Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

1. Here's a less histrionic report.

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:31 PM

Jan 2013

But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

The Catholic Health attorneys have so far won decisions from Fremont County District Court Judge David M. Thorson and now-retired Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Arthur Roy.

http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people

It's a legal argument applying existing state law to a malpracice suit. The hosptal is not the Catholic Church.

That said, the lawyers have hypocrites for clients.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Catholic Church's moral authority... [View all] skepticscott Jan 2013 OP

Here's a less histrionic report. rug Jan 2013 #1

Maybe they should go on "Dancing with the Stars"! DryRain Jan 2013 #3

Oh, and the hospitals skepticscott Jan 2013 #5

Claiming that the Catholic Church should have any "moral authority" is like... DryRain Jan 2013 #2

You do know you're not responding to the title of the article. rug Jan 2013 #4

Hair-splitting of the kind that the RCC decries skepticscott Jan 2013 #7

"A fetus is not a person if it costs us money, says Catholic Church" DryRain Jan 2013 #9

Yes, that is the better headline because it underscores the actual issue. rug Jan 2013 #10

And that hypocrisy is directly related skepticscott Jan 2013 #12

Hardly. Do you understand the difference between hypocrisy, competence and moral authority? rug Jan 2013 #16

The RCC has been morally bankrupt since, oh, right around its beginning. trotsky Jan 2013 #6

Oh, but it's sooooooooo hard to leave skepticscott Jan 2013 #8

According to Colorado law... pokerfan Jan 2013 #11

+1 Dawson Leery Jan 2013 #31

Hypocrisy not being against the law, perhaps it is just as common in lawsuits as it is struggle4progress Jan 2013 #13

Who said anything skepticscott Jan 2013 #14

Your objection seems to be that the lawyers' argument is inconsistent with struggle4progress Jan 2013 #15

It should, however, cut off any attempt by CHI to object to providing contraception muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #17

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt your conclusion. Lawyers are hired to argue that their clients struggle4progress Jan 2013 #19

I'm not saying they have extra culpability in this case muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #21

The lawyers may simply be reciting the law. rug Jan 2013 #22

Again, I'm pointing out that they lack the moral convictions they claim for the anti-Obamacare stuff muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #23

That also is the current state of the law. rug Jan 2013 #26

What "is the current state of the law"? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #27

At the moment, the ACA cases are breaking that corporate employers cannot claim religious liberty rug Jan 2013 #30

I doubt that any court would have interest in your pov: the case here seems to be revolve around struggle4progress Jan 2013 #34

One more time: I'm saying this hurts their claim that they have an objection to abortion muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #35

One last time: they are different entities. rug Jan 2013 #36

I think that proves my point: muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #37

Not really. As it stands now, CHI has no moral conviction; it's a corporation. rug Jan 2013 #43

It *claims* it has moral convictions; hence the quotes in my post (nt) muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #44

That's where the hypocrisy comes in. rug Jan 2013 #45

This is exactly the point. trotsky Jan 2013 #39

You state the obvious, but not the point skepticscott Jan 2013 #18

Well, of course. You dislike the Catholic church, so are pleased whenever possible struggle4progress Jan 2013 #20

Superiority to an organization that has protected and enabled pedophiles, trotsky Jan 2013 #24

If you suspect any defendants in this case are pedophiles, or have shielded pedophiles struggle4progress Jan 2013 #33

I see you've shifted the goalposts. trotsky Jan 2013 #38

The thread concerns a case involving a hospital run by a nonprofit, whose name includes the word struggle4progress Jan 2013 #40

The evidence is the church itself now backpedaling. trotsky Jan 2013 #41

Here's someone else you can argue with: trotsky Jan 2013 #46

Apparently my question was quite necessary skepticscott Jan 2013 #28

If it is your view, that the law must be applied to people whom you consider hypocrites differently struggle4progress Jan 2013 #32

That's not my view skepticscott Jan 2013 #47

Aaaaah-hahahaha! Iggo Jan 2013 #25

Matthew 6 21: For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also....n/t dimbear Jan 2013 #29

No church, and especially the RCC, has any moral authority. None. At. All. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #42