Female rape victims in CO should stay away from Catholic Hospitals

[rushmc 23]

Your second statment is incorrect IHO. And that very statement goes to the heart of the issue.

The patient gets medical care from a hospital. The hospitals we are talking about here do not perform or believe in any kind of abortion (I think) So you would force them to disperse information about drugs and or procedures that they do not believe to be right?

The information is available in other places.

Think of it this way. What if I, one that thinks abortions of any kind should not be preformed, get a law passed making it ilegal to give out abortion option information? (I am not saying the law would make abortion illegal) Would that be OK?

I think the debate needs to be framed in this light.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

I am not talking about the post rape care here.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jdhill 0]

Would a bill forcing a private religious institution to give out information contrary to its insitutional teachings be a violation of the "separation of church and state", more specifically the "free exercise thereof"?

If the bill made the requirement of only public healthcare facilities, and he vetoed it, I think you would have a legit beef.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

I am not talking about the post rape care here.

Then what in the world are you talking about? Providing information to patients about a medication that can prevent implantation of a blastocyst that may have been created as a result of a rape is, without a doubt, post rape care. In order for this medication to be effective, it must be taken within a relatively short period of time after the rape. She can't wait until she sees her primary care physician a week later. To not give this information to such a patient is medical malpractice, imho.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rushmc 23]

I don't know how to re-state this but for me the government job is not to force anyone's morality on others. If you believe that abortion is an aceptable option then the law we are discussing is OK to you. I you do not believe that abortion is an aceptable option then the government is overstepping the boundries.

Agian, I speak of the making of a law and when I think it is ok.

For me, I personally do not believe in abortion. With that said however, I also have a big problem with me or others tell anyone else what they should or should not be able to do. My "solution".....abortion is legal so it will happen. I just don't want my tax dollars to subsidise this proceedure or medication.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Your second statment is incorrect IHO. And that very statement goes to the heart of the issue.

The patient gets medical care from a hospital. The hospitals we are talking about here do not perform or believe in any kind of abortion (I think) So you would force them to disperse information about drugs and or procedures that they do not believe to be right?

Absolutely. We are talking about an emergency setting. There is no procedure to be performed there, only giving information out. The bill doesn't say the hospital is forced to treat the patient in a manner that is inconsistent with their beliefs and I agree that they shouldn't have to in a non-emergency setting. But they should have to at least inform you of all your medical options, even if they are not willing or even able to provide the course of treatment you select for yourself. That is a level of care that all medical professionals should be held to.

Quote

The information is available in other places.

So you think it is an acceptable level of care that if a woman comes into an ER raped and beaten that she be given a bandaid and a liabrary card? - or just the bandaid?

Quote

Think of it this way. What if I, one that thinks abortions of any kind should not be preformed, get a law passed making it ilegal to give out abortion option information? (I am not saying the law would make abortion illegal) Would that be OK?

I think the debate needs to be framed in this light.

If that is the law, you have to follow it. If you don't agree with it, you work to change it or move if its that important. In this case, the bill that passed is in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state according to polls and the fact that it passed the house and senate by large margins and we elected those people. The governor chose to veto the bill against the wishes of the people of the state based on his personal religious beliefs. I hope the people will hold him accountable at the next election.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Chris, thanks so much for not flaming me on my believes.

Hey Mar, no thanks necessary. I would never flame someone for their religious beliefs. I hope I would never judge them either. I think I was just pointing out how two people can follow very similar paths in life and come out with two very different points of view.

Blues,
Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

I don't know how to re-state this but for me the government job is not to force anyone's morality on others.

It is the doctors who are forcing their morality on the patients. By intentionally withholding information about treatment options, the doctors are influencing the decision of the patients based on the doctors' views of morality. Once the patient has all the information, they will make whatever decision is best for them. The purpose of the bill is to ensure they get all the information. Nothing more.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I don't know how to re-state this but for me the government job is not to force anyone's morality on others.

It is the doctors who are forcing their morality on the patients. By intentionally withholding information about treatment options, the doctors are influencing the decision of the patients based on the doctors' views of morality. Once the patient has all the information, they will make whatever decision is best for them. The purpose of the bill is to ensure they get all the information. Nothing more.

I disagree, this is going both ways

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't know how to re-state this but for me the government job is not to force anyone's morality on others.

