ACLU: Mercy anti-abortion policy illegal

[rug]

In letter to state, asks for investigation

By Joe Hanel , Shane Benjamin Herald staff writers
Article Last Updated: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:54pm

The American Civil Liberties Union wants Durango’s Mercy Regional Medical Center to end its policy regarding anti-abortion practices because, the ACLU said, the policy violates state and federal laws.

In a letter sent Wednesday to the state, the ACLU charged that Mercy disciplined a doctor for suggesting a patient’s condition might be fatal if she chose to continue her pregnancy.

ACLU lawyer Sara Rich sent the letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment asking for an investigation of Mercy’s policy against recommending abortions for women with life-threatening conditions.

Mercy is owned by Catholic Health Initiatives, and it follows the Ethical and Religious Directives for health care adopted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The directives include a ban on associating with abortion providers.

http://durangoherald.com/article/20131113/NEWS01/131119849/ACLU:-Mercy-anti-abortion-policy-illegal-

[47of74]

1. There are times if I was married and my wife was pregnant...

...I would counsel against her having care through a Catholic hospital and instead go with a non-Catholic hospital. Fortunately in such as case where I live and with my insurance plan we would be in a position to do so. I know many are not as lucky though, limited in choice of hospital or having a crap insurance plan.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

2. My wife's third pregnancy was literally life-threatening

Fortunately, both she and our son survived. So, in order to prevent her getting pregnant again, we decided that I should get a vasectomy. We told my mother-in-law about this, and she told her pastor (a priest of the very old school), and he called us in for a discussion.

The priest said that the only things that the Church would countenance were either complete abstinence from sexual activity until my wife reached menopause -- at that time, at least 20 years away -- or else use NFP and pray for God's help.

I said, "But if she gets pregnant again, she may die."

He said, "Then you must accept that as God's will for her."

I responded "That sounds rather heartless."

"That is what the Church teaches. It is better that she die than you use artificial contraception."

My wife asked, "Is that your belief?"

He said "Yes."

We looked at each other, I told him to go to hell, and she told him to do something which is both physically impossible and against Church teaching. We stormed out, and I made an appointment with a friendly local urologist.

When it comes to sex, the celibates who make up the Catholic Church's rules tend to ignore the real world.

[olegramps]

3. We had a similar situation and it was the key to my leaving the church.

We had a Catholic doctor who failed to run a standard blood test on my wife. Our first child was born with no problem, except that the doctor remarked that he was a little jaundiced. Subsequently, we attempted to have another child and the baby was still born. The doctor didn't have any explanation as to the cause. I told him that we would allow an autopsy however, we learned latter he didn't have it done. We tried again and the baby was still born. We made an appointment with the doctor and wanted to know just was going on. He failed to inform us of what he had found out until I confronted him that it appeared that my wife my be Rh-negative and I knew that I was Rh-positive. He finally admitted that my wife had tested Rh-negative and the suggested that the lab may have provided him initially with the wrong results. I asked to see the lab report but he declined to show us.

What flabbergast us was that he was not going to inform us until he was confronted. Our priest gave us the same song and dance that you got. I decided that I had enough and got a vasectomy. I would have sued the doctor, but my wife so despondent over the situation that we just dropped it. This could have been adverted if the doctor had not be so incompetent since there was a drug available that can be given to prevent the build up of antigens that result in the death of the fetus after the first birth. This doctor was a big wheel at our church and was on the council and sat in the front row at mass. Consequently, the pastor totally took his side in this matter and told us what a great Catholic he was and how he contributed to the church. By the way my wife still attends mass, but I only attend at weddings and funerals.

[No Vested Interest]

4. I would call that malpractice on the doctor's part, though

court cases are hard to prove since doctors and hospitals tend to back each other up, in my opinion.

I can't imagine the heartbreak of going through two pregnancies and losing the child at the time of birth.
I'm so glad the Rh-negative problems seem to be treatable; I remember friends who had to deal with this and you never hear of it anymore.

[IrishAyes]

5. I consider myself a 'good' Catholic regardless of the legions who would disagree. However,

there's no way I want to be treated at a Catholic hospital in event of severe emergency because I know they would disregard my end of life wishes. Much as it saddens me, I don't expect to be allowed a Catholic burial either, partly because of my preference for cremation. But by that time, of course, I won't care!

[No Vested Interest]

6. As I understand it, cremation has been permitted for a few years, at least.

I've attended Catholic funerals where the urn, with ashes inside was brought to the front of the church, and I've also attended memorial masses, with ashes/urns not present.
As far as I know, there was no problem with obtaining permission for these arrangements.

With the cost of funerals with caskets, embalming, visitations, etc., running fairly high, I would think cremation would be more and more common.

[IrishAyes]

7. Thank you VERY much for that update.

Cremation offers far more than cost consideration, important as that is. It's cleaner and leaves less carbon footprint, plus I consider it more honoring of human remains which won't have to be pumped full of chemical preservatives. Trying to maintain the appearance of life in a dead husk horrifies me personally, and I don't want it.

It would please me greatly to be able to hire a local crop duster to scatter my remains directly over town, but no chance of that! At least they do have a rose garden at the local cemetery for scattering ashes, so I can look forward to leaving something truly beautiful behind.

[No Vested Interest]

8. Scattering of ashes may be another thing.

Local and state laws may play into this, as well as church rules and practice.

