A pregnant woman wanted her tubes tied. Her Catholic hospital said no.

[trotsky]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-pregnant-woman-wanted-her-tubes-tied-her-catholic-hospital-said-no/2015/09/13/bd2038ca-57ef-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html

It was painful to hear but ultimately seemed the best course to Jessica Mann and her family. Because of a dangerous tumor in her brain, her doctor gently suggested that she take steps to make sure that she could not get pregnant again.

So Mann, 33, who is due to have her third baby next month, decided that while she was under anesthesia during the birth, she would undergo a tubal ligation — a procedure that would prevent further pregnancies.

But her hospital said no. Genesys Regional Medical Center, which is Catholic, denied the request on religious grounds: Catholic mandates forbid procedures that cause sterilization, including vasectomies, and officials said she did not qualify for an exception.

...

Officials with the ACLU argue that the federal protections cited by Wilson do not apply in the Mann case. And they say that the guidelines not only substitute religious doctrine for best medical practices but disproportionately harm women because of the focus on reproductive issues.

Move along, nothing to see, just the RCC continuing its global war on women's reproductive rights...

[yeoman6987]

1. Strange story

I know tons of catholic women who had their tubes tide right after giving birth including my sister. There is nothing wrong with it. This is one hospital going rogue.

[Goblinmonger]

2. There is something wrong with it in the RCC.

By doing so, one is stopping the possibility of life that comes from sex. Just like using condoms is not allowed. Or the morning-after pill. This is NOT one hospital going rogue.

If your sister had her tubes tied, she has some work to do in Reconciliation.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. It's not one hospital. It's a regional strategy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/12/03/washington-state-catholic-hospital-mergers-take-aim-at-abortion-rights.html
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/13/2003121/catholic-hospitals-abortion-access/

It's deliberate. It's a way of imposing catholic moral doctrine on everyone. Abortion is legal. Physician assisted suicide is legal (in this state). They are trying to make it unavailable, since they lost the fight to ban it at the polls.

'Oh I'm sorry, we don't offer that service, sucks to be you'.

[yeoman6987]

6. Well it is a catholic hospital

They can spread their beliefs. I don't see a problem with it at all. It's not a public hospital. It is owned by the Catholic Church. There are other hospitals to go to if you don't like it.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Thanks for reading the article. You really help move the discussion along, you know?

There are other hospitals to go to if you don't like it.

No, there fucking AREN'T. That's the problem.

We have 12 major regional hospitals in the greater Seattle area. They own or have joint operating agreements with all but ONE, now. You'd know that if you'd read the article.

Overlake is 'last man standing'. Even UW Physicians has fallen to their takeovers.

Here, in cobalt-blue Pacific Northwest, we're losing access to these services.

Your response is like 'well, there's still one abortion clinic in Mississippi.'
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/28/307487327/mississippis-lone-abortion-clinic-fights-for-its-survival

This is becoming a crisis. No-bullshit, a serious problem.

[yeoman6987]

10. It's still a catholic hospital. Follow their rules.

It's their hospital!

[Humanist_Activist]

11. Oh fuck that, hospitals provide a vital public service, if they can't do that due...

to religious beliefs, they should be sanctioned or get out of running hospitals.

What about emergency situations? Such as ectoptic pregnancies? Should we delay treatment when time matters most, to make sure we are dropped off at the right hospital?

[yeoman6987]

12. My gosh! So now privately owned places have to be told what to do.

Nope! Not in America!

[Humanist_Activist]

13. Yes, in america, all the time in fact. Hospitals are heavily regulated. Are you seriously....

Suggesting that hospitals have the right to endanger lives to enforce their organization's religious beliefs?

[yeoman6987]

14. No but Catholic Hospitals can have rules against doing certain procedures.

This was not an emergency. So the hospital said no. Perhaps if it was an emergency, they may have other regulations to deal with it.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. What if there isn't time or no alternatives in the area?

Particularly ones not in the patient's insurance network?

[yeoman6987]

16. Well I have to go to an emergency room 90 minutes away from my house to get "in network" prices

However, there is a hospital just 10 minutes away that I will have to use "out of network" in an emergency and pay the extra. Nothing is fair when discussing hospitals.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. You seem to be on the wrong website, this is a place for progressives, not economic...

libertarians, progressives who recognize that the situation you say you deal with is unacceptable.

[yeoman6987]

19. Perhaps because I am a Catholic I am on the side of the hospital

You have your opinion and I have mine. I know that you don't like it and you don't have to accept it but it is what it is. I am sure that you believe something that I don't. Not everyone believes the same things. It does suck that we are not lockstep 100 percent but it happens. I am sure we agree on more then not. So we will just have to agree to disagree. And stop with your wide brush there because you can't possibly be the gatekeeper on what is allowed and not.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. Ahh, so your religion is more important than people or thier health. Thank you...

Thank you for proving once again that the Catholic Church fails to teach morality or decency. You know I lost my faith due to logical inconsistencies and lack of evidence, but I became anti-Church due to encountering people just like you.

[yeoman6987]

24. No skin off my back. You can do whatever you want

[Humanist_Activist]

27. Is this the famous "Christian charity" some of us are knocked over the head about?

Are you really this amoral?

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Get your fucking religious rules out of my STATE HOSPITAL.

Oh wait, you can't refute that because you have ZERO CLUE what is happening here because you couldn't be arsed to read a short article.

Bye!

[Humanist_Activist]

18. I do have a question, are there any limits to the "My hospital, My rules"? n/t

[yeoman6987]

20. Only what the Catholic Church deems their rules

We are not talking about a government hospital or public hospital here. If others want to open a hospital why don't they? I never could understand why people complain about things when there is a simple way to have the government run their own hospitals where there wouldn't be any rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. That's such a libertarian thing to say

"If others want to open a hospital why don't they?"

If the poor want a decent standard of living, then why don't they just pay for one? Huh? All those moochers and looters, too lazy to open their own hospital, or outbid the Catholic church when it takes one over ...

[Humanist_Activist]

23. That sounds a lot like telling anti-segregationists to go to a different lunch counter.

Should women interested in being treated as patients rather than incubators have their own green book for doctors and hospitals?

[trotsky]

25. How cruel.

How utterly devoid of compassion for your fellow human beings. Your attitude seems to be 'Well, just be grateful that the RCC is willing to operate a hospital for you.'

I doubt you will visit this site, but you should: http://www.mergerwatch.org/

[yeoman6987]

26. Thanks. I actually think that is a nice reply.

Have a great day!

[Frances]

77. Where are you from?

I'd like to check out the hospitals in your area.

[yeoman6987]

78. Arnold Maryland and Orlando Florida

I have two residences that I go back and forth with. Depending on my mood. In Arnold, I live in glen oban a small development. In Florida I have a house in royal highlands near Orlando.

[beam me up scottie]

38. As a woman who has been denied birth control in part thanks to the efforts of the RCC

I was going to explain why you're DEAD wrong on this but I can see you don't want to be educated.

Women die because of lack of health care and that includes treatment that they won't get at Catholic hospitals.

But you go on with your bad self and keep defending the religious misogynists who care more about their doctrine than women's lives.


I don't use the puke smilie often but in this case it's warranted.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. That's precisely the problem the joint oerating agreements are purported to solve.

Problem is, they come with the poison pill of requiring the hospital not offer XYZ services.

But Yeoman doesn't know that because Yeoman wants to have this discussion from a position of complete and utter ignorance, rather than read a short article 15 posts upthread that was addressed directly to yeoman.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. Honestly, I don't give a shit if the hospital was built by the Priests and Nuns themselves, with...

their own bloody bare hands. Once built, it should be expected that said hospital provides a modicum of services for reproductive health if it provides any at all.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. If it's licensed as a hospital, open to the public, etc, you bet. I completely agree.

if it only serves members of the catholic church, then they can do whatever the fuck they want, I don't care.

[Humanist_Activist]

37. Yeah, that would be a private health club or something. n/t

[HassleCat]

29. Yes, absolutely yes

If they provide health care to the public, they are heavily regulated in many aspects. If they don't like providing a full range of health care services to their patients, they can sell the hospital. I'm sure we would not tolerate a Muslim hospital refusing to treat patients who eat pork. Et cetera.

[gcomeau]

30. Then how about also...

...private religious groups that forbid doctors from performing medically sound procedures aren't allowed to buy up all the hospitals in a region in a *deliberate effort* to force everyone living there not to have any other medical care options but to live according to that religion's medical dictates? How about "Nope, not in America" for THAT?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

66. Yep

Open a restaurant and refuse to serve African-Americans. Or refuse to serve LGBT couples. See what happens.

Your argument sounds familiar to me... hmmmm... where have I heard it before? Oh yea... http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'm not sure where libertarians belong, but it's definitely not at DU.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Everyone should just stop responding to you since you clearly didn't read the articles.

This is like arguing with the wind. They are worming the rules into joint operating agreements that do NOT confer ownership. You know literally nothing about this issue, and you are resistant to learning anything about it.

So everyone should just fucking ignore you.

[hollysmom]

76. a lot of public hospitals are being bought by catholic groups, t

these are for profit hospitals, they stop serving the public good when they restrict practices to certain not majority religious beliefs. this is a growing issue in this country,

[Ron Obvious]

40. A penny just dropped...

We're with PacMed, and my wife's GP recently refused to authorise her birth control prescription renewal. She was also denied an additional request to be fitted for an IUD. No alternatives were given or suggested and the only reason advanced was my wife's supposed risk of high blood pressure. (since it's 124/78, that was clearly a lie).

She had to go to Planned Parenthood for the IUD in the end and we had to pay for it out of pocket.

Maybe this is just a coincidence, but after reading your post I'm beginning to really wonder.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Back in 2014, PACMED claimed the joint operating agreement wouldn't change care.

February 2014: Pacific Medical Centers, which has nine locations and 150 health care providers in the greater Seattle area, announces a “secular affiliation” with Providence Health & Services. PacMed says it won’t comply with the Catholic directives and will continue to prescribe contraceptives and perform sterilization. Historically, PacMed hasn’t performed elective pregnancy terminations or administered lethal medications for Death with Dignity, and that won’t change.

So did my Primary Care Provider, UW Physicians. Unfortunately things change.

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/catholic-church-managing-many-local-hospitals-how-will-it-affect-your-health-care


To get around the Catholic directives, UW Physicians spawned off Seattle Reproductive Medicine, and just split all the IVF stuff out into that org alone. UWP still has some reproductive health components, but the 'scary stuff' like IVF is over at SRM now.

If that's your wife's blood pressure, yeah, that's a cover excuse. Something's up. I would look to the 'moral' directives of the integration with the medical arm of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Goblinmonger]

31. Wait

You've changed your argument. You said above that they are doing things wrong and now you are saying they are following the rules. Which is it?

[Heddi]

41. They are public hospitals in that they receive federal funds

They're not private because they allow emergency services to bring in ambulances, they treat and get paid for caring for patients who have Medicare and Medicaid. They are reimbursed by the federal government for caring for patients with medicare and medicaid. If they have patients that cannot pay, they are reimbursed by the state Charity fund.

Please do not talk about this as if you have ANY idea what you're talking about. I'm an RN and i've worked in Seattle as an RN where, as AC below states, only 1 ONE hospital out of over 13 is not religious based.

Fuck this theocracy apology bullshit.

I don't know why I'm explaining this for you because your posts during your time here makes it very clear you are not interested in democratic or progressive ideas, ideals, or ideologies.

[beam me up scottie]

42. What Heddi said.

Fuck this theocracy apology bullshit.

[Leontius]

44. Are all hospitals required by law to offer all services that medical science has provided

ie are all hospitals required to maintain level 3 trauma centers or have a neurosurgery dept?

[Lordquinton]

45. So you think hospitals should be allowed to discriminate?

Interesting.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Translation: It's just women's lives, what's all the screaming about?

[Heddi]

52. Do YOU know what services they are required to provide?

I don't think you do

I do.

[irisblue]

57. alert results post #50

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Seriously? Firstly, what if English was the posters' second language? That's something to make fun of now? Secondly, there's no reason to slur someone on their writing style (which is hardly ESL level). The "blowing it out of your..' is also over the top. Rather than being nasty and slurring people that they disagree with, Leonitus should just argue his point instead of coming across like a bigoted xenophobe. Thank you.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 15, 2015, 06:20 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: OTT rude hide
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Unduly rude. In general, the response to someone you disagree with suggesting they can't read or can't write, or must be impaired somehow is rude and childish. People do understand you; they just don't think you're right.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Excellent jury!

[Lordquinton]

71. The cognative dissonance here is so thick

you could cut it with a wafer.

[beam me up scottie]

72. No kidding.

They're spinning so hard trying to defend the RCC I'm the one getting nauseous.

[Lordquinton]

73. It's amazing how they can do nothing wrong

even though they are waging wars on women, gays, the poor, children, and much more.

[beam me up scottie]

74. The bigots at the Vatican are the real victims, mustn't allow anyone to denigrate them on DU.

That would be intolerant, Lordquinton.

[Leontius]

48. Stalking me from another thread were you have proved your support for discrimination

very sad. To answer your question here, no one should be allowed to discriminate when offering services to the public> I know this seems an alien concept to you since you do approve of discrimination.

[Lordquinton]

55. You must have me confused with someone else

Do you think Catholic churches should have to perform all marriges they get asked to perform?

[rug]

61. Do you?

[Lordquinton]

70. Do I what?

And you're in no position to be asking questions of anyone around here.

[rug]

75. Answer the question you posed.

Do you?

And you're in no position to be playing ignorant. Assuming you're playing.

[Lordquinton]

79. Yes, I do think churches that are propped up by the IRS should not be allowed to discriminate

Now how about that laundry list of questions you're dodging?

[rug]

80. Did you forget your own question?

Do you think Catholic churches should have to perform all marriges they get asked to perform?

Do you?

[AlbertCat]

67. Stalking me from another thread were you have proved your support for discrimination

No link to this alleged "stalking"...

Or links, since just one or two posts would hardly be "stalking".

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. The ironic thing is that after Leontius unjustly accused Lordquinton of 'support for discrimination'

in the other thread, Lordquinton suggested "maybe take your manufactured outrage to the thread about catholic hospitals denying abortions and the staunch defender there in their right to discriminate." That was a day before Leontius turned up in this thread, joined in the support of discrimination, and then promptly complained when Lordquinton replied here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218212012#post43

And then lost it enough to get a post hidden.

[beam me up scottie]

69. That IS ironic, muriel.

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. An utterly meaningless question, and you know it.

Tubal ligation is a simple, straightforward surgery. Any hospital capable of removing an inflamed appendix or gall bladder should have no difficulty figuring out how to sever, clamp, or cauterize a fallopian tube or two.

But your question is irrelevant, as the hospital's ability to perform the operation is not in question. It's their willingness that's the problem.

Now, tell me: Do you think it should be legal for a hospital to refuse a medically justifiable procedure because of the religious beliefs of the hospital's owners?

[Leontius]

51. NO

[Heddi]

49. No, but that's not the issue here

The issue is that a woman was having a C-section, which is a service the hospital obviously provided. She asked to have a commonly performed procedure done along with the C-section - normally this is done at the same time because it negates the need for an additional surgical procedure which brings its own risk of surgical site infection, recovery time, etc. The patient is already open for one surgery, she's asking the other surgery be done at the same time.

She's not walking in and saying "while your'e doing my C-Section, I need you to perform a root canal and also take out a brain tumor and set me up for cardiac rehab."

The hospital obviously offers OB services -- she was there to have an OB service. There is no reason, then, for that hospital to deny an additional service for a specialty they already provide for. OB MD's who are doing C-Sections know how to do tubal ligations. She's not asking for a separate specialist or different procedure to be done.

But you knew that already.

Regarding your completely unrelated question about ER's and neurosurgeons:

Any hospital that has an emergency department is subject to EMTALA - Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This is a federal law that requires ER's to (among other things)

* See any patient that presents with a medical emergency
* give them a "medical screening exam" to determine whether they are having an emergency
* Stabilize the patient and move them to a facility that can handle their emergency if those facilities aren't available in house

So no, not every ER has to be a level 3 trauma center, and not every hospital has to have a neurosurgeon.

But I, Jane Q Public, can call 911 and be taken to the nearest ER if I am having signs/symptoms of a stroke. The ER, even if they aren't a stroke center or have a neurosurgeon on call, have to agree to accept the ambulance, have a MD perform a medical screening on me to see that I am or am not having a stroke. If I am having a stroke, stabilize me and arrange for my transport to a facility that can handle the stroke.

Equally, If I, Jane Q Public, walk into an ER in active labor, I have to be stabilized and either the baby delivered there (if it is a precipitous delivery) or transferred to a hospital that has OB services.

Here's all the information you could want to know about EMTALA,http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm even though it, nor ER's and their trauma designation, nor the availability of neurosurgeons at any particular hospital, has jack shit to do with a woman undergoing a C-Section and being denied a tubal ligation. NOT that a tubal ligation was being denied because the hospital didn't have specialists to perform it, but because it is against the RELIGION of the hospital to perform that procedure.

Really *big* fucking difference between not being able to do a procedure because that specialist isn't in house and not doing a procedure because the specialists are there, know how to do it, and are capable of doing it, they're just prevented because the procedure goes against the RELIGIOUS beliefs of the hospital

But again, you knew that already

[beam me up scottie]

56. THANK YOU HEDDI!

The apologists want to use right wing talking points with impunity, thank you for setting the record straight.

[Heddi]

59. well, poor Leo won't be able to answer any of my pressing questions

seeing as he's now locked out of the thread.

tsk.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Well at least he didn't use profanity or call me names this time.

We wimmenfolks get all hysterical like when discussing this issue.

Good thing there are religious menz to edumacate and put us in our place.

[Goblinmonger]

62. Slow your roll, BMUS

"profanity" is a four-syllable word.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Did I spell it correctly?

I'm ever so concerned about what Leontius thinks about my posts.

[Goblinmonger]

64. I just attributed that to the "even a broken clock is right twice a day."

I didn't really think that you could spell or anything.

[beam me up scottie]

65. LOL!

[PassingFair]

9. It happened to me here in Michigan, 20 years ago.

I asked my doctor, who only delivered babies at this particular hospital, to be
open to the possibility of doing a tubal on me IF the baby (my second) had to
be delivered via C-Section.

She told me that I would have to get another doctor, because the hospital would
not allow it. Said that it would have to go before some hospital "panel" for approval,
and that there would not be time.

I was pretty mad, but I ended up having a v-back, so, no c-section.

[Hoppy]

4. Not to worry... The Pope is coming to town.

When he hears about this, she will be given a free set of Rosary Beads.

[Ernesto]

5. Same thing in Redding Ca.

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Catholic-hospital-backs-down-on-tubal-ligation-6463205.php

[AtheistCrusader]

8. I wouldn't be surprised to find this strategy is nation-wide.

It's how they plan to win here in Seattle.

[HassleCat]

28. Religious objections

First, I do not believe religious exceptions should exist for institutions that provide medical car to the public. Beyond that, the safety of the woman should override religious exceptions in cases such as this one. I hope Mann sues and prevails.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Another casualty of the RCC's war on women.

But hey, all that's important to some DUers is defending the Church from the women and lgbt victims who criticize it.

They call us and the atheists who speak up for us 'bigots'.

[onager]

53. Hey, that's not fair! Sometimes they call us...

...vermin!

Which sounds vaguely familiar, for some reason...

[beam me up scottie]

54. That is why calling atheists or ANY minority "vermin" is so offensive.

The person who did it is familiar with the historical use of the word so there's no excuse.