It is the doctors who are forcing their morality on the patients. By intentionally withholding information about treatment options, the doctors are influencing the decision of the patients based on the doctors' views of morality. Once the patient has all the information, they will make whatever decision is best for them. The purpose of the bill is to ensure they get all the information. Nothing more.

I disagree, this is going both ways

I don't know how else to explain it.
The state medical board requires a certain level of care to be maintained. No one is forcing doctors or hospitals to provide non-emergency care that is inconsistent with their beliefs. They would have been forced to inform - not provide - patients of all their options, which is the level of care they are required to maintain.

There is a distinction between informing and imposing that I don't think you are able to make due to your personal religious beliefs.

[TheAnvil 0]

Have you read the Constitution? If so, it doesn't show because 'separation of Church and State' is not contained anywhere in the document. See a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists to find a similar phrase:

"Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Thomas Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802."

Despite the fact that the phrase isn't in our nation's Constitution, the first ammendment has been misconstrued to read just that so I assume that's the basis from which you make such a statement.

Regardless, Gov. Owens' veto in no way makes a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Deal with it.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

Have you read the Constitution? If so, it doesn't show because 'separation of Church and State' is not contained anywhere in the document.

All due respect CDR, but the lack of those words in the Constitution does not constitute card blanche to create a Theocracy....

[TheAnvil 0]

Nobody claimed that it did - or desires to do so. The argument presented here is asinine.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,120]

>If so, it doesn't show because 'separation of Church and State' is
>not contained anywhere in the document.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Which means that you cannot pass any laws, fund any program, allow any religious use of state monies etc unless those laws/programs/monies are available to all.

[sinker 0]

Tonto:

Mass murderer? You've got to be kidding. Did he MAKE people who were at high risk of having HIV/AIDS have sex? He didn't force ANYONE not to use a condom. It's amazing to me that people like you will vilify someone like the Pope when so much of the rest of the world recognizes and acknowledges what a brilliant and heroic man he was. I know he was because I KNEW HIM. I met him, had a private Mass with him, spoke with him, kissed his ring, read his books, heard him preach. (Please, no rude comments about sexual abuse here).

Yes, he condemned the use of condoms and other forms of birth control. But he ALSO condemned pre-marital and extra-marital sex. He taught, more than any other Pope (and probably more than any other person) that sex was to be reserved for the marital relationship, to foster union between the spouses and to beget children. (NOTE: He did NOT say that sex was ONLY to conceive, and that engaging in the marital act even when conception was not likely, i.e. during menses or phase III of the woman's cycle, was a VERY GOOD THING!)

Do you honestly think that the people who spread HIV/AIDS through promiscuity (either through pre or extra marital sex) were listening to the Pope about NOT using condoms and then NOT listening to the Pope about their illicit sexual practices? Give me a break. If they obeyed the Pope only on one thing and not on the other, that is not HIS fault. Again, he didn't MAKE anyone do anything. Each person has free will and the ability to make choices for themselves. What I have said is true, unless of course you buy into the lie that one's sexual behavior is compulsory and one does not have the ability to control him/herself. If you believe that, well, there's not much more to talk about now, is there...

As for the issue of Colorado hospitals, I know I'm going to get flamed up the wazoo on this one (but I don't care, it's not like I post here much anymore), but "emergency contraception" ISN'T medical treatment! "Emergency contraception" isn't even contraception. The morning after pill and similar "treatments" are abortifacients. IF they work, it's only b/c conception has already occurred. Pregnancy is NOT a medical condition! If you don't think abortion is wrong, then this poses no problem. No, Catholic institutions ARE obligated to provide medical care for any trauma, physical and emotional, that comes from rape. Also, since a woman who was raped has an increased risk of contracting an STD, a Catholic facility can and should do what it can to prevent contraction, including flushing out the woman in order to try and wash away any semen. Yes, this may prevent conception. However, the INTENT is to prevent an STD. If this seems like a double standard, it isn't. It's the proper application of the Principle of Double Effect, which, briefly stated, says that an action that has both a good and evil effect can be done under certain conditions. I won't go into it here, this is already getting wordy. It's something that can easily be looked up.

A woman can simply go to other hospitals, clinics, etc. Should the Catholic hospital REFER to woman? No, that would be a form of material cooperation in the matter. But they should clearly state up front that they will not administer abortifacients post-rape and that other facilities exist that can and will do so. This should be a very visible policy of the hospital or clinic.

