Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So last month HBO ran a documentary about a religion. They portrayed the central figure of that [View all]PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)82. Holy shit. Those hospital takeovers are not a good thing for women, you know.
Catholic dominance over hospitals endangers women
Refusing to provide female patients with a full range of services is discrimination.
Catholic hospitals provide care for 1 in 6 patients in the United States; they are, collectively, the largest not-for-profit health care provider in the country. As secular hospitals merge with Catholic ones, many health care organizations and the communities they serve are on edge. In Washington state, for example, mergers mean that nearly half of hospital beds are in facilities controlled or influenced by the church, and in many regions a Catholic hospital is the sole provider. Nationwide, Catholic health care providers grew by 16 percent from 2001 to 2011. The number of secular nonprofit hospitals dropped by 12 percent in that period; the number of public hospitals fell by 31 percent.
Catholic health care providers are bound by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a document issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that governs how health care providers should deal with reproductive issues, end-of-life care, the spiritual responsibility of Catholic health care and a variety of other concerns. The range of womens health care options that Catholic facilities offer is limited sometimes, like when a pregnancy goes wrong, to a deadly degree. And while most doctors have an ethical obligation to inform patients of all their options, Catholic facilities routinely refuse to offer even abortions necessary to save a pregnant womans life; their doctors are also barred from telling a patient with a nonviable pregnancy that there are other, often safer options available elsewhere, lest the patient seek care at another facility. (LGBT patients may also run into problems, whether it is with hormone therapy for transgender patients or simply the right of married same-sex partners to be treated as next of kin in making health care decisions).
.....
But Catholic hospitals receive enormous amounts of state and federal funding, in the form of large tax exemptions, Medicare and Medicaid dollars and specific grants for certain types of care. In 2011, Catholic hospitals received $27 billion in public funding, not including tax breaks nearly half their revenue. Catholic hospitals employ and serve populations that are not predominantly Catholic. One-fifth (PDF) of physicians at religious hospitals reported facing a clinical ethical conflict in which their medical judgment was at odds with the hospitals religious policy. Because Catholic hospitals receive public funds and care for a diverse population, they should have a duty to serve the actual health needs of their patients and the ethical obligations of their staffs over church dogma.
Instead, they put the dogma first. As a result, rape victims are routinely refused emergency contraception in Catholic hospitals. Women with life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, which are easily ended by a shot of methotrexate or a minor surgery, often find an entire fallopian tube unnecessarily removed decreasing the odds of future pregnancy if they seek care at a Catholic facility. And, as Means discovered, even in life-threatening emergencies, Catholic hospitals regularly refuse to terminate pregnancies and may face penalties, including removal of church-affiliated status, if they do so to save the life of the mother. In one case in Arizona, a pregnant mother of four went to a Catholic hospitals emergency room with a condition so life-threatening that her chances of imminent death without an abortion were nearly certain. She was too ill to transfer to another facility, so the hospitals administrator, a nun, approved an emergency termination. The woman lived. The nun was excommunicated. Her standing with the church was eventually restored, but the hospital lost its 116-year affiliation with the Catholic Church.
Catholic health care providers are bound by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a document issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that governs how health care providers should deal with reproductive issues, end-of-life care, the spiritual responsibility of Catholic health care and a variety of other concerns. The range of womens health care options that Catholic facilities offer is limited sometimes, like when a pregnancy goes wrong, to a deadly degree. And while most doctors have an ethical obligation to inform patients of all their options, Catholic facilities routinely refuse to offer even abortions necessary to save a pregnant womans life; their doctors are also barred from telling a patient with a nonviable pregnancy that there are other, often safer options available elsewhere, lest the patient seek care at another facility. (LGBT patients may also run into problems, whether it is with hormone therapy for transgender patients or simply the right of married same-sex partners to be treated as next of kin in making health care decisions).
.....
But Catholic hospitals receive enormous amounts of state and federal funding, in the form of large tax exemptions, Medicare and Medicaid dollars and specific grants for certain types of care. In 2011, Catholic hospitals received $27 billion in public funding, not including tax breaks nearly half their revenue. Catholic hospitals employ and serve populations that are not predominantly Catholic. One-fifth (PDF) of physicians at religious hospitals reported facing a clinical ethical conflict in which their medical judgment was at odds with the hospitals religious policy. Because Catholic hospitals receive public funds and care for a diverse population, they should have a duty to serve the actual health needs of their patients and the ethical obligations of their staffs over church dogma.
