Religion
Related: About this forumACLU: Catholic hospitals deny women critical care
Today, one in six hospital beds in the United States is in a hospital that abides by Catholic restrictions. Catholic hospitals receive billions in taxpayer dollars. Why are they getting away with turning away patients in emergencies and other patients seeking critical reproductive health services?
In America, religious freedom is a fundamental right. But it does not grant hospitals the right to force their religious beliefs on patients or discriminate by closing the door to patients.
Demand oversight. Ask the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to step in and tell Catholic hospitals across the country to stop the harm and discrimination.
https://action.aclu.org/secure/care-denied?redirect=af-care-deniedFB&ms=fb_160503_religiousrefusals_catholichospitalsaffiliates
SIGN THE PETITION!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)All of them. Even the University Of Washington UW Physicians has a joint operating agreement with them. And that means, catholic rules apply now. To get around this, UW Physicians funds a women's clinic across the street.
PeaceHealth is the catholic network in this case:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/uw-medicine-catholic-health-system-to-have-lsquostrategic-affiliationrsquo/
This is the Roman Catholic Church's strategy to end-run around Roe vs. Wade in the United States. Forget making it illegal, they'll just acquire ALL the hospitals, and make it unavailable.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)who cover for the destruction of women's healthcare options by assuring us that it's an acceptable loss, because if not for the wonderful church there would be no hospital at all.
And besides, a woman in danger of dying from a pregnancy can just drive 6 hours or so to another hospital while she's in septic shock. No big deal, right?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)The issue with tubal ligation is if you are getting a repeat C-section it is easier and cheaper to get the tubes tied during the procedure than to do it later. And insurers want those tubes tied.
I have never been comfortable with sterilization of women who have just had a child. I see them change their minds later.
mainer
(12,022 posts)usually women have already told their doctors ahead of birth that they want their tubes tied.
Catholic doctrine is forcing them to undergo another medical procedure at a later date, with the extra risk it entails.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I see women who have made the conscience choice to not have children past a certain point forced to do so.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)That's nonsense.
Point the first: It isn't just cheaper and easier to perform a tubal ligation while the patient is already under for a C-section, it's also safer. So there's that.
Point the second: Some women have or develop conditions whereby pregnancy or childbirth could kill them or the child. In such situations is not uncommon for doctors to recommend tubal ligation. Seeing as the decision for these patients is "sterilization or probably death for you and the child", there's little chance they're going to regret not dying and taking their unborn baby with them. There's nothing spurious or unreasonable about the recommendation...
... in contrast to hospitals' refusal to perform them because the owners -- not the doctors, mind you -- think an invisible father figure in the sky gets angry when people fuck without producing a child.
niyad
(113,219 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Why so little public attention to this?
It's FEMICIDE.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)They treat it with kid gloves, and avoid publishing criticism of it whenever they can.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)It's predictable. Dire threats against women don't get much response. I don't get it.