Author Topic: FOCA forces Catholic Hospitals to choose: Abort babies or Abort hospitals  (Read 4451 times)

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,986
Quote
A proposed bill promising major changes in the U.S. abortion landscape has Roman Catholic bishops threatening to close Catholic hospitals if the Democratic Congress and White House make it law.  Blog: Will Obama's nominee for HHS be able to present herself for Holy Communion?
 Forum: Catholic hospitals have far more to lose by closing than they do by simple civil disobedience

The Freedom of Choice Act failed to get out of subcommittee in 2004, but its sponsor is poised to refile it now that former Senate co-sponsor Barack Obama occupies the Oval Office.

A spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the legislation "is among the congressman's priorities. We expect to reintroduce it sooner rather than later."

FOCA, as the bill is known, would make federal law out of the abortion protections established in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade ruling.

The legislation has some Roman Catholic bishops threatening to shutter the country's 624 Catholic hospitals — including 11 in the Archdiocese of St. Louis — rather than comply.

Speaking in Baltimore in November at the bishops' fall meeting, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, a Chicago auxiliary bishop, took up the issue of what to do with Catholic hospitals if FOCA became law. "It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions," he said. "That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil."

But even within the Catholic community, there is disagreement about the effects FOCA might have on hospitals, with some health care professionals and bishops saying a strategy of ignoring the law, if it passes, would be more effective than closing hospitals.

Ilan Kayatsky, Nadler's spokesman, said he anticipates that the bill's other original sponsor, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., will introduce FOCA in the U.S. Senate. "We expect it to be more or less the same bill with some minor tweaks," Kayatsky said.

Boxer's office declined to comment.

Rep. William Lacy Clay, a Roman Catholic, and Rep. Russ Carnahan — both St. Louis Democrats — were co-sponsors of the legislation. Neither responded to requests for an interview. Bishop Robert Hermann, acting head of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, was unavailable for comment.

In its last incarnation, FOCA defined abortion as a "fundamental right" that no government can "deny" or "interfere with." That language, FOCA's opponents warn, would help overturn abortion restrictions such as parental notification, laws banning certain procedures and constraints on federal funding.

Some abortion rights groups say a friendlier Congress and White House makes FOCA less of a priority for them, and they say religious conservatives who oppose abortion rights are using FOCA as a scare tactic.

"Anti-choice groups know that there are not enough votes to move the Freedom of Choice Act, yet they continue to engage in a divisive campaign demonizing FOCA to distract the public from their opposition to birth control and accurate sex education," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The nation's Catholic bishops have been among the most vocal opponents of FOCA and Obama's abortion-rights positions. In the days before the November elections, one called Obama "the most committed" abortion-rights supporter to head a presidential ticket since Roe. Obama had promised during his campaign he would sign FOCA if he were elected.

Along with the 11 Catholic hospitals within the Archdiocese of St. Louis, the Catholic Health Association of the United States says there are another seven in the St. Louis area within the borders of the Belleville and Springfield, Ill., dioceses.

According to the CHA, Catholic hospitals make up 13 percent of the country's nearly 5,000 hospitals, and employ more than 600,000 people. CHA says one of every six Americans hospitalized in the United States is cared for in a Catholic hospital.

Not all bishops or Catholic health care professionals see closing down hospitals as a realistic option. Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., a member of CHA's board of trustees, wrote on his blog last month that "even in the worst-case scenario, Catholic hospitals will not close. We will not comply, but we will not close." Instead, he advocated a strategy of "civil disobedience."

Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of CHA, said in an interview that she did not believe the language in the most recent version of FOCA — despite its definition of abortion as a fundamental right — would force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. But she also said that if it did, the church would look to the historical example of racial segregation as a model for civil disobedience.

"From the other side we hear consistent talk about being pro-choice," Keehan said. "If FOCA passes, the concept of being pro-choice will not be incompatible with our position — our choice would be not to participate."

