Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

By MADELEINE KEARNS
October 16, 2022 6:30 AM

Over the past 20 years, the number of Catholic-owned or affiliated hospitals in the United States has increased by around 22 percent. Catholic hospitals now make up one in seven hospital beds across the country. These hospitals treat all manner of patients with all manner of diseases and afflictions. However, under the directive of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and in line with Catholic social teaching, they cannot “perform or promote” a******n, contraception, sterilization, IVF, and (in states where it’s legal) euthanasia.

Some see this as a problem. In 2020, MergerWatch warned that “as Catholic health systems expand and strengthen, we are witnessing a ‘snowball effect’” that “expands religious restrictions to more and more hospitals and, increasingly, to locations outside of the hospital where people seek care.” A recent article in the Washington Post expressed similar concerns, all while acknowledging that “acquisition by a Catholic health system has, at times, kept a town’s only hospital from closing.” Sharing the Post’s article on Twitter, Jill Filipovic, an author and a******n-rights activist, wrote that: “If Catholic hospitals refuse to offer a basic standard of reproductive care, they should not be in business — and certainly shouldn’t be getting government resources or tax breaks.”

Imagine being so singularly committed to progressive dogma that you would prefer a hospital close than continue being Catholic. Indeed, one reason Catholic hospitals are so successful is because of their high standard of care for patients, regardless of how they identify.

Though abandoned by many clinicians, Catholic health-care professionals still operate under the principle of “first, do no harm.” The only restrictions on medical interventions set in place by Catholic hospitals are for those done to impair or destroy healthy bodily functioning — which are typically performed for non-medical reasons. For instance, contraception and sterilization (for contraceptive purposes) aren’t medically necessary because fertility isn’t a disease. In fact, periods of infertility occur naturally in women’s cycles anyway, which more women are seeking to educate themselves about to avoid the unwelcome (and underdiscussed) side effects of hormonal contraception.

A******n, meanwhile, ends a life and leaves a lasting mark on another. A******n is not medically necessary, but socially desirable. A******n advocates know this, of course, which is why they attempt to conflate a******ns with truly necessary treatments pertaining to miscarriage and ectopic pregnancies — as if pro-life doctors are so incompetent that they don’t know the difference. “Religious doctrine restricts access to a******n and birth control and limits treatment options for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies,” the Washington Post piece warned. The ACLU is more explicitly mendacious, claiming that “many Catholic hospitals across this country are withholding emergency care from patients who are in the midst of a miscarriage or experiencing other pregnancy complications.” This is a lie, as Alexandra DeSanctis has explained.

“G****r affirmation” — the chemical and surgical disfigurement of a person’s sexed body — also cannot be classified as health care. Incidentally, here is where Catholics are most likely to find non-Catholic allies. As my colleague Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote recently, “Some of us, looking into what T is all about, have seen the surgical scars of double mastectomies on children. We’ve read the accounts of surgically made facsimiles of g*****lia that make it not only impossible to procreate, but difficult, painful, and embarrassing to urinate.” Michael notes that the t*********r medical craze is “inspiring people who never thought of themselves as pious, or religious, or aligned with the Right at all to suddenly brace themselves to stand in front of these young people and protect them from this iconoclasm in the flesh. They feel that gratitude for our bodies, for who we are, is one of the treasures of this life. Gratitude aimed where? They are finding their way back to the very first question: Who made you?”

Without Congress changing the laws around conscience protections, there is a limit to what the federal government can do to force hospitals and health-care providers to participate in so-called “reproductive” and “g****r-affirming” care. But that hasn’t stopped them from trying. In April, the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services proposed a rule change that would twist the non-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act to do just that.

We’ve seen similar antics from Democrats before. In May 2016, the Obama administration issued its “t*********r mandate,” requiring health-care providers to participate in g****r-t***sition procedures. Nine states, multiple religious organizations, and an association of more than 19,000 health-care providers challenged the mandate in two federal courts. The courts found the mandate to be unlawful, defending health-care workers’ freedom to exercise their own conscience and professional judgment.

