholic hospitals have been known to do so.

You've been increasingly hostile towards me, have shifted your argument numerous times, and seem to be fond of blatantly misinterpreting or ignoring points in my argument if not the argument altogether. At this point I'm tempted to just toss you on Ignore unless you become more civil as well as stick to your argument.

Are you honestly taking the stance that having a child should be punishment for women who who don't abstain from having sex that isn't a**l or oral? I'm not talking about insurance for poor people but people who don't have insurance. The existence of hospitals is essentially making life easier. Not having a child makes life easier by allowing greater choice in how one lives their life, and gives them time to gain an education and establish better living conditions for future children they may plan to have. Being religiously owned and operated should have nothing to do with performing basic functions of being a hospital. If these were operated by the Jehovah's Witnesses would you argue that they have every right to deny people blood transfusions?

Not one time have I called for the outlawing of abortion, nor will you hear me do so. But I will defend any organizations rights to NOT provide a non-emergency abortion to anyone if that is against their beliefs.

Please answer the questions or we are done.

[Tuah]

Killing rape victims is part of my religion.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

TrueLore

While it is strictly against the law to deny emergency abortion in the ER, Catholic hospitals have been known to do so.

You've been increasingly hostile towards me, have shifted your argument numerous times, and seem to be fond of blatantly misinterpreting or ignoring points in my argument if not the argument altogether. At this point I'm tempted to just toss you on Ignore unless you become more civil as well as stick to your argument.

Are you honestly taking the stance that having a child should be punishment for women who who don't abstain from having sex that isn't a**l or oral? I'm not talking about insurance for poor people but people who don't have insurance. The existence of hospitals is essentially making life easier. Not having a child makes life easier by allowing greater choice in how one lives their life, and gives them time to gain an education and establish better living conditions for future children they may plan to have. Being religiously owned and operated should have nothing to do with performing basic functions of being a hospital. If these were operated by the Jehovah's Witnesses would you argue that they have every right to deny people blood transfusions?

Not one time have I called for the outlawing of abortion, nor will you hear me do so. But I will defend any organizations rights to NOT provide a non-emergency abortion to anyone if that is against their beliefs.Please answer the questions or we are done.

I'm not being hostile. I simply refuse to back down on an issue of forcing a privately owned establishment from performing an elective procedure they refuse to do.
Never once said a child should be a punishment. Anyone that views a child as such should be sterilized in my opinion, because that proves to me they are unfit to be parents.
It's also significantly cheaper to go to an abortion clinic, even if someone has to go out of town over night, than to spend a night in a hospital.
An abortion isn't a basic function that should be provided. It is to treat the ill and infirm, as well as the sick.
And on the issue of Witnesses refusing to do the blood issue? I hope you're aware that, because of their stance, a lot of surgeries that used to be done under messy conditions, with risk of death by disease from transfusion.
Bloodless surgery.
If you google it, there's a ton of information on it.
My issue is, while this is, obviously an emotional issue for many, it's also to be weighed by the organizations that own said facility and their rules.

[TrueLore]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Not one time have I called for the outlawing of abortion, nor will you hear me do so. But I will defend any organizations rights to NOT provide a non-emergency abortion to anyone if that is against their beliefs.

I'm not being hostile. I simply refuse to back down on an issue of forcing a privately owned establishment from performing an elective procedure they refuse to do.
Never once said a child should be a punishment. Anyone that views a child as such should be sterilized in my opinion, because that proves to me they are unfit to be parents.
It's also significantly cheaper to go to an abortion clinic, even if someone has to go out of town over night, than to spend a night in a hospital.
An abortion isn't a basic function that should be provided. It is to treat the ill and infirm, as well as the sick.
And on the issue of Witnesses refusing to do the blood issue? I hope you're aware that, because of their stance, a lot of surgeries that used to be done under messy conditions, with risk of death by disease from transfusion.
Bloodless surgery.
If you google it, there's a ton of information on it.
My issue is, while this is, obviously an emotional issue for many, it's also to be weighed by the organizations that own said facility and their rules.

I would agree with you, but Catholic Hospitals, as with all hospitals, receive funding from the Federal Government, meaning "Our Taxpayer dollars at work". So if the government required they provide certain cervices, they better damn well provide, and if the people who pay these taxes request that service, they better damn well provide. A physician has no business keeping his or her own needs above the needs of his or her own patient. So I can't agree with the argument. This isn't about "People need more options", because, as you say, they exist. And even in the cases where they don't, it's a matter of just building and funding more facilities that would provide it. My argument is not that Catholic Hospitals should provide these services because "If they don't, who would?" But that they should provide them because they are federally funded hospitals that serve the people of this nation, not themselves.

