When the Catholic Church owns your doctor: The insidious new threat to affordable birth control

[trotsky]

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/11/when_the_catholic_church_owns_your_doctor_the_insidious_new_threat_to_affordable_birth_control/

Angela Valavanis had already had one bad encounter with the Catholic health care system when St. Francis Hospital, the hospital in Evanston, Ill., where she delivered her second baby, refused to allow her OB/GYN to tie her tubes because of Catholic restrictions on the procedure. When she went to her doctor’s office for a check-up after the birth and asked about going back on the Pill, since she hadn’t gotten the sterilization she wanted, she got another shock: “My doctor told me that she couldn’t prescribe birth control because she had sold her practice to a Catholic health system,” said Angela. “My mouth dropped open. I was so confused to hear those words coming out of the mouth of an OB/GYN.”

An OB/GYN who can’t prescribe birth control? It’s not some bad joke. It could be a reality if your doctor’s practice is purchased by a Catholic health system that then imposes the Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a set of rules created by the U.S. Bishop’s Conference that prohibits doctors from doing everything from prescribing the Pill to performing sterilizations or abortions.

And Angela’s experience may be just the tip of the iceberg. Driven by health-care economics and incentives in the Affordable Care Act, health systems, which are a collection of hospitals and ancillary services, are acquiring physician practices at an unprecedented rate. The percentage of doctors who were employees of health systems increased from 20 percent to 26 percent between 2012 and 2013 alone; more than 40 percent of primary care doctors like OB/GYNs are now employed by health systems directly, and experts don’t see the trend slowing.

And with Catholic hospital systems accounting for eight of the 10 of the largest nonprofit health systems in the U.S., these hospitals are poised to become major owners of doctors’ offices, which could severely impede access to contraceptives if doctors are forced to follow the Directives. “The more we see these Catholic systems buying up these practices, the more we are going to see what Angela saw,” predicted Lorie Chaiten, director of the Illinois ACLU’s Reproductive Rights Project, who notes that such refusals are legal under Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience Act.

Oh but hey, I hear that arrogant atheists who don't respect religion are the real problem.

[Cleita]

1. You really shouldn't go to a Catholic hospital and expect you will will get any

birth control. That's like going to a restaurant that serves middle eastern cuisine and expecting to get served ham.

[trotsky]

4. You're missing a huge point of the article.

The RCC has been so busy buying up hospitals and practices, people are left with fewer and fewer choices. Some have none.

[Cleita]

9. That is a problem and the reason I have been told is that when

funding for community hospitals started drying up the Catholic hospital system stepped in to fill the void. Communities really need to get rid of their Republican legislators to fix this. Our local hospital which was once run by the city is now a Catholic hospital and our county hospital shut down a decade or more ago. But I will still say, don't expect birth control at a Catholic hospital anymore than you can get a Jehovah's Witness to register to vote as I found out the hard way last Saturday.

People will not go against their religious principles. To change it you need to build and operate non-secretarian, non-profit hospitals. That most likely will involve an increase in property taxes. Watch all the property owners scream.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. You may have been told that but the RCC's motivations include

freezing out access to abortions by owning all the hospitals.

[trotsky]

12. The primary issue is that the RCC is aggressively pursing the purchases.

And then forcing everyone - Catholics and non-Catholics - to abide by their dogma.

Let me ask you, if it was Scientologists buying up hospitals, and then shutting down all mental health programs, would you still blame Republicans or property owners? Or would you agree that if the Scientologists want to be in the healthcare business, they need to get their religious dogma out of it?

[Cleita]

13. I would because laws are needed that prevent that from happening.

It used to be that every community had a community or county hospital. Other hospitals could be built but the county or state run hospitals were available for what the private hospitals couldn't or wouldn't offer. Ask yourself why all these hospitals are no longer functioning? It's because our legislators have cut the funding for them to operate and allowed the Catholics to move in replacing what health care facilities the community needs.

What you want is for a cat to behave like a dog. It's not in its nature.

[trotsky]

17. Wow, so your church gets a pass for its anti-woman dogma.

Everyone else is to blame. Got it. It's just your church's nature to want to control everyone and restrict their choices, there's no way it will ever change. Damn.

[Cleita]

28. You are assuming this my Church? Okay I get it where you are coming from.

Thread is over for me. There will be no meaningful discussion.

Let me state again. I worship no one else's gods. I support no religious institution.

[trotsky]

46. Uh huh.

Got it. I can certainly understand why you want to bail now, though. Kind of tough blaming everyone else for your misogynistic church's problems.

[beam me up scottie]

19. The church is doing everything in its power to force women to give birth.

Stop comparing a misogynistic organization to cats and dogs.

It's offensive to animal lovers.

[Cleita]

29. Whaat!

Many churches hold that position. Not just Catholics.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Did you read my post down thread?

It's not just their "position", it's their goal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=197713

[Cleita]

34. Well, it's the Koch brothers goal to become our kings.

You need to work on stopping the public and federal funds being given to these institutions. the Bush administration opened this can of worms by muddling the separation of church and state in giving funds to theses charities with religious ties. I remember us arguing about it on DU back then and there was a whole contingent of DUers who thought it was just fine. I guess the chickens are coming home to roost.

[beam me up scottie]

35. But no one on DU excuses the behaviour of the Koch brothers.

You may not be a catholic but can you see why your response can be seen as apologizing for the church?

[Cleita]

38. Well. What I see are Catholic bashing threads to the exclusion of other religions

like Mormons who have very abusive rules about women and their reproduction and many other number of religions that do the same. You don't seem to want to look at what the core of the problem is which is the funding of these hospitals and religious charities with federal money. Now I see much good being done by other religions working with the homeless and Catholics do that too. But the problem is giving them money if they have religious affiliations of any kind, however, according to many here it's only the Catholics which smacks of bigotry to me.

[beam me up scottie]

41. So you are a catholic apologist.

We're bigots because we're "bashing" the catholic church because once again, they made the headlines by restricting my rights.

The largest misogynistic institution in the world thanks you for slandering its critics

[trotsky]

47. Yes, bmus.

The Catholic Church can actively work against reproductive rights and gender equality in every country on earth...

but WE'RE bigots when we point that out.

Up is down, yada yada. Because religion.

[beam me up scottie]

79. Right. The RCC's war against women isn't a good enough reason to criticize the church.

The anti-catholic bigots are getting all hysterical over nothing.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. You know why? There's a good reason.

Because most of us are fighting all the time, against this specific church, which is dominant here in the US.

Fight to legalize physician assisted suicide in WA? The organized opposition to I-1000 was entirely catholic. Top donors, the activists, all of it. Even the supposedly 'secular' physicians group that signed on against it, was filled with catholic doctors.

Catholic 'bashing' as you call it, is happening here in the US, right now, because the RCC is politically dominant. They are winning in the courts too. What you call 'bashing' is actually just us trying to protect ourselves. I already linked you a story upthread about how they are trying to take over the entire medical system in the PacNW.

I MOSTLY hurf durf about the RCC here, because the RCC is in my face, and trying to impose its doctrines on me. I have plenty of dislike for the Mormon church as well, but that church isn't *here*, banging on my gate, trying to get in my bedroom.

[CoffeeCat]

53. I am so sick and tired of Catholics, specifically...

…ignoring the horrifying things that are happening in the name of their Church--and then turning around and saying, "No fair to pick on us! The Lutherans do it too!"

Well, you aren't a Lutheran. Or a Mormon. You're a Catholic. And you sit in those pews and support an establishment that has become so offensive, it's mind blowing. Decades of child molestations and cover ups, anyone?

And this isn't JUST about denying birth control to women. This is about the Catholic Church cornering the healthcare market--as they buy up hospitals, leaving women with no choices.

Not only do they want their parishioners to stay away from birth control, they demand that the entire world should as well. I mean seriously! The arrogance!

The irony--90 percent of Catholics use birth control. They don't even follow their own Church's dogma. But, the rest of us are to be denied birth control and follow the Catholic dogma that 90 percent of their own followers find absurd and unrealistic???

It's flippin' insanity.

[Cleita]

55. Again I'm not a Catholic or even a Christian.

People who make unfounded assumptions about people they don't know make them look like they don't know about a lot of things and are just believing what others tell them.

[trotsky]

57. So why defend the church and its dogma that is attacking women?

You were raised Catholic, I remember something you said about that. Clearly you still have an attachment to the church, to the point of defending it from criticism by accusing its critics of being anti-Catholic bigots.

If I object to the RCC trying to take away reproductive rights from ALL human beings, does that make me an anti-Catholic bigot?

[Cleita]

58. Yes because my mother was Catholic and I went to parochial school.

But it was because my parents liked the fact that the nuns taught with discipline and they thought that I needed it. There were no religious practices in my home. No rosaries recited. My dad was a Freemason for Chrissakes. I don't go to Mass. I don't belong to any parish. I never married in the Church nor will I receive last rites when I die. I used birth control when I was married. I'm not a Catholic any way you look at. The Catholic Church's stand on women's reproductive rights is the reason my mother left and that I'm not one.

However, there are as many women who are practicing Catholic or belong to religious orders, who need to change the Church from within about this and many of them are trying although I think their quest is quixotic. The Church will not change. Women need to leave the church but they won't.

You did open my eyes that the Church is taking over health care and not leaving people other choices. That is wrong and we need to fight it by taking away the government funding they are receiving or forcing them to provide all women's reproductive rights services if they do.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. The RCC is engineered from the ground up to resist change from within.

So I agree, it is quixotic.

If Cbayer is in any way consistent, she will now come and attack you for suggesting women should leave the church. Which is also odd since she claims to be an atheist. Just giving you a heads up.

[Cleita]

65. Not the first time I have been attacked here.

The Church needs to become the brotherhood of celibate men, which I believe Paul envisioned. But they need to leave women alone. Actually, they once did this. Through the ages up to about the eighteenth century women's issues were left to the women and the mid-wives who were often also herbal healers who had a variety of concoctions and practices to prevent and end unwanted pregnancies. The clergy and men pretty much stayed out of it.

As a matter of fact, the population of Europe was stable through the Middle Ages. Of course, a lot of this was disease and war, but I think much of it was about women controlling their fertility.
It was when universities were established for the education of clergy that the physician orders of men doctors emerged. They started practicing in childbirth and resented the mid-wives practicing the same. Being they were various orders of clergy, they tended to start interpreting women's fertility through selected biblical references. This also seems to coincide with the practice of witch burning getting rid of the competition it appears.

