Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
69. Are you serious? "the Catholic church has no power in America"?
Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:44 PM
Apr 2017

Catholic hospitals are being sued for denying women adequate medical care.

Do Bishops Run Your Hospital?

The Catholic Church is making health care decisions for more and more Americans—whether they know it or not.

Between 2001 and 2011, the number of American hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church grew 16 percent, even as the number of public hospitals and secular nonprofit hospitals dropped 31 percent and 12 percent, respectively, according to an upcoming report by the American Civil Liberties Union and MergerWatch, a nonprofit that tracks religious health care mergers. In 2012, Catholic hospitals and health care systems were involved in 24 mergers or acquisitions, according to Irving Levin Associates, a market research firm. Ten of the 25 largest nonprofit hospital systems in the country are Catholic, and Catholic hospitals care for 1 in 6 American patients. In at least eight states, 30 percent or more of patient admissions are at Catholic facilities.

Ten of the 25 largest nonprofit hospital systems in the country are Catholic, and Catholic hospitals care for 1 in 6 patients.

Catholic hospitals are required to follow health care directives handed down by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops—a group of celibate older men who have become increasingly conservative over the past few decades. (Recall the bishops' ongoing showdown with the White House over Obamacare's requirement that health insurance plans cover contraception.) The issues go far beyond abortion. The bishops' directives restrict how doctors in Catholic hospitals may treat everything from miscarriages to terminal illness. How this treatment differs from that of secular hospitals is not always disclosed to patients.

"When you go into a hospital or an ER, you do not think that there's a bishop between you and your doctor," says Linda McCarthy, CEO of a Planned Parenthood branch in western Washington. In 2010, Peter Sartain, a prominent bishop recently enlisted by the church to crack down on nuns deemed too liberal, was appointed to the Seattle diocese. Not long afterward, he told the Catholic hospital in McCarthy's area to stop performing lab work for Planned Parenthood that the hospital had handled for at least a decade, including tests unrelated to abortion, such as cholesterol screenings. McCarthy publicized the demand and the hospital backed off, for the time being.

"The Catholic bishops are seizing an opportunity to control the health care we all pay for, and they're being wildly successful," says Monica Harrington, the co-chair of Washington Women for Choice. A spate of proposed deals could leave Catholic facilities accounting for 50 percent of the state's hospital admissions. "We could very well end up with three conservative bishops overseeing health care for 6 million people," McCarthy says.

Abortion services are always quick to go when a Catholic hospital takes over, but the changes go much further. In many cases, doctors are prohibited from prescribing birth control, and hospital pharmacies won't sell it. Doctors may even be told not to counsel patients about it. Catholic hospitals have been reluctant to offer emergency contraception to rape victims, and when they do, they first require a pregnancy test to ensure the woman was not pregnant before the assault. The bishops' guidelines forbid tubal ligations and vasectomies. They also extend to end-of-life care: Catholic hospitals may ignore patients' requests to be removed from feeding tubes or life support, even if those wishes are expressed in living wills. And many states allow religious hospitals to discriminate against gays and lesbians, both as employees and as patients.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/catholic-hospitals-bishops-contraception-abortion-health-care


That article is from 2013 and it's only gotten worse:

Healthcare Denied At 550 Hospitals Because Of Catholic Doctrine

A disturbing new report from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and MergerWatch, “Health Care Denied,” finds that one in six hospitals in the U.S. are operated in accordance with Catholic religious rules, known as the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs).

While perhaps best known for prohibiting abortion, the restrictions go far beyond that, and impact more than reproductive health.

For women, the impact can be deadly.

Abortions are prohibited even if the fetus has no chance of survival and the mother’s life is in danger. Savita Halappanavar died of sepsis in Ireland because her physicians would neither terminate her doomed pregnancy to save her life, nor transfer her to a facility that would care of her. Tamesha Means was luckier. She survived. Despite starting to miscarry at 18 weeks’ gestation, she says that Mercy Health in Muskegon, Michigan, sent her home, denying her appropriate care and putting her life at risk. There are similar, less well-known cases here, detailed in the ACLU report. Not providing emergency care is a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requirement for hospitals that receive Medicare funding—and Catholic health systems receive billions in taxpayer dollars.

In “Growth of Catholic Hospitals and Health Systems: 2016 update to ‘Miscarriage of Medicine’,” MergerWatch reports disturbing growth in Catholic-dictated health care. Between 2001 to 2016:

–The number of acute care hospitals that are Catholic owned or affiliated grew by 22 percent, while the overall number of acute care hospitals dropped by 6 percent

– There are now five states (Alaska, Iowa, Washington, Wisconsin and South Dakota), where more than 40 percent of acute care beds are in hospitals operating under Catholic health restrictions

–In another five states (Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Oregon and Kentucky), between 30 and 39 percent of the acute care beds are in facilities that are Catholic owned or affiliated

Physicians at Catholic hospitals have to agree to abide by the ERDs as a condition of obtaining privileges. Depending in part on the whim of the local bishop, this could include gag rules prohibiting counseling a patient or referring a patient to a place that would provide necessary services.