If it were the case that they didn't receive a penny from the Federal Government, then I would agree with you. They are free to use their money as they see fit. But that's not true.

The only time the following would be relevant;

Quote:

Don't what to get pregnant? Don't ******** or take it up the a**, or learn to swallow.

Would be if you were trying to argue that having a child was a just punishment. So if you aren't saying it's a punishment I'll take it as a completely irrelevant statement.

I don't see the relevance of bloodless surgery, I was talking about blood transfusions when they are required. I'm talking about medically necessary or gray-area requirement of blood transfusions. That is, should patients have access to the full range of health care available? Would a Witness Hospital be correct to delay blood transfusions until it's the only possible option, even at the risk of the patients life?

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

TrueLore

Old Blue Collar Joe

Not one time have I called for the outlawing of abortion, nor will you hear me do so. But I will defend any organizations rights to NOT provide a non-emergency abortion to anyone if that is against their beliefs.

I'm not being hostile. I simply refuse to back down on an issue of forcing a privately owned establishment from performing an elective procedure they refuse to do.
Never once said a child should be a punishment. Anyone that views a child as such should be sterilized in my opinion, because that proves to me they are unfit to be parents.
It's also significantly cheaper to go to an abortion clinic, even if someone has to go out of town over night, than to spend a night in a hospital.
An abortion isn't a basic function that should be provided. It is to treat the ill and infirm, as well as the sick.
And on the issue of Witnesses refusing to do the blood issue? I hope you're aware that, because of their stance, a lot of surgeries that used to be done under messy conditions, with risk of death by disease from transfusion.
Bloodless surgery.
If you google it, there's a ton of information on it.
My issue is, while this is, obviously an emotional issue for many, it's also to be weighed by the organizations that own said facility and their rules.

I would agree with you, but Catholic Hospitals, as with all hospitals, receive funding from the Federal Government, meaning "Our Taxpayer dollars at work". So if the government required they provide certain cervices, they better damn well provide, and if the people who pay these taxes request that service, they better damn well provide. A physician has no business keeping his or her own needs above the needs of his or her own patient. So I can't agree with the argument. This isn't about "People need more options", because, as you say, they exist. And even in the cases where they don't, it's a matter of just building and funding more facilities that would provide it. My argument is not that Catholic Hospitals should provide these services because "If they don't, who would?" But that they should provide them because they are federally funded hospitals that serve the people of this nation, not themselves.

If it were the case that they didn't receive a penny from the Federal Government, then I would agree with you. They are free to use their money as they see fit. But that's not true.

The only time the following would be relevant;

Quote:

Don't what to get pregnant? Don't ******** or take it up the a**, or learn to swallow.

Would be if you were trying to argue that having a child was a just punishment. So if you aren't saying it's a punishment I'll take it as a completely irrelevant statement.

I don't see the relevance of bloodless surgery, I was talking about blood transfusions when they are required. I'm talking about medically necessary or gray-area requirement of blood transfusions. That is, should patients have access to the full range of health care available? Would a Witness Hospital be correct to delay blood transfusions until it's the only possible option, even at the risk of the patients life?

The only reason that hospitals exist is not for elective surgeries, but rather, as treatment facilities for long term care of serious injury and illness. An elective abortion is not such.
If you want to take the funds away, start a movement to do so. Just remember to weigh the pro's and con's, because what will happen is you'll see a lot of them close, and then the uninsured and poor are royally ********, because they no longer have a non-profit hospital to go to. They have one that is out to make a dollar.
Blood transfusions are not required. You missed the point. The reason that the Red Cross and other organizations similar do not want to see a growth in bloodless operations, quite bluntly, is profit.
If you'd read the article, one can spend over 20k more on an operation WITH blood over bloodless surgery, heal faster, virtually eliminate blood born pathogens and other such things.
The issue with 'blood loss' isn't really the loss of blood. It's plasma.
But again, now you're veering off into emergency procedures, which are an ER only aspect.
No hospital in the country is required by law to provide abortions on demand. Nor should they be.

[TrueLore]

Old Blue Collar Joe

TrueLore

Old Blue Collar Joe

Not one time have I called for the outlawing of abortion, nor will you hear me do so. But I will defend any organizations rights to NOT provide a non-emergency abortion to anyone if that is against their beliefs.

I'm not being hostile. I simply refuse to back down on an issue of forcing a privately owned establishment from performing an elective procedure they refuse to do.
Never once said a child should be a punishment. Anyone that views a child as such should be sterilized in my opinion, because that proves to me they are unfit to be parents.
It's also significantly cheaper to go to an abortion clinic, even if someone has to go out of town over night, than to spend a night in a hospital.
An abortion isn't a basic function that should be provided. It is to treat the ill and infirm, as well as the sick.
And on the issue of Witnesses refusing to do the blood issue? I hope you're aware that, because of their stance, a lot of surgeries that used to be done under messy conditions, with risk of death by disease from transfusion.
Bloodless surgery.
If you google it, there's a ton of information on it.
My issue is, while this is, obviously an emotional issue for many, it's also to be weighed by the organizations that own said facility and their rules.