It wasn't until the middle of the nineteenth century that the Pope at that time, whose name I forget, issued an encyclical banning birth control abortion and basically the doctrine of the sex in marriage being only for procreation emerged. Here's the rub. Once it is declared a doctrine, it's almost impossible to walk back. So women really need to leave and the Church can become a brotherhood of guys like Shriners maybe. That's my thoughts on it though.

I used to have a lot of references on this but a computer crash took care of it so I haven't rebuilt it. But I'm certain some googling will bring up similar references.

[PeaceNikki]

20. I think they should take dogma out of healthcare.

A hosp admin named Margaret McBride was excommunicated from the church for saving a woman's life.

On 27 November 2009, the committee was consulted on the case of a 27-year-old woman who was eleven weeks pregnant with her fifth child and suffering from pulmonary hypertension.[1][3] Her doctors stated that the woman's chance of dying if the pregnancy was allowed to continue was "close to 100 percent".[5]

McBride joined the ethics committee in approving the decision to terminate the pregnancy through an induced abortion.[1] The abortion took place and the mother survived.[5]

Afterwards, the abortion came to the attention of Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix. Olmsted spoke to McBride privately and she confirmed her participation in the procurement of the abortion.[7] Olmsted informed her that in allowing the abortion, she had incurred a latae sententiae, or automatic, excommunication. McBride was subsequently reassigned from her post as vice president of mission integration at the hospital.[1]

In May 2010, the incident came to the attention of the Arizona Republic newspaper, which asked the hospital and the bishop for comments. Both the bishop and the hospital provided answers to the newspaper's request, and on 15 May 2010 the two statements were published online.[8]

In December 2010, Olmsted announced that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix was severing its affiliation with the hospital, after months of discussion had failed to obtain from the hospital management a promise not to perform abortions in the future. "If we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible, we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case," said hospital president Linda Hunt. "Morally, ethically, and legally, we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_of_Margaret_McBride

Fired and excommunicated. FOR SAVING A WOMAN'S LIFE.

[trotsky]

24. Well you see, people shouldn't have voted for Republicans.

It's obviously the responsibility of our government to stop the RCC from enacting its harsh anti-woman policies. It can't help itself.

[PeaceNikki]

26. Right cuz Democrats would *never* defend misogyny wrapped in dogma!!

Oh, wait....

[trotsky]

45. Oh snap! n/t

[Cleita]

30. Many have been excommunicated for doing the right thing.

Many have been fired for doing the right thing. Sure you would like to get rid of those institutions. But it won't happen.

[PeaceNikki]

32. What I would like is for women to be treated equally and dogma left out of healthcare.

I want to get rid of dogma in healthcare and legislation. Since we don't live in a theocracy, I think that's a reasonable thing to ask for.

[Cleita]

36. I want that to. What I'm pointing out is that the leopard is not going to change its

spots. You need to work on getting taxpayers money out of the hands of these institutions. You need to start making our pols honor our Constitution and the separation of church and state. I would go a step further and work for another amendment separating corporation and state. Those two things would take the gas about of that balloon.

[PeaceNikki]

37. I am working on it by supporting the ACLU and being politically active, but thanks?

I guess.

[Cleita]

40. I've been going to City Council and County Board of Supervisors meetings

on other issues, like bringing tar sands oils through our community by rail, but I'm putting this on my agenda to pressure them into at least looking into it. If it's federal money though, may it's Congress that needs the gadfly. the ACLU may be the way to go on this.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. In this case, the 'community' being subsumed, is the Greater Seattle Area.

The whole enchilada. All of it. Not just small community health care, the entire regional top-tier health care providers.

The RCC has found a way to maneuver around Roe v. Wade, and they are pursuing it in earnest.

[PeaceNikki]

15. You shouldn't go to a Catholic hospital and expect you will get decent care.

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)

At all. Especially if you're a women. In fact, try, at all possible costs to avoid one. Tell your loved ones and put in advanced medical directives that you want nothing to do with them. The problem is that many poor have no choice so dogma is given priority over your health.

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

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/12/02/248243411/aclu-sues-u-s-bishops-says-catholic-hospital-rules-put-women-at-risk

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/03/25/dont-take-her-to-catholic-hospital/

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/safety-of-women-in-catholic-hospitals-questioned-by-top-bioethicist-94688044-237696791.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/dangers-of-a-catholichospitaluntold.html

[Cleita]

21. The poor used to go to municipal or county run hospitals.

Actually, when those types of facilities were available Catholic hospitals were expensive and mostly catered to middle class and well off Catholics. They also limited their services. I worked at St. John's hospital in Santa Monica in the late fifties. Then they wouldn't take any patients with infectious diseases and did not operate an ER because the city run hospital did those functions. They also mostly didn't deal with the poor either. We need to fund public hospitals again with no religious affiliations.

[PeaceNikki]

22. Agreed. But they're already in the business of healthcare and they get federal funding.

They are discriminating against women. The funding should end.

[Cleita]

27. I agree 100%. The funding should end. I've always been against giving taxpayer's

money to private charities and institutions. They can go beg for it like they used to.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. My fiancee's Gynecologist's office was bought out/absorbed by Mercy health, an...

explicitly Catholic health service. At first, nothing had changed, but honestly, we changed doctors before things got difficult. We have already decided that we will go to BJC for any reproductive health care in the region, but the closest hospitals to us are all Catholic, so we hope for no emergencies.

[Cleita]

23. I agree with you. It shouldn't be that way.

You actually have given me a new cause to present to my local government lawmaking bodies. We need public non-religious hospitals in the area.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. We are lucky that we live in a largish metro-area with more than one health care system...

