Aclu Sues American Catholic Bishops

[Luigi]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/aclu-sues-us-bishops-catholic-hospital-ethics-21074634

 

3 December, 2013

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a sweeping federal lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over its ethical guidelines for Roman Catholic hospitals, arguing the directives were to blame for negligent care of a pregnant woman who went into early labor and whose baby died within hours.

The ACLU alleges the bishops were negligent because their religious directives prevented Tamesha Means from being told that continuing her pregnancy posed grave risks to her health and her child was not likely to survive. She was treated at Mercy Health Muskegon, a Catholic hospital in Michigan.

"It's not just about one woman," said Kary Moss, executive director of the Michigan ACLU. "It's about a nationwide policy created by nonmedical professionals putting patients in harms' way."

The lawsuit comes amid a wave of mergers between Catholic and secular hospital systems throughout the United States, raising questions about how much religious identity the hospitals will retain and whether they will provide medical services that conflict with church teaching. Advocates for abortion rights and others fear the mergers will limit access to a full range of medical care for women. About 13 percent of U.S. hospitals are Catholic.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the bishops' conference in Washington, said it hadn't been officially notified of the lawsuit and couldn't comment until it received the complaint. Neither Mercy Health Muskegon nor its corporate parent, Trinity Health in Livonia, would comment Monday. Earlier this year, Trinity Health and Catholic Health East completed a merger, combining more than 80 nonprofit hospitals across about 21 states.

According to the lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Michigan, Means was 18 weeks pregnant in 2010 when her water broke and she went to the nearest hospital in Muskegon. The ACLU said that over several emergency visits, Means was never told that "the safest treatment option was to induce labor and terminate the pregnancy" because the hospital was following the conference's ethical directives. She eventually delivered the baby, which died after less than three hours. The ACLU says the pathology report found that Means had infections that can result in infertility and other damage.

Under the conference's "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services," abortion is barred, along with other procedures that go against Catholic doctrine, such as specific infertility treatments or sterilization. However, each bishop has the authority to interpret the directives within his diocese and it is common to find some variation in how the guidelines are applied among dioceses or according to individual cases.

For example, the directives allow for treatments to cure a grave illness in a pregnant woman even if they result in the death of the child. That issue drew national attention in 2010 with the case of a nun and administrator at a Phoenix hospital who, in her role on the hospital ethics committee, approved an abortion to save the life of a pregnant woman. Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted said the decision meant automatic excommunication for the nun and the hospital could no longer identify itself as Catholic.

Robin Fretwell Wilson, a University of Illinois professor who specializes in family and health law, said a negligence claim would hinge in part on whether the ACLU can establish that the conference has some direct control in this case or in hospitals in general. The bishops have moral authority over local Catholic hospitals but are not involved in the day-to-day business of administration.

"It's so many layers removed," Fretwell Wilson said, that she has "a difficult time buying" that the bishops' conference is legally responsible in this case.

————

[missionseeker]

... Can you explain the medical difference between inducing a labor through a process that could cause infertility and a woman going into labor early and it possibly resulting in infertility? I mean, is there really that much medical difference? If they had said "you should have an abortion" she  still would have the same issues with the infection, right? 

 

Also, it's pretty common knowledge that if you go to a Catholic hospital, chances are they aren't going to recommended termination. I know people who know nothing about the Catholic church except that if you go to a Catholic hospital, you can't get your tubes tied or have an abortion (I actually heard this conversation, where people were talking about how sick it is to have a big family.) So, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that she was most likely aware of the hospital's policy? 

[TheresaThoma]

Oh ACLU....

I'm still trying to figure these people out. Not too long ago they filed a lawsuit against a school district because it wouldn't allow students to wear rosaries around their neck. The school district made that decision because they were being used as gang symbols. The ACLU filed a lawsuit even though the bishop supported the school district and made a statement saying that Catholics should not be wearing rosaries if they were truely living out their faith. The lawsuit seemed so silly that the ACLU was trying to "protect freedom of religion" when the bishop was backing up the school district. smh

[Luigi]

Here's another story on the same topic, from NPR. The ACLU claims that the bishops' ethical directives force hospitals to deliver substandard care - one guy says they require doctors to engage in malpractice. A law prof at Notre Dame says the new wrinkle is that the bishops' religious teachings are being directly targeted.