In Washington state, data shows that 40% of all hospital beds are in a Catholic hospital. There is no other option for care in entire regions. This is especially true in rural regions, and it is frightening when the only access to healthcare is dictated by someone else’s religious doctrine, rather than medical science.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/05/07/health-care-denied-at-550-hospitals-because-of-catholic-doctrine/


The RCC has influenced American politics for decades:

The Personhood Movement: Internal Battles Go Public: Part 2

In 1975, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops had developed a plan to turn every diocese into an anti-choice political machine and to use its existing infrastructure to set up an office in every congressional district. The bishops’ plan included a four-pronged legislative strategy, which continues to guide the anti-choice movement today:

(a) Passage of a constitutional amendment providing protection for the unborn child to the maximum degree possible.

(b) Passage of federal and state laws and adoption of administrative policies that will restrict the practice of abortion as much as possible.

(c) Continual research into and refinement and precise interpretation of Roe and Doe and subsequent court decisions.

(d) Support for legislation that provides alternatives to abortion.


In other words: fight for an amendment to undo Roe, but at the same time work through the courts and legislatures to make it harder for women to access legal abortion. While Roe would remain the law of the land, women would not be able to actually exercise their rights.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/personhood-movement-internal-battles-go-public-part-2-0


They were also behind the Hobby Lobby decision:

How the Catholic Church masterminded the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby debacle

The Catholic bishops now sought a broad-based conscience clause that would allow any employer or insurer to refuse to cover contraceptives for any religious or moral objection. This represented a major escalation in the grounds for claiming conscience protections. Traditionally so-called conscience clauses, like the 1973 Church Amendment, protected individuals or health care entities like hospitals only from being compelled to directly perform abortions or sterilizations in violation of their moral or religious beliefs. In 1997, the federal government expanded conscience protections to the payers of abortion-related services when it allowed Medicaid and Medicare managed-care plans to refuse to pay providers for abortion counseling or referral services. Now the bishops were attempting to extend conscience protection to any payer who had a “moral” objection to contraception. Such a measure would make contraceptive coverage mandates useless, because any employer or insurer could opt out. And it would once again leave women’s reproductive health care at the mercy of individual employers and insurers and stigmatize contraceptives, like abortion, as a segregated health service that could be carved out of the continuum of women’s health needs.

The bishops failed to get a broader conscience clause in the bill mandating coverage of contraceptives for federal employees, but they did manage to get an exemption for the five religiously affiliated plans in the system. Having set the precedent that religious providers would be treated differently concerning the provision of reproductive health care, even in the matter of noncontroversial services such as contraception, the bishops launched a major new effort to create broad conscience exemptions.

...

There was more at stake that just the bishops’ authority over services provided by Catholic institutions. Domestic and international social service agencies affiliated with the church, like Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Relief Services, receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts each year to provide social services to the poor, run adoption agencies, and manage international development projects. Catholic Charities affiliates received nearly $3 billion in government funding in 2010, accounting for more than 60 percent of their revenue. Religiously affiliated hospitals in the United States, of which 70 percent are Catholic, receive some $40 billion in government funding each year through Medicare and Medicaid and other government programs.

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/14/how_the_catholic_church_masterminded_the_supreme_courts_hobby_lobby_debacle/


Women are suffering and dying because the RCC has too much power.

Don't you dare expect me to be happy about that or excuse the pope's misogyny because he's not as bad as his predecessors.