However, and thankfully the largest of these systems is BJC Healthcare, which is largely secular, despite the name(Barnes-Jewish), or because of it, I actually looked on the website to try to find any explicitly religious material, and found none. The names of the hospitals and such seem to be historical/traditional, rather than denomination now. Missouri Baptist, for example, is run by BJC, rather than any Baptist churches.

Contrast that with SSM Healthcare, which is explicitly Catholic, and one of the other large health care systems here, I was actually born in one of their hospitals.

Then there's the aformentioned Mercy, which is the 3rd largest regional system based here. What's funny is the nickname many of their employees call them, "No-Mercy" because of many of the policies they have regarding their employee's health insurance, let's just say they are strict, and I'm not just talking about Birth Control.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. In Seattle, the RCC has wormed joint operating agreements or ownership into 10 of the 11

major regional hospitals.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/uw-medicine-catholic-health-system-to-have-lsquostrategic-affiliationrsquo/

Even University of Washington Physicians.

The two organizations said they will remain legally separate and independent, but critics of such affiliations noted that after Swedish Medical Center used such language in an affiliation with Providence Health & Services last year, it stopped doing elective abortions and closed its hospice service.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services restrict such services as abortion, birth control, sterilization and patients’ rights regarding end-of-life treatment.

Other so-called affiliations have turned out to be wholesale purchases of hospitals by Catholic systems.

So, nice attempt to dismiss the problem there.

[Cleita]

54. Not dismissing it. Until I entered this thread, I didn't realize how pervasive the problem

is. I just thought it was another of many threads bashing Catholics to the exclusion of other religions that practice abuses against women too. It does need to be addressed by getting federal funding out of supporting those hospitals.

It seems that if they take federal funding they should be required to offer such services. If they can't then they should stop taking federal or any funding paid for by taxpayers.

So I apologize for misunderstanding the problem. However, people don't have to be rude or abrasive when rightfully educating the ignorant.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. I do withdraw that, and thank you for acknowledging it.

I had not fully read this thread when I created that reply, and this is one of those times when I should have got fully caught up before responding.

I should do more to reach out an help other communities. I should say more about the Mormons. I should say a lot more about a lot more situations worldwide, because there are a lot more people in a lot weaker positions than I am in, here in deep-blue King County/Seattle/Wa. But I can only fight what I can see. And right now, the foe here, and in most counties in the country, is the RCC and its doctrines. Just to protect myself, my wife, my children, I have to win this fight. So if it sounds like I'm a little overly-focused on the RCC, that's why.

I'll do what I can for others, but I really do need to win this fight, right here, in my own backyard too.

As for rudeness, I'll apologize to you, but there is a group of posters that habitually defends and deflects for the RCC on these issues, and it has become a serious point of conflict, both ways. Some of them contort and avoid uttering any personal opinion on things like abortion, as well. So not only are they deflecting and defending an anti-abortion/family planning/SSM/etc org, they leave their own personal political convictions on some of these issues a total mystery. So yes, some hostility has grown, and that's not fun for someone to walk into, when you haven't personally been a part of it. So, sorry for that. I was prepared to treat you like some of the regulars, and that's not fair.

[Cartoonist]

2. Are these hospitals being taxed?

If not, I am outraged beyond belief.

[Cleita]

10. I don't think non-profits of any kind are taxed are they?

[PeaceNikki]

16. They get federal funding. The ACLU is suing.

[Cleita]

25. They shouldn't be getting federal funding. This was the mess GWB got us into

giving religious institutions and charities federal funds.

[rug]

3. She's been reporting on this for some time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-miller/pro-choice-catholics_b_6526314.html

[Dawson Leery]

5. Catholicwatch.org: keeping track of the catholic assault on healthcare.

http://catholicwatch.org/how-catholic-health-care-compromises-womens-health/

[skepticscott]

6. But...but...Catholic doctrine only affects practicing Catholics

Right?? Or so we've been told:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218122885#post19

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218122885#post22

And anyway, she can just go buy rubbers at a drugstore, according to some:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123388

So no problem, right??

[trotsky]

7. Yeah I'm sure it's no big deal.

Though I would pay to see such an uninformed person try and explain that to the women who are directly affected by this bullshit.

[Runningdawg]

8. Baptizing "products of conception"

I am a retired nurse and have worked in both public and religious hospitals. In the Catholic hospitals in which I worked, if a patient needed surgery to save their life from an ectopic pregnancy, the priest on duty was called into the OR. He would dress in scrubs, a table was prepared for him and he would give the "baby" last rights. I have absolutely NO idea if the patient and her family was EVER told. It reminds me of Mormons who convert people after their death. Just for comparison, if someone even a few hours old is dying on the OR table, no one calls a priest. WRONG on so many levels!

[PeaceNikki]

33. Holy shit, wow.

That's fucked up.

[beam me up scottie]

44. I'm surprised they saved the woman instead of the "baby".

The life of the mother is not always their priority.

[beam me up scottie]

14. This is part of a coordinated effort to deny women birth control.

The RCC has been busy the last few decades, first with with finding a way to restrict abortion until they can get an amendment passed to undo Roe v Wade:

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

And more recently they were 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/

This isn't about "choice"

It's a war against women and we're losing.

