Thursday, December 18, 2008
Pro Choicers Upset With Some Choices Made
The Washington Post, in reporting that the Bush Administration has issued rules to allow a wide array of health care professionals to refuse to perform certain services because of religious objections, notes, as a way of emphasizing the potential impact of this, that:
“Catholic hospitals have refused to administer the morning-after emergency contraception pill, perform abortions or treat women having miscarriages.” New Rule Protects Health-Care Workers' 'Right of Conscience' - washingtonpost.com
Why anyone thinks that Catholics should have to perform abortions or give out morning after pills (which the Church equates to abortion) is a curiosity and is no doubt result driven. (Or does the Left not normally tolerate Conscientious Objectors?) However it is the line about refusing to “treat women having miscarriages” that inspires this post because it is so mind-bogglingly misleading.
Women who have had or are having miscarriages at a Catholic hospital should normally find that these hospitals are especially considerate of the life lost. The unborn child is normally cremated and/or buried with full recognition of its human status. A miscarriage carries no moral baggage and no Catholic hospital that I know of refuses to treat women having miscarriages.
So where does this slander come from? Kindly assuming that Post writer Rob Stein is just ignorant or lazy and not simply an anti-Catholic bigot, I’m going to guess he got it from some fallout from a recent paper entitled: When there's a heartbeat: miscarriage management in Catholic-owned hospitals. From the abstract:
“Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees denied approval of uterine evacuation while fetal heart tones were still present, forcing physicians to delay care or transport miscarrying patients to non-Catholic-owned facilities.”
In other words, barring mitigating circumstances (i.e. a threat to the mother’s life) if the unborn child is not already confirmed dead, the Catholic hospital will not hasten his death.
The so-called pro-choice Left, be it with their unnatural fixation on embryonic stem cell research or legislative efforts to force all to accept their just-a-clump-of-cells attitude to toward unborn children, doggedly strives to force pro-lifers into compromising positions for the big “Aha!” moment. I have no doubt the incoming Administration, projecting ambivalence on these matters and at the beck and call of a fired-up Congress, will seek to overturn this new rule and, indeed, go further with the Orwellian-named Freedom of Choice Act. Radical Chic; Meet Principle.
“Catholic hospitals have refused to administer the morning-after emergency contraception pill, perform abortions or treat women having miscarriages.” New Rule Protects Health-Care Workers' 'Right of Conscience' - washingtonpost.com
Why anyone thinks that Catholics should have to perform abortions or give out morning after pills (which the Church equates to abortion) is a curiosity and is no doubt result driven. (Or does the Left not normally tolerate Conscientious Objectors?) However it is the line about refusing to “treat women having miscarriages” that inspires this post because it is so mind-bogglingly misleading.
Women who have had or are having miscarriages at a Catholic hospital should normally find that these hospitals are especially considerate of the life lost. The unborn child is normally cremated and/or buried with full recognition of its human status. A miscarriage carries no moral baggage and no Catholic hospital that I know of refuses to treat women having miscarriages.
So where does this slander come from? Kindly assuming that Post writer Rob Stein is just ignorant or lazy and not simply an anti-Catholic bigot, I’m going to guess he got it from some fallout from a recent paper entitled: When there's a heartbeat: miscarriage management in Catholic-owned hospitals. From the abstract:
“Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees denied approval of uterine evacuation while fetal heart tones were still present, forcing physicians to delay care or transport miscarrying patients to non-Catholic-owned facilities.”
In other words, barring mitigating circumstances (i.e. a threat to the mother’s life) if the unborn child is not already confirmed dead, the Catholic hospital will not hasten his death.
The so-called pro-choice Left, be it with their unnatural fixation on embryonic stem cell research or legislative efforts to force all to accept their just-a-clump-of-cells attitude to toward unborn children, doggedly strives to force pro-lifers into compromising positions for the big “Aha!” moment. I have no doubt the incoming Administration, projecting ambivalence on these matters and at the beck and call of a fired-up Congress, will seek to overturn this new rule and, indeed, go further with the Orwellian-named Freedom of Choice Act. Radical Chic; Meet Principle.