Am I also expected to praise the progressiveness of other religious homophobes and misogynists or is the pope special for some reason?
Hell.To.The.Fucking.No! 50 Shades Of Blue Apr 2017 #1
Simple is a good definition. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #2
It's a simple question specifically regarding women's and lgbt rights. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #3
I need more information. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #4
I can't possibly make it any simpler. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #5
People don't usually respond to obvious straw men Lordquinton Apr 2017 #7
If you can't fully oppose laws designed to impose anyone's religious views, that's not progressive. bettyellen Apr 2017 #9
Precisely. This is a deal breaker for me. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #10
I think that there are several Curmudgeoness Apr 2017 #20
I believe that I specified in another thread that I was talking about guillaumeb Apr 2017 #21
But who gives a crap Curmudgeoness Apr 2017 #22
Everything is either undefined, or based on one single issue. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #30
I love how the rights of historically opressed people Lordquinton Apr 2017 #40
Is that how you define progressive? What about military intervention to prevent genocide? beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #46
I believe no one cares. Act_of_Reparation Apr 2017 #23
Were you going to vote, or were you just hanging around in this thread for no particular reason? AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #26
Just watching the evasion, and outright reluctance to name guillaumeb Apr 2017 #31
Well, you've offered plenty of red herrings. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #34
And who is Dr. Susan Blackmore, and what qualifies her for the label? guillaumeb Apr 2017 #35
It is how I identify her after many hours of lectures, and several books, plus public speaking AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #44
In your definition of Progressive EvolveOrConvolve Apr 2017 #15
No. But I do not dismiss all that is progressive in judging. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #17
Barney Frank and Pete Stark edhopper Apr 2017 #28
Pete Stark? With his well-known respect for women? guillaumeb Apr 2017 #32
Still better than the Pope. Lordquinton Apr 2017 #41
A matter of opinion. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #49
Woah, you just took it to the next level Lordquinton Apr 2017 #52
Even with assistance? guillaumeb Apr 2017 #53
The Orthodox Christian Putin? Lordquinton Apr 2017 #54
Progressive comrades of faith!!! trotsky Apr 2017 #60
I'm unclear about your response EvolveOrConvolve Apr 2017 #81
First, define what a progressive is, and is not. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #87
Hitchens wasn't a progressive. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #24
They are labelled Religious Prerogative Progressives delisen Apr 2017 #6
I googled that term and didn't find a match. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #8
Sorry I was being flippant. Active opposition to the rights of others is not progressive, delisen Apr 2017 #11
Ah, gotcha. I think that's where the difference lies. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #12
I am male, and abortion is not a choice I could make. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #18
I can't tell if that was a dog whistle or not. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #68
All of that would be covered by my pro-choice stance. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #75
Still not clear. trotsky Apr 2017 #80
The subject of another post. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #86
Now it's clear. trotsky Apr 2017 #93
They could be a Democrat but not a Progressive IMO. nt WePurrsevere Apr 2017 #13
Agreed. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #14
When one treats a certain group as less than whole citizens Dawson Leery Apr 2017 #16
Meaning that none of the Founders of this country were progressive in a modern sense. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #19
That depends edhopper Apr 2017 #29
According to Antonin Scalia............... guillaumeb Apr 2017 #33
Why is you're go to an atheist conservative theist? Lordquinton Apr 2017 #42
And you believe Scalia? beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #45
nice side stepping edhopper Apr 2017 #50
Scalia did the country a great service when he allowed a seat to open up. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #51
The Repukes edhopper Apr 2017 #67
For added hilarity, let's repeat this poll in GD. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #25
I guess. If they don't advocate for government involvement in lgbt and reproductive rights? Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #27
As I said up-thread I'm referring to those who actively oppose lgbt and reproductive rights. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #36
No, and why would the question even need to be asked? Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #37
Because some people do call them progressives. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #39
I mean, the pope is progressive by comparison to the 17th century time bubble that the Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #61
Wait, what? You just said opposition to lgbt and reproductive rights isn't progressive. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #63
Yeah in a perfect world I'd dissolve all religions entirely because they require adherence to Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #66
Are you serious? "the Catholic church has no power in America"? beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #69
"the Catholic church has no power in America" Act_of_Reparation Apr 2017 #71
Something else to ask... NeoGreen Apr 2017 #38
That's a very good question. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #47
NO Doreen Apr 2017 #43
That's my opinion as well. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #48
Nope! Liberalism and egalitarianism go hand and hand. LostOne4Ever Apr 2017 #55
Well said! beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #56
No...if you condone anti-LGBT or anti-choice legislation, you are not progressive. LOL Lib Apr 2017 #57
Agreed. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #59
Apparently a Few People Like This *Are* Calling Themselves Progressive On the Road Apr 2017 #58
"drive off all the religious people" trotsky Apr 2017 #62
Asking a simple question is "driving off all the religious people"? beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #64
You and I have been here long enough to have seen that old threat thrown out many times. trotsky Apr 2017 #65
Yep. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #70
"Back of the bus with you, atheist!" trotsky Apr 2017 #72
It's nice here in the back of the bus. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #73
You bet. trotsky Apr 2017 #74
Aw. Iggo Apr 2017 #85
You can't deny civil rights and basic health care to over half the population Warpy Apr 2017 #76
Exactly. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #78
You can call yourself the easter bunny for all I care, but vlyons Apr 2017 #77
That's where the difference is. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #79
Relative to the rest of their particular religious community, maybe. Htom Sirveaux Apr 2017 #82
A reasonable answer. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #83
Yeah, I would agree with that. Htom Sirveaux Apr 2017 #84
No I would not define them as progressive. hrmjustin Apr 2017 #88
I feel the same way. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #89
BTW my mom had open heart surgery yesterday. hrmjustin Apr 2017 #90
I hope she continues to recover and is home soon. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #91
Thanks. hrmjustin Apr 2017 #92
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Can a religious person be...»Reply #69