[HockeyMom]

42. Only hospital in town bought by Catholic organization

The town fought it to no avail. Women, who wanted their tubes tied after giving birth, could no longer do it there. Many, many women went out of town to deliver.

Rape victims could not be given Morning After. Local police took victims to the State Hospital 15 miles away where they could have that choice.

This was on Long Island, about 50 miles from NYC.

[rug]

43. Who owned it before and why did they sell?

[AtheistCrusader]

52. You tell us 'why they sold'.

[rug]

61. You tell me the hospital.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. I don't know that hospital's name. I'll give you local hospitals to me.

Swedish entered into a joint operating agreement with Providence (catholic) and as a result, Swedish eliminated all abortion services except in emergency instances.

Swedish did one nice thing I guess, they invited Planned Parenthood to open a new office in a neighboring building so they could refer patients locally. But the JOA between Swedish and Providence has damaged how Swedish provides health care to women.


Another example, Harrison Medical Center in Bremerton has affiliated with Franciscan Health System.

Harrison is the only full-service hospital on the Kitsap Peninsula. Due to the merger, abortion and aid-in-dying is now an hour-long ferry ride away, in Seattle.

Your church is actively fucking over everyone it can get its hands on, with money. Can't ban abortion at the ballot? Disallow it by buying up the providers and terminating the service.

This is why I target every source of revenue for the RCC. Every dime.

[rug]

64. How interesting. But the question was about hockeymom's hospital.

Of course, lacking basic information didn't stop you from going into rant mode.

Now, as to your rant. I understand not speaking about the RCC is difficult for you, but here's my question: Why did Swedish enter into the joint operating agreement?

Similarly, why did Harrison affiliate?

I'll ignore your bigoted bullshit, "Your church is actively fucking over everyone it can get its hands on, with money.". For now.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Because it is its common mode of operation.

I can point to more hospitals in the seattle area. Same story. Acquired outright, or join operating agreement, subsequent change in services.

You're going to have to do better than calling it 'bigoted' to refute that line by the way. It's FACT. They are buying access to, and altering the care available for abortion and end of life care.

Restricting options is fucking people over. And they are doing it with money, by buying access/control.

[rug]

67. That doesn't answer why it's common or why these two transactions occurred.

Might it have been . . . . a business decision? That is the most common reason corporations do these things.

As to that line of bigotry you typed, if you now say your opinion is "FACT", it's both bigoted and deluded (in a non-clinical sense, of course).

Get over yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. The catholic org lied about the Swedish takeover. Just liked it lied about I-1000 opposition.

Your church's affiliates lie to buy/acquire things, and then do the thing they said they wouldn't do.

Right there in the article. And if you don't like Catholic Watch, drill through to the Seattle Times article it specifies.

Providence (catholic) bought access to Swedish, lied that it was a joint operation, took it over, and reduced the available services to the public.

Call it bigotry all you want to point it out, but I can see why the truth makes you uncomfortable. All you have is ad hom for defense.

[rug]

83. Don't forget the 18 million dollars Swedish was losing.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Unrelated to the catholic prohibition on abortion applied to Swedish.

Never mind that Swedish was in no danger of going out of business. As I mentioned and you have ignored, providence was running a hundred million dollar deficit that year. (And the ACA wasn't online, another family planning issue the rcc insists on fucking with)

[rug]

87. Very related when Swedish sold themselves.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Does not change the validity of what I said

which was not bigoted. It is not the fault of the purchased company that the acquiring company makes changes to service. Especially since they said they wouldn't during the public comment period.

[Lordquinton]

81. calling out Catholic bigotry is not it's self bigotry

If you have a problem with light being shone on these facts, thats between you.

[rug]

84. Bigots are the least credible people when it comes to bigotry.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Tell me your church's official position on same sex marriage again

and why you electively remain a member of such an organization.

[rug]

89. They won't perform them.

And it hardly defines it.

Since you asked a question but did not make a statement, credibility has not yet come into play.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. And lobby to prevent them.

2nd largest backer of Prop 8, for instance

[rug]

94. That's a political activity, not church doctrine.

All their political activity is fair game.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Is this political activity?

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

With the church's political blocking of same sex marriage, they are blocking it as a 'martial relationship' that can be, in the churches opinion, the only way sex can be 'morally good'.

There's a political issue sure, but the non-political doctrinal position of the RCC is homophobic and bigoted.

[rug]

97. No.

This is:

http://usccb.org/issues-and-action/take-action-now/index.cfm

[AtheistCrusader]

98. How convenient for you.

Next time you want to sling the 'bigot' accusation, throw it where it belongs; at the pope.

He's the one telling 1.3bn followers that homosexuality is "internally disordered" and churches fighting SSM are 'defending marriage' and that SSM advocacy/political support is a move by the 'father of lies' (satan), etc.

The pope is a bigot. Once you have that figured out, come on back and opine about me, ok?

[rug]

99. Facts tend to be convenient in establishing reality.

As opposed to, say, ranting about a deep-grained and uninformed prejudice against a religious group.

There are plenty of bigots to go around.

This room is no exception, not by a long shot.

I learned a long time ago, the least qualified person to lecture on bigotry is a bigot.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. Facts you say? Ask and ye shall receive.