I would agree with you, but Catholic Hospitals, as with all hospitals, receive funding from the Federal Government, meaning "Our Taxpayer dollars at work". So if the government required they provide certain cervices, they better damn well provide, and if the people who pay these taxes request that service, they better damn well provide. A physician has no business keeping his or her own needs above the needs of his or her own patient. So I can't agree with the argument. This isn't about "People need more options", because, as you say, they exist. And even in the cases where they don't, it's a matter of just building and funding more facilities that would provide it. My argument is not that Catholic Hospitals should provide these services because "If they don't, who would?" But that they should provide them because they are federally funded hospitals that serve the people of this nation, not themselves.

If it were the case that they didn't receive a penny from the Federal Government, then I would agree with you. They are free to use their money as they see fit. But that's not true.

The only time the following would be relevant;

Quote:

Don't what to get pregnant? Don't ******** or take it up the a**, or learn to swallow.

Would be if you were trying to argue that having a child was a just punishment. So if you aren't saying it's a punishment I'll take it as a completely irrelevant statement.

I don't see the relevance of bloodless surgery, I was talking about blood transfusions when they are required. I'm talking about medically necessary or gray-area requirement of blood transfusions. That is, should patients have access to the full range of health care available? Would a Witness Hospital be correct to delay blood transfusions until it's the only possible option, even at the risk of the patients life?

The only reason that hospitals exist is not for elective surgeries, but rather, as treatment facilities for long term care of serious injury and illness. An elective abortion is not such.
If you want to take the funds away, start a movement to do so. Just remember to weigh the pro's and con's, because what will happen is you'll see a lot of them close, and then the uninsured and poor are royally ********, because they no longer have a non-profit hospital to go to. They have one that is out to make a dollar.
Blood transfusions are not required. You missed the point. The reason that the Red Cross and other organizations similar do not want to see a growth in bloodless operations, quite bluntly, is profit.
If you'd read the article, one can spend over 20k more on an operation WITH blood over bloodless surgery, heal faster, virtually eliminate blood born pathogens and other such things.
The issue with 'blood loss' isn't really the loss of blood. It's plasma.
But again, now you're veering off into emergency procedures, which are an ER only aspect.
No hospital in the country is required by law to provide abortions on demand. Nor should they be.

I think you are missing the point, both on the issue at hand and the blood transfusion issue. Whether blood transfusions are efficient or not isn't the issue. If it is, great, but let me rephrase it with a different point; What if a hospital ran by Religion X, having it in religious dogma the law "Thou shall not treat the infidel, let them rot" or some such nonsense, argued that being mandated by the government to treat people who aren't of their faith in the hospitals that they own was a breach of religious freedom? Would you still support it? Or do you only support it if it's something you agree with?

To put it bluntly, are you here arguing because you are for religious freedom or that you hate women oppose abortion on demand?

The entire point of this government mandate is to make birth control and sterilization widely available to the American populace. Asserting that hospitals shouldn't have anything to do with this completely ignores that this is exactly what the mandate was attempting to do. You would, if President Obama didn't compromise on the subject already, have to argue why the Catholic hospitals, which are only Catholic-owned employers of doctors of all faiths or no faith, should be an exception compared to every other hospital.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

TrueLore

[I think you are missing the point, both on the issue at hand and the blood transfusion issue. Whether blood transfusions are efficient or not isn't the issue. If it is, great, but let me rephrase it with a different point; What if a hospital ran by Religion X, having it in religious dogma the law "Thou shall not treat the infidel, let them rot" or some such nonsense, argued that being mandated by the government to treat people who aren't of their faith in the hospitals that they own was a breach of religious freedom? Would you still support it? Or do you only support it if it's something you agree with?

To put it bluntly, are you here arguing because you are for religious freedom or that you hate women oppose abortion on demand?

The entire point of this government mandate is to make birth control and sterilization widely available to the American populace. Asserting that hospitals shouldn't have anything to do with this completely ignores that this is exactly what the mandate was attempting to do. You would, if President Obama didn't compromise on the subject already, have to argue why the Catholic hospitals, which are only Catholic-owned employers of doctors of all faiths or no faith, should be an exception compared to every other hospital.

If religion X starts a hospital, and they pay for it completely out of their own pocket, I have no issue with them being a private hospital that only treats their own religious followers, but provides emergency care to stabilize and transfer a non-believer to another facility. (Already happens, but it's not religious based. Rich hospitals will transfer a poor patient in a heartbeat.)
Of course, at that point in time, they could not have one cent of federal money. Which brings up another point. You are aware that if a hospital performs an elective abortion and tries to bill the feds, they get told to get ********, right? Because it is illegal to use federal insurance or funds for abortion unless it is a life threatening situation. That goes for ALL hospitals.
Remember, military hospitals do not perform elective abortions. They are banned by law.
I'm here debating the issue because one persons convenience does not have a right to trump another person or groups beliefs, if that group pays for their facility out of their pocket.
Just as if it were a hospital that said 'sorry, our entire staff is gay, and we only serve gays', but they weren't breaking any laws and provided emergency care long enough to stabilize a patient and transfer them to a facility that would perform what they wanted? Go for it.
And the law has absolutely nothing to do with sterilization. It's about providing birth control, and dipshit is already backpedaling, but it's not going to work too well, because he's already got dems pissed at him as well as reps.
We'll see where it ends up at. I would be surprised if there isn't a full repeal of this.

[TrueLore]

Old Blue Collar Joe

TrueLore

[I think you are missing the point, both on the issue at hand and the blood transfusion issue. Whether blood transfusions are efficient or not isn't the issue. If it is, great, but let me rephrase it with a different point; What if a hospital ran by Religion X, having it in religious dogma the law "Thou shall not treat the infidel, let them rot" or some such nonsense, argued that being mandated by the government to treat people who aren't of their faith in the hospitals that they own was a breach of religious freedom? Would you still support it? Or do you only support it if it's something you agree with?

To put it bluntly, are you here arguing because you are for religious freedom or that you hate women oppose abortion on demand?

The entire point of this government mandate is to make birth control and sterilization widely available to the American populace. Asserting that hospitals shouldn't have anything to do with this completely ignores that this is exactly what the mandate was attempting to do. You would, if President Obama didn't compromise on the subject already, have to argue why the Catholic hospitals, which are only Catholic-owned employers of doctors of all faiths or no faith, should be an exception compared to every other hospital.

If religion X starts a hospital, and they pay for it completely out of their own pocket, I have no issue with them being a private hospital that only treats their own religious followers, but provides emergency care to stabilize and transfer a non-believer to another facility. (Already happens, but it's not religious based. Rich hospitals will transfer a poor patient in a heartbeat.)
Of course, at that point in time, they could not have one cent of federal money. Which brings up another point. You are aware that if a hospital performs an elective abortion and tries to bill the feds, they get told to get ********, right? Because it is illegal to use federal insurance or funds for abortion unless it is a life threatening situation. That goes for ALL hospitals.
Remember, military hospitals do not perform elective abortions. They are banned by law.
I'm here debating the issue because one persons convenience does not have a right to trump another person or groups beliefs, if that group pays for their facility out of their pocket.
Just as if it were a hospital that said 'sorry, our entire staff is gay, and we only serve gays', but they weren't breaking any laws and provided emergency care long enough to stabilize a patient and transfer them to a facility that would perform what they wanted? Go for it.
And the law has absolutely nothing to do with sterilization. It's about providing birth control, and dipshit is already backpedaling, but it's not going to work too well, because he's already got dems pissed at him as well as reps.
We'll see where it ends up at. I would be surprised if there isn't a full repeal of this.

First of all, as it stands it's the Insurance companies who are required by law to fund contraceptive/abortion/sterilization procedures. Hospitals don't bill the feds on that, they bill insurance.

Secondly, I'm not talking about elective abortion, I'm talking about contraceptive/abortion/sterilization procedures and whatever that entails, which is a wide range of stuff. Narrowing it down to just "elective abortion" and trying to argue against that is pure sophistry.

Catholic Hospitals are named such because they are owned by the Catholic Church. The doctors who work there aren't necessarily Catholic, no one who works there necessarily are and in many cases are not. Catholic Hospitals are not entirely privately funded, and they all receive financial aid from the government. This isn't a violation of consciousness for the workers at the hospital, as there will always be someone willing to actually do their damn job. The only "violation" is the demand from the Catholic Church that the hospital do not perform abortion, contraceptive, or sterilization, this includes rape victims, denying women medical attention if it will harm the fetus, and strong-arming physicians to find other options even if their professional opinion includes abortion, sterilization, contraception, or anything related. The only time they will bend is if it is obvious that the women will die without care.

Saying that they can transport them to another hospital is a poor argument. First of all, they won't. Secondly, that's besides the point.

Now you've said "if that group pays for their facility out of their own pocket", so I assume you aren't aware that they don't. Which I've mentioned numerous times. So either you are going to turn face on this issue or you've basically just lied to me and that really isn't the reason you are arguing.