Instead, they put the dogma first. As a result, rape victims are routinely refused emergency contraception in Catholic hospitals. Women with life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, which are easily ended by a shot of methotrexate or a minor surgery, often find an entire fallopian tube unnecessarily removed decreasing the odds of future pregnancy if they seek care at a Catholic facility. And, as Means discovered, even in life-threatening emergencies, Catholic hospitals regularly refuse to terminate pregnancies and may face penalties, including removal of church-affiliated status, if they do so to save the life of the mother. In one case in Arizona, a pregnant mother of four went to a Catholic hospitals emergency room with a condition so life-threatening that her chances of imminent death without an abortion were nearly certain. She was too ill to transfer to another facility, so the hospitals administrator, a nun, approved an emergency termination. The woman lived. The nun was excommunicated. Her standing with the church was eventually restored, but the hospital lost its 116-year affiliation with the Catholic Church.
Refusing to provide female patients with a full range of services is discrimination.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
262 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So last month HBO ran a documentary about a religion. They portrayed the central figure of that [View all]
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
OP
Forget the religion part, most if not all in scientolgy dont pretend it is a religion
NoJusticeNoPeace
May 2015
#1
I think if you really want to go down the road of separating "genuine religions" from con jobs
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#35
The Roman Catholic Church is ostensibly based upon a guy who said "give your stuff to the poor"
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#40
Read the New Testament, Jesus was an "end of times" Jewish preacher who ...
Humanist_Activist
May 2015
#109
Sometimes I see stuff from people who call themselves "progressives" that blows me right away.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#13
...okay, so what she does in not constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment?
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#12
And yet, it was Mohammed CARTOONS that drew the violent response, both here and at Charlie Hebdo.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#17
Yep, and we've known this is often the type of reaction to these cartoons
justiceischeap
May 2015
#18
Do folks miss the de-humanizing that such analogies encourage? Or is it intentional?
X_Digger
May 2015
#25
I've also seen a shark analogy used here. Another reason these animal analogies fail is --
Nuclear Unicorn
May 2015
#209
Yep, and we've known this is often the type of reaction to these cartoons
justiceischeap
May 2015
#18
So if Muslims are 'the bear' and thus too dangerous to 'poke' what message are you sending to other
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#23
yes, but as someone else pointed out- Charlie Hebdo ridiculed all religions equally
notadmblnd
May 2015
#32
true, but we had pretty much the same identical discussions here, after Charlie Hebdo.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#34
And I never said "the First Amendment is absolute", so you were disputing a point no one made.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#62
Like I said, that would probably have to be a civil suit, filed BY the attendees in question.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#93
"fighting words" - that exception has been narrowed down to almost nothing.
Warren Stupidity
May 2015
#54
And saying "I'll draw an offensive cartoon tomorrow"- isn't very imminent. ;)
X_Digger
May 2015
#115
Every time someone plays "itchycoo park" on the radio, they are telling people to "Get HI-IIGH!!"
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#132
Actually the majority of CH's cartoons were aimed at politicians and culture wars
riderinthestorm
May 2015
#212
What if some extremist Republicans threatened to kill anyone who makes fun of Jeb Bush?
oberliner
May 2015
#76
Did the folk who made that doco advocate genocide against adherents of that religion?
Violet_Crumble
May 2015
#44
Is there a difference between "people shouldn't be allowed to" and "people should choose not to"
el_bryanto
May 2015
#47
OK - then on a strictly legal matter Geller should be allowed to say whatever she likes.
el_bryanto
May 2015
#50
Did HBO run the documentary for the intended purposes of provoking Scientologists to violence?
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#55
God that's tiresome. I have to assume that you have never bothered to look at the work of Andres
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#155
So; Fundamentalists who think they have a mandate from the sky to kill cartoonists
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#63
Provocation is in the eye of the beholder. Every single attacker who ever attached anyone anywhere
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#67
Agree. Many organized religions treat me as a second class citizen or worse.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#73
It's too bad that's the world we live in right now, but my denomination, the Episcopalians
Damansarajaya
May 2015
#78
I'm not asking you to do anything. You're asking others to stop mocking and ridiculing people whose
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#80
I'll stop ridiculing organized religion when they stop threatening my autonomy.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#79
Yeah, it's a major distraction from the peaceful GD banter between the Hillary and Bernie people
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#64
"money-making corporation that uses the religious cult as its business model"
FLPanhandle
May 2015
#70
Holy shit. Those hospital takeovers are not a good thing for women, you know.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#82
When was the last time you heard of an atheist institution lobbying against women's rights?
beam me up scottie
May 2015
#86
Atheist equivalent of Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Benjamin Tutu?
LostOne4Ever
May 2015
#94
There's so many, it's hard to limit the list isn't it? I'd add Andrei Sakharov
riderinthestorm
May 2015
#105
He strikes me as marginally better than the guy who came before him.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#129
When a religion is based upon text(s) that calls homosexuality an abomination, demands women be
LostOne4Ever
May 2015
#189
I have found, when it comes to religion here, it is like Animal Farm...