 

The subtext - mentioned, but very briefly - is that as hospitals and hospital systems merge, more American hospitals are being run by Catholic orders, thus further limiting access to abortion, sterilization, and so forth.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/12/02/248243411/aclu-sues-u-s-bishops-says-catholic-hospital-rules-put-women-at-risk

[NotreDame]

Sad.  It sounds like it was a setup where the ACLU is targetting a town with only Catholic hospitals. Fr Z had an article about this here:

 

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/another-evil-attack-on-the-church-and-religious-freedom-in-these-usa/

 

This is persecution.  Until we put the fear of God into politicians at the ballot box, I expect the left to continue to persecute the Church for it's stands against abortion, 'contraception', homosexuality, etc. 

 

 

 

[CrossCuT]

Hmm, isnt it permissible for an abortion to occur if the mothers life is in danger? Thats what I was told in school.

 

Im not sure how often this case occurs to the point that they allow an abortion, but the article did site that this had happened. However the Nun who approved of the abortion to save the mothers life was excommunicated.  :idontknow:

 

 

Again, Im not a doctor and my knowledge on the case regarding Tamesha Means isnt sufficient enough to say anything. I just hope and pray that the doctors are making the best decision that they can.

[Nihil Obstat]

Hmm, isnt it permissible for an abortion to occur if the mothers life is in danger? Thats what I was told in school.

No.

 

Lifesaving treatment can be offered, even if it would harm the possibly harm the baby (double effect), but an abortion can never be performed for any reason.

[CrossCuT]

No.

 

Lifesaving treatment can be offered, even if it would harm the possibly harm the baby (double effect), but an abortion can never be performed for any reason.

 

Ok, well I guess that an abortion would not be the INTENDED treatment...but it is permissible to put the child's life at risk for the health of the mother. 

 

Calling it an "abortion" would suggest the sole purpose is the kill the child...obviously it is not. But the purpose is to save the mothers life with the death of the child as a consequence. That is what I meant.

Edited December 3, 2013 by CrossCuT

[Nihil Obstat]

Ok, well I guess that an abortion would not be the INTENDED treatment...but it is permissible to put the child's life at risk for the health of the mother. 

 

Calling it an "abortion" would suggest the sole purpose is the kill the child...obviously it is not. But the purpose is to save the mothers life with the death of the child as a consequence. That is what I meant.

The treatment cannot be something that directly attacks the child, essentially.

[CrossCuT]

The treatment cannot be something that directly attacks the child, essentially.

 

Right, which is what I said. I used the word "abortion" too loosely, I apologize. But you get what Im trying to say...it is permissible to put the childs life at risk when the purpose is to save the mother.

[Nihil Obstat]

Right, which is what I said. I used the word "abortion" too loosely, I apologize. But you get what Im trying to say...it is permissible to put the childs life at risk when the purpose is to save the mother.

Yes, in a general sense this is true.

[Winchester]

"All medical facilities should be equipped to perform all possible medical interventions or be shut down", is what they're arguing. They're idiots.

[NotreDame]

An abortion is a medical procedure to kill the 'fetus'.  Period. 

 

I'm not an expert, but from what I've read: An abortion is never actually necessary to save the life of a mother.  Even in late stages, if there are issues, a C-section is the safest way to remove the fetus from the womb.  Actually aborting the fetus in a C-section would not decrease risk to the mother.

 

Removing a fellopian tube with an attached embryo ends the life of the embryo, but it's not an abortion.  Giving a mother chemotherapy risks the life of the fetus, but it's not an abortion.

 

The purpose of this lawsuit is to impose the will of the State on the Church and its faithful.  Period.  It's been going on for centuries.  No reason to be surprised.

 

[Winchester]

Current abortion procedures do not conform to the justification that the mother has a right to control her body. The unborn child is killed with clear intent. If the child were merely expelled, then the argument could be made that the flaw in the unborn child was not the problem of the mother. Of course, this would mean parents could simply turn out their children at any stage of life. I don't think PP is quite ready to be consistent. They still seem to believe in some magical personhood moment, superstitious ninnies.

[NotreDame]

Current abortion procedures do not conform to the justification that the mother has a right to control her body. The unborn child is killed with clear intent. If the child were merely expelled, then the argument could be made that the flaw in the unborn child was not the problem of the mother. Of course, this would mean parents could simply turn out their children at any stage of life. I don't think PP is quite ready to be consistent. They still seem to believe in some magical personhood moment, superstitious ninnies.

 

"Of course, this would mean parents could simply turn out their children at any stage of life."

 

Well, that's what's happening in Europe:

https://www.google.com/#q=euthanize+children+in+europe&tbm=nws