Claim 1

He's the one telling 1.3bn followers that homosexuality is "internally disordered"

Link

The Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 2357-2359) categorically states that:
•Homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
•This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.
•They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
•Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

The paragraphs on homosexuality in the Catechism that Pope Francis refers to include a reference to the CDF document ‘ Persona humana ’ when it states that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’

Claim 2

and churches fighting SSM are 'defending marriage'

Link

"I wish to express my appreciation to the entire Slovak church, encouraging everyone to continue their efforts in defense of the family, the vital cell of society."

Claim 3

and that SSM advocacy/political support is a move by the 'father of lies' (satan), etc.

Link

Let's not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just its form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God ... Let's look to St. Joseph, Mary, and the Child to ask fervently that they defend the Argentine family in this moment... May they support, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.

There's your reality, bub.

[Lordquinton]

104. Are you claiming that someone saying SSM is a tool of the devil isn't bigoted?

[rug]

105. That's about as bigoted as this is:

"Your church is actively fucking over everyone it can get its hands on, with money.".

[Lordquinton]

106. Not at all

One is directed at people, the other at an organization, that is doing as advertised. And also holds the viewpoint that SSM is the tool of the devil.

Again, say it with me: It is not bigotry to point out bigoted behavior.

[rug]

107. Oh, bullshit.

It's directed at every Catholic who has the temerity to remain Catholic.

This is why I target every source of revenue for the RCC. Every dime.

Have you missed those discussions accusing practicing Catholics of complicity in bigotry by remaining Catholic and daring to put a buck in the collection plate?

It's gotten better. Now it's down to "every dime".

It's rank bigotry and the "directed at the belief/organization not the believer/people" meme is rank bullshit.

[Lordquinton]

108. You accepted that the Pope is a bigot, that's a big step for you

I'm gonna leave the discussion at that. I hope your growth continues and matures.

[rug]

110. Since you were conciliatory, though condescending,

I'll simply say, you don't know how many steps I am in front of you.

One of these days, we may discuss the extent of my criticisms of the RCC.

[Lordquinton]

113. growth is painful, I understand your lashing out right now

As they say "it's natural"

[rug]

116. Oh, Lord, if you think that is lashing, you will be unpleasantly surprised.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. For now, we'll just have to discuss your dogged deflections for the RCC, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. Except of course that I have agreed and acknowledged that, for instance, Catholic PEOPLE poll

higher/more accepting of contraception than the average public. Or poll higher/more accepting of same sex marriage than the average public.

I'm actually very careful to delineate between the Church and the People. And I have sourced WHY 'starving the beast' can work, how it works, and why it is the only voice available to people in a top-down authoritarian structure like the RCC.

Search high and low, you won't find me saying all catholics are homophobes. You will find me saying they are members of an org that is, in the case of pro-same-sex-marriage catholics, actively working against their interests.

I have also suggested alternative orgs they could join, retaining the general concept of 'faith', and finding fellow travelers splintered off from the RCC itself.


It is not appropriate to attack individuals with things like 'bigot', when you are simply upset that they are hammering away on something you personally don't like people to touch.

Your church marshals doctrine, 'revealed truth', and lobbying resources against issues I care very much about, such as reproductive freedom, same sex marriage, gender equality, physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill, and others. It wields enormous political influence in the US, and I will not be silenced by your personal attacks.

[rug]

111. "I will not be silenced by your personal attacks."

I haven't seen so many flourishes since Scarlett O'Hara exited a room.

[Warren Stupidity]

112. we seem a bit miffed, don't we?

[rug]

117. Lol, somebody is, Warren.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. No retraction of the 'bigot' attack, no material content, smilie present.

Were you just done for the day, or what?

[Lordquinton]

92. that's why we have to call out the pope.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Here's why Swedish joined Providence.

http://catholicwatch.org/providence-acquisition-of-swedish-medical-one-year-later/

I can make a guess which hospital Hockeymom is referring to, but I'll let her answer that for certain.

[rug]

69. That details how the deal was made but it doesn't even hint at why Swedish agreed to it.

Why?

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Maybe if you actually read it.

CEO Rod Hochman, who had been running Swedish prior to the deal’s completion, became the CEO of Providence, taking over for John Koster, whose 2011 pay totaled $6.4 million.

for starters.

[rug]

72. A Board of Directors decides these things, not the CEO.

Other than ominous organ music about the CEO salary, do you have any fact that explains why Swedish would agree to such a misogynist, rapacious, and sinister agreement?

Other than common business practice, of course.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. It is a common business practice. Party A has money and desire to acquire, Party B likes money,

the problem is, as I said, the Party A (catholic in nature) is acquiring non-religious medical providers WITH MONEY, and then imposing their religious ethics on the provider FUCKING PEOPLE OVER.

It's an end run around Roe vs. Wade. Can't ban it? Make it unavailable by acquiring the providers, and then killing the service.

So you can take that bullshit 'bigotry' smear you flung back any minute now.

[rug]

74. Bt the qestion I ask is why Swedish agreed to it.

That may, or may not, be Provident's motive, but what was theirs?

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Since they sat at the same PR table and lied about whether services would change

why would anyone believe publicly stated motives?

Unless you're trying to show Swedish wanted to eliminate abortion and end of life assistance and wanted to leverage Providence to deliver that deletion of services, I don't see what you're going for here anyway. It looks like you are trying to conflate the imposition of policy that came WITH the operating agreement for the desire for the agreement to be formed at all. Pointless diversion.

I showed you another local hospital, and there are three more recent acquisitions I can cite as well, same change in service post-acquisition.

[rug]

76. Are you claiming Swedish did not know whaty would happen?

Cite all the transactions you want, just provide the reasons for each party to the transaction.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Swedish may have been lied to, sure.

Parts of Swedish may have known and parts may not have. Certainly the issue was raised during the public commentary period, as is detailed in the article I linked you.

It was either a successful criticism management ploy by Swedish, who wanted the deal to go through despite the poison pill, OR they were gullible as all hell and victims of Providence.

Now, explain how this line of questioning reflects upon my comment earlier, that you deemed 'bigoted'.

Swedish took the money, joined Providence, and reduced services for abortion and End of Life, as I said. As many parties had predicted. As if a template that dozens of major regional hospitals dealing with various catholic health providers around the nation (including New York) are dealing with right now.

[rug]

78. Do you have any evidence of that?

I know you hate all things Catholic but are you seriously claiming this multimillion, heavily regulated corporation did not know what it was doing? That it was duped and lied to by evil Catholics?

To answer your question, this rather frayed speculation is the end result of the bigotry contained in that earlier comment.

Your church is actively fucking over everyone it can get its hands on, with money.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. You seem to be confused over what I said.

Fucking people over is, in this context, not the people of Swedish, it's the people who are customers of Swedish. Harrison Medical Center in Bremerton is a bigger deal than Swedish in this regard, because there's a competitor in walking distance of Swedish where these services can be attained. (Though end of life care tends to be even less portable than that could allow) Former customers of Harrison now have to get on a ferry for an hour to obtain access to said services.

The Joint Operating Agreement or outright acquisition of the target hospitals brings the ethical guidelines that prohibit abortion and end of life options such as physician assisted suicide.

Here's the money, abide by our rules. That's the fucking over of the end customers by way of acquiring the provider.

WHY the provider chose to acquiesce to the price/constraints is not actually interesting to the problem, so I don't really see why you keep asking it. Nor why ANY answer to that question casts my description of it as fucking over customers in the light of 'bigotry'. I'm at about the end of my fucking patience with you making that unsubstantiated smear.

"Hochman and Providence CEO Dr. John Koster said the chief aim of the affiliation — which is not a merger — is to promote “clinical transformation” and information exchange throughout the joint system, including five Swedish hospital campuses and 27 Providence hospitals across five Western states. The affiliation, though, centers on Seattle-based Swedish’s operations and Providence’s operations in King, Snohomish, Thurston and Lewis counties.

As Swedish and Providence doctors come up with new and better ways to treat patients, the plan is to spread these innovations throughout the entire system, and thereby improve health care quality and reduce costs, for instance, by preventing surgical complications."

That was the claim in 2012, but in 2014 as the 'affiliation' process was complete, it turned out it was a merger as everyone feared.

'Clinical transformation' could easily be code for 'killing shit we don't like'. (from Providence's viewpoint.)

Swedish had a 18 million dollar budget shortfall the year below, and this opens up Providence's pockets to cover that. Not an existential threat to Swedish though. And not really made better by shucking it off onto an org that had a hundred million dollar budget shortfall already.

[rug]

82. "Swedish had a 18 million dollar budget shortfall the year below"

There you go. Swedish was losing money. And you say they were duped by the evil Catholic Church. The multi-million dollar corporation was shocked, shocked I say, by what happened next. It's easy to be duped when you're losing money. It's even easier to sell out whatever corporate principles you may have when you're losing money.

There's plenty of responsibility to go around. Next time put aside you anti-Catholic monomania and state all the facts.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. You're not following what I said in plain English.

Duping was one possibility. I listed more (and the public was certainly duped). Not the operative problem. I don't care if they were duped or not.

The problem is the REQUIREMENT that they cease abortion services. I wouldn't care at all that the rcc is doing this, except that they are screwing the end customer. The Bremerton example I gave much more egregious than Swedish, Swedish establishes the pattern (and I offered to cite others)


Go back and look at my first post you called bigoted, there is nothing in it dependent on whether Swedish was losing money, and nothing about whether it was a fully informed consensual transaction, or a double duping of the public AND Swedish.

Bolt on as much unrelated bullshit as you want, my original statement was a fact, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Elements of the rcc are buying up access to health care providers and terminating abortion access. That's a fact. I've already cited plenty of evidence, and I've got plenty more if you still want to feign disbelief.

[rug]

90. I know exactly what you said and exactly what you speculated.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. There was no speculation.

"Your church is actively fucking over everyone it can get its hands on, with money. Can't ban abortion at the ballot? Disallow it by buying up the providers and terminating the service."

Let's break my supposedly bigoted statement down, shall we?


"Your church is actively fucking over everyone it can get its hands on"
Stripping away services, such as abortion, is fucking people over. Who is doing it? Catholic health care systems. How? By obtaining joint operating agreements or outright ownership of providers that include abortion services, and then forbidding it under their ethical doctrines.


There is no speculation. It's what catholic health systems are doing. Gain access with money, shut down services not in line with catholic ethical doctrine.

Now what?

Or are you after that last part? Please tell me that's what you called 'bigoted'.

[trotsky]

48. Happening across the country.

The RCC sees an opportunity - what they could not accomplish via our legal system, they are going to make happen in other ways thanks to their massive untaxed fortune. Goodbye reproductive freedom.

[Ernesto]

56. Catholic health care, a long-time sponsor for the S.F. Giants quietly

changed their name to "Dignity Health" about 2 years ago. Perhaps ditching the "catholic" term was a simple marketing ploy.