Seven of the 11 hospitals in the Archdiocese of St. Louis are run by SSM Healthcare. In a statement, the company said it opposes FOCA "because it attempts to increase access to abortion and remove restrictions to abortion."

If FOCA were to become law, it continued, "We do not believe our Catholic hospitals would be forced to participate and we would advocate strongly for our right of conscience to refuse to provide abortion services."

While the Catholic Church has been most vocal on the FOCA issue, it's not alone. As Obama prepared to take the oath of office in January, the National Right to Life Committee warned its members that congressional Democrats were poised to work with the new president "to push an expansive pro-abortion agenda."

"The pro-life movement," the organization declared in its monthly newspaper, "is bracing for battle."

Pam Fichter, president of Missouri Right to Life, called FOCA "a top priority" for her group, which is working to pass a resolution in both houses of the Missouri Legislature that urges Congress to reject FOCA. The resolution has passed the Missouri House and is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate, and Missouri Right to Life is holding its Pro-Life Action Day in Jefferson City on Tuesday .

FOCA opponents have been discouraged by two moves made by Obama's administration in recent weeks. In January, the administration repealed a Bush policy that restricted federal dollars for international groups that perform or promote abortion overseas.

And this week, Obama nominated Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Sebelius is a Roman Catholic who has been chastised by Kansas City, Kan., Archbishop Joseph Naumann for her positions supporting abortion rights. Naumann called Sebelius' nomination this week "troubling."

After Sebelius' nomination, HHS hinted that it would soon repeal another Bush administration rule — enacted in December — that allowed health care professionals to opt out of providing abortion or birth control procedures on moral grounds.

In order to combat what its sees as inevitable, the Catholic Church launched a "Fight FOCA" postcard campaign aimed at Congress in January. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., who participated in an anti-FOCA rally last month at St. Anthony's Catholic School in Sullivan, said he has received "thousands" of postcards over the last month including "a stack 2 feet high" Wednesday.

"People have worked 30-some years to protect the rights of the unborn and FOCA would undo many of their efforts," Luetkemeyer said.

Keehan said shutting down Catholic hospitals would tear the fabric of the American health care system.

"Catholic health care plays such an important role in communities across this nation," she said, that Americans are "not going to sacrifice their health care facility, which employs so many, cares for so many, and has been part of their community for many years by forcing them to do abortions."

This really makes me sad.

I whole-heartedly respect an organization's right to abstain from medical practices it considers abhorrent.  Abortion and the Catholic Church is certainly a keystone example of that.

I would hope that this becomes a keystone SCOTUS First Amendment decision if tested, and I hope that the Catholic Church has the determination to keep their hospitals open and defy this law long enough to challenge to SCOTUS.

Frankly, I would hope even a lower court would toss it out or at least issue an injunction as being unconstitutional.  This IS the government declaring certain practices to be sacrosanct, essentially declaring a national religious standard.

If Catholic hospitals received federal funding, then perhaps this might have validity.  But, without that particular "claim" of operational ownership being made, I think a big resounding "get bent!" from the Church is the best response.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

jamz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 540
  • bleem
******MESSAGE DELETED BY DEPT. OF TREASURY INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS STAFF*******
« Last Edit: March 06, 2009, 05:00:59 PM by jamz »
Everybody loves Magical Trevor

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
If they have an emergency room, they are required by federal law to provide life-saving care to whomever walks in.  When the indigent or illegal aliens don;t pay, hospitals get a little $$$ from the federales.  Not enough to cover, but a little something.

thene there is medicaid & medicare.

If I were them, I would close my ER and refuse indigent patients, those on medicaid, and those on medicare.

You gotta remember that one of the goals of leftists is to crowd out the private sector.  Destroying Christian hospitals is just one step in their plan.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
I'm posting this to see what my avatar looks like!  =D

You must have made the image with invisible pixels.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Seenterman

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 443
Quote
If they have an emergency room, they are required by federal law to provide life-saving care to whomever walks in.  . .. .