Catholic hospitals, who practice medicine according to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, cannot be made to violate what they consider the most sacred of all things, the creation of a unique and unrepeatable human being, EVEN if the child is the product of rape.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not denegrating the woman. I'm not minimizing her pain and trauma. In fact, my view on what should happen to the rapist for what he does is pretty extreme. Still, to abort a child that was conceived through rape really just creates ANOTHER victim of the crime, for which the rapist should be punished! I know women who DID conceive through rape and DID carry to term and either adopted out the child or even kept the child. You don't hear those courageous stories in the mainstream, now do you?

I wish we as a society did more to prevent rape from ever happening, then this would not be an issue. And, I think there are tons we can do about that! For example, look at the decrease in violent crime in the states that have passed concealed carry laws, allowing citizens to arm themselves. Also, we need to do a hell of a lot more to consistently and severly punish rapists.

To those of you who have spoken so hatefully and harshly against the Catholic Church and the Pope, I'm praying for you, whether you want me to or not. I hope you some day come to see the beauty of the Church for what it is.

Thanks for reading this painfully long post. Sorry if it angers anyone.

michael

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[kelel01 1]

The morning after pill is not abortion. It's birth control . . . it prevents the egg from being fertilized or implanted. If both have already occurred, the pill is ineffective, which is why it's very important it's taken within 72 hours.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

But they should clearly state up front that they will not administer abortifacients post-rape and that other facilities exist that can and will do so.

That's pretty much all this bill is asking of them. They're not required to supply the morning after pill, but at least they should advise the patient that such things exist.

[sinker 0]

please tell me which "morning-after pill" you are referring to. being in the field of pharmacology, I'd be more than happy to look it up. all the one's I know of are, in fact, abortificients.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[kelel01 1]

Darn pharmacologists . . . ok, well, I was referring to Plan B. As far as I know, it's the most common.

Are you an actual pharmacist? If so, do you dispense this medication when requested?

[billvon 3,120]

>I don't know how to re-state this but for me the government job
>is not to force anyone's morality on others.

I agree. So your duty as a doctor is to inform them of their medical options and let THEM apply their own morals to their decision. No one is proposing mandatory abortions.

[mr2mk1g 10]

In the UK it's:

Quote

‘Levonelle’ or ‘Levonelle-2.’ It contains a female-type hormone called ‘levonorgestrel’ - which is one of the ingredients of several types of contraceptive Pill.

What does it do?

It stops you from becoming pregnant – at least, in the vast majority of cases. It’s not 100 per cent effective, but the failure rate is quite low – probably about 10 per cent, and rather better than that if you take it as early as possible.

The PCP is believed to work principally by preventing your ovaries from releasing an egg, and by affecting the womb lining, so that a fertilised egg couldn’t ‘embed’ itself there.

In Britain and many other western countries, it is not legally regarded as an abortion-causing drug, but as a contraceptive.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I don't know how to re-state this but for me the government job
>is not to force anyone's morality on others.

I agree. So your duty as a doctor is to inform them of their medical options and let THEM apply their own morals to their decision. No one is proposing mandatory abortions.

Forcing the doctor to giving information related to something they consider imoral is imoral in and of itself IMO.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sinker 0]

i'm not a pharmacist, i'm a research analyst for a pharma. research company. and if I was a pharmacist, i could not, in good conscience REFUSE to give out contraception, b/c it's not only prescribed for birth control. It is legitimately used for medicinal purposes. BUT, and this is a big BUT, not unlike my big BUTT, I would surely provide literature to the patient, as part of the informed consent process, what the risks of birth control are in the context of a sexually active female.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Forcing the doctor to giving information related to something they consider imoral is imoral in and of itself IMO.***

I agree. But they can say that if woman wishes to obtain services that the Catholic facility cannot provide, for reasons of conscience/morality/religion/whatever, the woman can go to another facility.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Quote

The PCP is believed to work principally by preventing your ovaries from releasing an egg, and by affecting the womb lining, so that a fertilised egg couldn’t ‘embed’ itself there.

In that statement, it clearly states that it is an abortifacient. Altering the lining of the uterus so that implantation of a FERTILIZED egg is unsuccessful is the very definition of abortifacient. For Catholics, human life begins at conception, NOT implantation. For medical facilities that do NOT hold this belief, administering the drug would not pose a problem.

-the artist formerly known as sinker