Behind the Aegis
May 2015
#246
Oh my god!! The RCC??! You're putting that corrupt institution up as some paragon of virtue?!
riderinthestorm
May 2015
#106
I'm pretty sure I have no desire to see Tom Cruise and Co. shoot up some event. nt
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#91
You know who also believes in unseen forces that can't be proven? Astrophysicists.
Damansarajaya
May 2015
#69
Right, and the minute God or Vishnu or Zeus, Ra or Osiris exerts a measurable gravitational
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#74
I'm fine with "religion is silly", although indeed it wasn't the point of this thread.
Warren Stupidity
May 2015
#103
"Trouble is, it can't be perceived with the five senses" - does not mean "can't be proven to exist".
Warren Stupidity
May 2015
#102
In one week, we've found an "Astrophysics is faith guy" and a "blind watchmaker" guy...
Act_of_Reparation
May 2015
#112
You seem to know less than nothing about astrophysics, not to mention what you said...
Humanist_Activist
May 2015
#108
According to the DU Sliding Scale of Arbitrary Postmodern Morality...
Act_of_Reparation
May 2015
#110
LOL! No kidding, imagine NG's outrage if someone claimed islam wasn't a real religion.
beam me up scottie
May 2015
#111
"Scientology's followers are no more or less religious than any other believers."
NanceGreggs
May 2015
#113
Yes, because the unprovable flarmfaddle THEY believe in is extra flarmfaddle-ish.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#121
"I've known more than a few in my day - they're not about what one believes"
beam me up scottie
May 2015
#137
If you watched the documentary, there are people who DEFINITELY believe in Xenu the way
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#138
Hey, I bash scientology all the time, I just don't bash ONLY scientology.
beam me up scottie
May 2015
#146
You might want to think about why you feel such a need to point out, repeatedly,
mr blur
May 2015
#151
There are independent Scientologist not connected with the Church of Scientology
Chathamization
May 2015
#153
If I put honey in your tea because I think you're allergic to it and it will kill you it's the same
Chathamization
May 2015
#154
which, in both situations is adulterating someone else's food/drink without their consent or
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#157
Well, I suppose if you want to equate attempts to sweeten with attempts to kill.
Chathamization
May 2015
#158
and yet here you are, comparing the drawing of a cartoon that someone doesnt like
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#159
Let's be honest here. In response to the OP, I gave an example of adding honey to a drink
Chathamization
May 2015
#160
No idea why you feel that's being evaded since everyone here seems to agree the attack was terrible
Chathamization
May 2015
#178
Why is she legally culpable for the fact that OTHER people get pissed off?
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#190
You don't get to assault/kill other people and claim you were provoked into doing it.
beam me up scottie
May 2015
#161
Has anyone on DU, anywhere, argued that it's OK to assault/kill people because they were provoked?
Chathamization
May 2015
#162
OK, has anyone said that you "get to assault/kill other people and claim you were provoked into
Chathamization
May 2015
#180
It doesn't mean that at all. No one seems to be saying that a political cartoonist is liable for
Chathamization
May 2015
#196
his exact words were "Insulting someone's deity when it is known to cause violence"
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#199
Again - when the intent is to incite violence. If you choose to ignore that part, his meaning
Chathamization
May 2015
#201
I argue, the posters intent is completely clear, even if you persist in ignoring it
Chathamization
May 2015
#203
For the nth time, the difference you keep ignoring is the intent to incite violence.
Chathamization
May 2015
#207
Ive seen people argue that blasphemy or "insulting a deity" should be illegal.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#165
Links to people who've said insulting a deity should be illegal? Because I haven't seen those posts.
Chathamization
May 2015
#179
Did you read that post? They're saying that Geller is culpable for trying to incite violence, not
Chathamization
May 2015
#197
And if people believe in an interpretation of their religion where they feel shooting people is a valid
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#170
No, I am championing her right to air her noxious-ass views under the 1st Amendment.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#194
I'm saying that a small minority of people HAVE argued her speech is somehow not protected under the
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#232
No, I give the vast majority of Muslims a ton more credit than that.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#251
Side stepping & obfuscation? You're the one pretending this is about everything EXCEPT cartoons.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#255
"keep trying to take apart an argument I'm not making"...ah, who said irony was dead! N/T
Chathamization
May 2015
#237
That's right. And the ACLU was correct to defend their right to do so. The courts were right to say
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#192
If you have a strong moral objection to criticizing, satirizing or mocking deeply held beliefs
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#216
Liberal Christians should be leading the charge at mocking those who deserve it
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#218
Not fair? Well funded, hugely successful, widespread efforts to limit my autonomy are not fair.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#222
Some of the core tenets of Christianity teach that women are dangerous and must submit.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#224