If I were them, I would close my ER and refuse indigent patients, those on medicaid, and those on medicare.

If you ran a hospital you'd let people die on your doorstep unless they proved they could pay first?
What about the unconscious? Check their wallets first before their vitals?

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
If you ran a hospital you'd let people die on your doorstep unless they proved they could pay first?
What about the unconscious? Check their wallets first before their vitals?

Huh... guess you missed the part where the government is going to force any doctor/hospital who accepts government money to perform abortions.

That's what he's referring to here, not "Throw the worthless bums out if they can't pay."
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

Seenterman

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 443
Quote
Huh... guess you missed the part where the government is going to force any doctor/hospital who accepts government money to perform abortions.

That's what he's referring to here, not "Throw the worthless bums out if they can't pay."

Uh I never said I supported forcing hospitals into doing abortions, which is wrong. I guess I just read that differently.

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,986
If they have an emergency room, they are required by federal law to provide life-saving care to whomever walks in.  When the indigent or illegal aliens don't pay, hospitals get a little $$$ from the federales.  Not enough to cover, but a little something.

thene there is medicaid & medicare.

If I were them, I would close my ER and refuse indigent patients, those on medicaid, and those on medicare.

You gotta remember that one of the goals of leftists is to crowd out the private sector.  Destroying Christian hospitals is just one step in their plan.

Just FYI, this topic has very little to do with uninsured or illegal aliens.

Abortion, however, has arguably nothing to do with emergency room care.  Those are miscarriages or premature births, not abortions.  Let's try to divorce the ER from the rest of the hospital or clinic.  Lots of Catholic clinics, counseling centers or health centers that aren't necessarily ER facilities.

The stretch to medicare is plausible when discussing federal funding and the effect that might have on approved or mandatory treatments for the hospital or clinic to offer.

It really struck me as self-destructive legislation at this point in the article:
Quote
Speaking in Baltimore in November at the bishops' fall meeting, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, a Chicago auxiliary bishop, took up the issue of what to do with Catholic hospitals if FOCA became law. "It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions," he said. "That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil."

Since these hospitals are private property, the Church would be well within their rights to clear out all the medical equipment and ship it out of country, then demolition the building or convert it to some other form of community outreach other than medicine.  I find it very unlikely that they would sell the properties, since the people who would want it most would be someone wanting a hospital (to comply with FOCA and therefor perform abortions).  Unscrupulous middle-men would be very likely, and the Church simply wouldn't want to risk that.

Unless, of course, Eminent Domain is exercised against the Church.  Wouldn't that be entertaining.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Another step on the road to nationalizing healthcare....

Meanwhile in other news "The Administration" is getting ready to lift the ban on government funding of embryonic stem cell research.  Even though that research has shown that embryonic stem cells are not the "Miracle Cure For Everything" and adult stem cells work just fine thank you.
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,851
Another step on the road to nationalizing healthcare....

Meanwhile in other news "The Administration" is getting ready to lift the ban on government funding of embryonic stem cell research.  Even though that research has shown that embryonic stem cells are not the "Miracle Cure For Everything" and adult stem cells work just fine thank you.
Because we all know nothing can be done without govt funding.  That view these days is getting worse and worse. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Because we all know nothing can be done without govt funding.  That view these days is getting worse and worse. 

Something to consider there. Hospitals are forbidden by law from denying emergency treatment if someone walks in, but cannot pay. (That includes non-life-threatening emergencies like a broken leg. AFAIK, you still cannot say "no".) If the person can't pay, or they're an illegal, the hospital can either eat the bills and shut down because they cannot make a profit like that, or...they have to get some money from the government to cover costs, because of that law.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Seenterman, try the decaf.

The ER point was to demonstrate the catch-22:
1. Feds require hospitals to treat ER patients with life-threatening problems, including illegal aliens
2. The hospital does so and then asks to be lawfully compensated for complying
Result: They are on the hook to do abortions.