In response to progressives’ post-Dobbs hysteria, Biden issued executive orders calling the lack of a******n access across the country a “healthcare crisis.” But the true crisis is social and moral. Catholic hospitals continue to be a source of healing and hope for millions of Americans, as do Catholic charities serving women in crisis. A society so committed to the m********n, manipulation, and destruction of human life that it would shut down successful hospitals and disqualify competent clinicians for following their consciences has gone terribly wrong.

anotherview Loc: California

False premise: "A******n . . . ends a life." If a true premise, then the statuary law would apply to outlaw a******n on demand, as akin to murder. The anti-a******n fanatics would like this train of thought to prevail in the dialog concerning a******n on demand.

The Supreme Court, incidentally, did not rule on the subject of a******n itself but on the lack of constitutional support for a******n on demand. The Court has explicitly indicated that this matter belongs to the states to decide as they see fit.

Meantime, under common law as codified, life begins at birth.

Alternatively, life for the fetus begins when it can survive outside the womb.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Well, the article is not so much about a******n as much as it is about medical providers being allowed to operate in accordance with their conscience and the left's demands to be able to control and force them to preform procedures which violate their conscience. It is more about government control vs freedom and the fact that the left would destroy important institutions in communities in their quest for control.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Nope, you are wrong once again. Even a new born baby at full term can not survive at of the host mother without the help of the mother or other human being, so I guess life doesn't begin after full-term birth either. Will you claim it's just pure i***tic and ignorance.

This also debunks your claim that a******n do we snt end a life in respect to the law.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or k**led during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. Wikipedia

By the way, why you classify the anti-a******nist as fanatics who wants to save the life of the baby but the ones who support k*****g the child not considered fanatics??

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

The government should not have the authority to control which procedures must be performed in any hospital.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Why do you say it's a false premise? Because of man's law? Some of us defer to God's Law.

My wife worked in surgery at a Catholic hospital until it was sold to the state. All of our children were born there. When she had our third, we decided we were finished, so she went to the hospital across the street after delivering and had her tubes tied. No big deal. She got her pills (before the tubal) from the Jewish doctor who delivered our kids. Although the deliveries were at the hospital, he had a private practice. As far as a******ns, at the time, her hospital was the only one in the city that refused to perform them. There were four other major hospitals in the city, not to mention smaller ones, as well as clinics, so no shortage of availability.

anotherview Loc: California

Same false premise: "k*****g the child." Invalid as noted earlier.

anotherview Loc: California

Your argument may bring in politics, morality, and religion to justify an anti-a******n position. From what I gather, however, women want the choice to terminate a pregnancy apart from any ideology.

My personal experience with driving young females to get an a******n tells me that they agonize over their decision. Not a one of them said anything about politics, morality, or religion in their decision. Instead, they knew that they would end the potential of the fetus to become a newborn. They reason like a mother.

Medical doctors who object to a******n can find work in an institution that matches their position.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

First off your opinion is just that, your opinion and it is no more valid than anyone else's here. Secondly the article is about the left trying to stop doctors and clinicians from having the ability to work at institutions that match their personal beliefs because the left would close any institution that did not do a******ns, sterilizations, or g****r assignment therapy, or surgery.

anotherview Loc: California

Good morning. Your reply ignores the content and value of my view from my personal experience.

Your reply also elevates "the left" to a monolith interfering with the practice of medicine as a personal choice. Again, medical doctors may choose where they work and as suited to their adherence to a given belief system.

As you may recall, America grounded its formation on a separation of church and state, rejecting the Continental arrangement of government under the thumb of religion. Religionists may take this outcome in America as a hostility to their interests. Yet the sectarian model of governance has yielded to a secular one.

The Catholic Church nevertheless still wishes to impose its institutional will on public policy -- here its practice of limiting hospital medical services in order to exclude providing a******n on demand. The Church seeks a carve-out for its imposition of a religious doctrine that guides medical practice.

I suppose here that the federal government requires a hospital that receives federal dollars for its operation to offer a******n on demand to qualify for this source of funding. This qualification keeps the central government out of the business of fostering and furthering the interests of a religious institution. The U.S. Constitution supports this distinction.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

This is where you're getting government involved in religious practice. Another area that government does not belong is attempting to force religious adoption agencies to open their doors to same sex couples.

Laramie Loc: Tempe

As is, might I add MADELEINE KEARNS quote. Her opinion.

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto: "Another area that government does not belong is attempting to force religious adoption agencies to open their doors to same sex couples."

Two homosexuals together in a sexual relation cannot provide a natural family environment. After all, a little boy needs a mother and a little girl needs a father. Homosexuals by definition cannot provide this essential family makeup c*********d of a man and a woman.