[historylovr]

60. K & R

[NaturalHigh]

101. The Catholic Health System provides a large portion...

of this country's health care. If people want to get the Church out of health care, then they need to push hard for universal health coverage. Until then, it's kind of hard to complain about the Church not providing services that would violate its own tenets.

Do you really believe we would be better off if the Church just quit the health business right now?

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Elements of the church have deliberately acquired that health care for a purpose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/opinion/when-catholic-and-secular-hospitals-merge.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_rcc.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/us/lawsuit-challenges-anti-abortion-policies-at-catholic-hospitals.html

Swedish, in Seattle was acquired by Providence, and abortion/voluntary end of life assistance was cut.

Swedish was losing money at the time (18 million dollars, prior to the ACA taking effect.). In merging with Providence, it joined a health care provider that was already losing 100+ million/year. And the costs landscape was changing anyway due to the ACA coming online.

Yes, I believe we would be better off overall if elements of the RCC bailed on health care nationwide. Alternatively, if they want to be in the business so damn bad, they can provide services for non-church-members that are ethically valid without their religious doctrine input. Otherwise, they shouldn't take government money for doing it. (And there are lawsuits in flight over that as well, right now.)

[beam me up scottie]

103. "it's kind of hard to complain about the Church"

No, it's not unless you're just can't bring yourself to fight for women's human rights.

Ironically, Angela’s experience with her OB/GYN wasn’t her last run-in with Catholic health care. After she was refused a tubal ligation and a prescription for birth control, Angela’s husband decided to get a vasectomy. His doctor, who was also part of the Catholic system, said his practice couldn’t do the procedure or make a referral. “The whole situation is so unbelievable to me. I had no idea these limitations occurred,” she says. “When I tell my friends about it, they say it’s medieval. We have to worry that if they keep buying up all these practices, it will get harder and harder to find someone who can prescribe birth control.”

Do you really believe women are better off dying because they can't get adequate health care from catholic hospitals?

They aren't taking over heath care to help people, they're doing it to deny women access to birth control and abortions.

So sick of your apologist tripe when it comes to women's reproductive rights. I was curious about the amount of interest you take in these threads and a search of your name turned up some interesting results:

NaturalHigh (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-03-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #46

59. As I've pointed out in other threads...

if that is your opinion, then you shouldn't expect men to make abortion an issue one way or the other. If men have no say in the matter, why should we be expected to lobby for abortion rights?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=567528&mesg_id=571227

[NaturalHigh]

118. Yes, interesting results from nine years ago.

I'm not sure how I feel about such interest in me.

Fine, lobby to shut down all Catholic hospitals if you want. Let's see how well that will go over. Ever heard of cutting off your nose to spite your face?

[trotsky]

119. Your cold disinterest in how this impacts the reproductive lives of ALL Americans...

is disgusting.

And quit arguing with the strawman that everyone wants to shut down Catholic hospitals. Fuck that noise. If they want to be in the healthcare biz, they have to provide ALL OPTIONS to their patients. Patients' rights over religious dogma.

If you don't get that, there is no hope.

[NaturalHigh]

120. "they have to provide ALL OPTIONS to their patients"

You know as well as I do that's not going to happen. You're never going to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions; they'll shut down before they do.

[trotsky]

121. No, I don't know that. Neither do you.

And it's unacceptable to me to just write off our reproductive rights.

You and I have nothing to discuss.

[NaturalHigh]

122. Fair enough...

and I'm not talking about writing off anything, just saying you can't force the Catholic Church to provide health care options that are against their most basic religious tenets.

[beam me up scottie]

125. "you can't force the Catholic Church to provide health care options"

Oh brother.



No one is trying to "force the Catholic Church" to do anything.

Stop defending the church, it's not the victim here.

Women are.

[beam me up scottie]

123. Bullshit, your non-support of women's reproductive rights when it comes to the RCC speaks volumes

Instead of expressing concern for women you use the opportunity to vent your outrage towards the people who malign your precious church.

Because lawd knows what DUers who are fighting for their human rights really need is a good finger wagging from apologists who never fail to show up to defend the RCC from its victims.

[NaturalHigh]

124. I'm not Catholic, but my wife is.

[beam me up scottie]

126. You don't have to be catholic to be an apologist for the church.

[NaturalHigh]

127. Do you think Catholic doctors...

should be forced to perform abortions?

[beam me up scottie]

128. Straw man: "Do you think Catholic doctors should be forced to perform abortions?"

Do you think your right wing talking points are going to work here?

[NaturalHigh]

129. "right wing talking points"

LOL...okay dude, we're done. I'm not going to change my opinion and neither are you.

[beam me up scottie]

130. First, I'm not a "dude".

And secondly the only reason you're done here is because your recycled FoxNews anti-choice memes were ineffective.

[HockeyMom]

131. Do I have to repeat my horrific experience with an ectopic pregnancy

at a Catholic Hospital? NYC in 1983. My doctor, a Catholic himself, did not want to put me there but he considered it an emergency and could not get a bed for me at his Salvation Army hospital.

That hospital did not consider that an Emergency Situation for an "abortion". "We don't do abortions is what they said to me, and did not even do a SONOGRAM to prove what I had. I had been bleeding for 10 days, and they did not follow what my doctor told them to do, until he could get there.

Yes, my tube HAD ruptured, but they did not CARE.