Same thing with the medi*.  Hospital treats them and accepts medi* as insurance, get compensated, and is now on the hook to do abortions.

How does one comply with one's conscience and stay in business as a hospital without breaking the law?  Closing the ER, refusing medi* and turning away most of the indigent.

You can get all sore with me, but I am not the one who made the rules.

You can bet that if push comes to shove, many of the religious hospitals will close rather than perform abortions.  The precedent has already been made in the adoption arena.  Some states passed a law making it illegal to NOT place children with gay couples, no outs given for conscience.  The religiously-based adoption agencies in those states all shut their doors so they would not have to violate their beliefs.

BHO & his boys know this.  They want to crowd out private and especially religious service providers.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,851
Something to consider there. Hospitals are forbidden by law from denying emergency treatment if someone walks in, but cannot pay. (That includes non-life-threatening emergencies like a broken leg. AFAIK, you still cannot say "no".) If the person can't pay, or they're an illegal, the hospital can either eat the bills and shut down because they cannot make a profit like that, or...they have to get some money from the government to cover costs, because of that law.
I was thinking more about the stem cell research than this.  I understand the fact that hospitals have been put between a rock and a hard place.  Both the rock and the hard place are know as the Federal Govt.  

I was thinking that the someone in Congress should introduce a bill to force the Amish to electrify their homes and businesses and use all modern tools and appliances all the time.  That seems to me about the same as this idea.  
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,986
Are Catholic hospitals or grounds sanctified after construction?

Can a building or grounds be de-sanctified?  Would the Church willingly de-sanctify the grounds of property seized via Eminent Domain, that was going to be used to perform abortions?
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

FTA84

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
I love the way dems word these bills.  'Freedom of Choice' means no freedom of choice.

Hospitals (more so, individuals) have the right to deny services of any kind (even ER services).  I'm not saying the people who deny services based on inability to pay people won't burn in the fires of hell.  They probably will.

This is all part of the entitlement mentality that is a problem.  People aren't naturally immoral.  If you showed up at the hospital and they didn't have to treat you, they probably would, and you would feel indebted to them.  What the entitlement mentality has done has made it so you show up at the hospital and DEMAND that they treat you.  You don't feel guilty because it is what the HAVE to do.

I find this is the same thing with welfare.  Back before welfare, people fell on hard times.  You know what you did?  You asked your family or friends for money.  You got through it and got a job because you felt the burden you were putting on your friends and family.

Again, now days you don't see that.  You fall on hard times?  You vote yourself some of your families money.  You don't get a job and live off them but you don't feel guilty.  Because they "HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF ME" and ITS SOME RICH GUYS MONEY, HE HAS ENOUGH!.

Strings

  • APS Pimp
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,195
Wow... Obama really IS the "Great Uniter". He's got me backing a decision by the Catholic Church, on abortion.

Wow... just wow...
No Child Should Live In Fear

What was that about a pearl handled revolver and someone from New Orleans again?

Screw it: just autoclave the planet (thanks Birdman)

BlueStarLizzard

  • Queen of the Cislords
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,039
  • Oh please, nobody died last time...
suprised and in agreement with strings.
"Okay, um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm angry, and I'm armed, so if you two have something that you need to work out --" -Malcolm Reynolds

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,481
  • My prepositions are on/in
Meh.  Seems like half the Catholics disagree on the whole abortion thing anyway.  Politics makes strange bed-fellas. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

gunsmith

  • I forgot to get vaccinated!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,187
  • I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Thank God the The Church has more sense then its adherents.
( well at least on abortion)
I think the best bet would be to ignore the law, help injured people, refuse abortions.
Politicians and bureaucrats are considered productive if they swarm the populace like a plague of locust, devouring all substance in their path and leaving a swath of destruction like a firestorm. The technical term is "bipartisanship".
Rocket Man: "The need for booster shots for the immunized has always been based on the science.  Political science, not medical science."