Last I heard, my midwestern state did not permit scattering of ashes, though obviously, there's not much to keep a determined person from doing so. I'm thinking of a friend's husband who wished his cremains to be scattered in the woods on his farm, and she complied. Since the cremains usually are given to the nearest family member and no further records kept of disposal, no one can really keep another of disposing of them as they wish.

One reason for not permitting scattering of ashes is that bone fragments usually remain. One can imagine consternation if/when scattering of ashes in any venue (on a downtown street, for example?) resulted in bone fragments being found by another.

I do believe the Catholic church wishes cremains to be respectfully held or buried. Someone else with more knowledge of that can speak to that topic.

[goldent]

10. You are right

At least in my area (and I expect this would be nation- or world-wide) the Church is fine with cremation, and has been for quite a while.

However, the Church does not in any way condone scattering of ashes, as the Church views it at odds with the dignity of the deceased.

The cremated remains of a body should be treated with the same respect given to the corporeal remains of a human body. This includes the use of a worthy vessel to contain the ashes, the manner in which they are carried, the care and attention to appropriate placement and transport, and the final disposition

[47of74]

9. I've made it clear that I want cremation

I told my mom that's what I wanted when my time came. I also prearranged my funeral so that I could specify that ahead of time. Mom and dad are apparently going to be given a couple of the plots that Grandpa bought a number of years ago (he bought six - 2 for him and Grandma, and 4 for a few of his children). Apparently two of those plots are going to my Mom and Dad for their eventual use, and Mom and the cemetery director said my ashes could be buried in one of those plots when the time came. If I don't get married that's where I'll go. If I do (hopefully) get married we'll figure something else out then.

[lachrymosa]

11. I chose celibacy...

We had a situation as well in which a pregnancy could be life threatening to my wife.

(It should be noted that NFP is very reliable, and a vasectomy could possibly fail).

The Church does not teach as she does to make life miserable. Sometimes tough choices have to be made and sometimes great sacrifices must be made. I'ts not easy to be a Catholic.

In our situation at the time, there were reasons why NFP might not be reliable, so we chose abstinence for the sake of my wife's health. I didn't think it would end up being 10 years, but that's how it worked out. It's not great, but it's not as difficult as one might think. You can get used to it. I still hope and pray that things might change some day, but I won't compromise my faith in this regard and won't attempt to out-think the Church.

Sometimes life sucks and sometimes we don't get what we want. But in the end, it's for a greater good.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

12. It should be noted that NFP is NOT very reliable and vasectomies almost never fail

There, fixed it for you.

What possible good is there from abstaining from sex with your wife when contraception or a vasectomy could have prevented pregnancy.

I direct you to http://www.democraticunderground.com/1221604 where I speak my mind on Humanae Vitae

[rug]

14. I sympathize with your situation.

It does, however, provide an example of how the Church could refine some of its teachings on human sexuality.

The Church teaches that sex within marriage is both unitive and procreative. The unitive purpose is to express physically the love between the two spouses. Clearly involuntary, or, at least reluctant, celibacy defeats the first and indirectly the second. The teaching is inconsistent.

The Church must look at its doctrine on sexuality with fresh eyes.

[rug]

16. That's not analagous.

In the first situation you have two willing and able spouses constrained by the current interpretation of doctrine from physically expressing their love.

In the second, you don't.

If it was my choice I'd just go ahead and have sex. But that's just me.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

17. Thank you, Rug

You said that far more gracefully than I.

[rug]

18. Thanks.

It's a rarity for me to be called graceful.

[olegramps]

19. The Catholic Church has changed it position on a number of issues.

One that was especially tragic was the Catholic Church's condemnation of people accused of witchcraft. In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII (r. 1484-1492) gained the Chair of Peter by bribery and despite the fact the he had fathered at least three illegitimate children. Shortly after his election he publish one of the most infamous documents ever written His bull, "Summis desiderantes affectibusc" directing the Inquisition against witches. In stark contrast to the Church's previous position that condemned any attempt by the Dominican Inquisitors to punish those accused of witch craft, he sanctioned the most monstrous superstitions in his bull. It stated that the faithful ..."have abandoned themselves to devils, incubi and succubi, and by their incantations, spells, conjurations, and other accursed charms and crafts, enormities and horrid offences, have slain infants yet in the mother's womb, as also the offspring of cattle, have blasted the produce of the earth, the grapes of the vine, fruits of trees, nay men and women, beast of burden...they hinder men from performing the sexual act and women from conceiving...perpetrating the foulest abominations and filthiest excesses..." Subsequently, he appointed two Dominican monks that began the persecution of thousands of women, men and even children that was also taken up by the Protestant leaders leading to centuries of persecution. The two prosecutors, Henry Kramer and James Sprenger published an authoritative guide, Malleus Maleficarum, for the detection of witches. It was reviewed by the University of Cologne and officially declared to be without doctrinal error. In their Letter of Approbation, it was declared on May 19, 1487: "Therefore it is a grave error to preach that witchcraft cannot be. " Malleus Maleficarum, thanks to the recent invention of printing ran to over thirty editions. By 1554 the Holy Office reported that over 30,000 witches had been destroyed. They argued in their work that children could be generated by "copulation with evils and Why it is that Women are chiefly addicted to evil superstitions." The key to their teaching was Augustine's doctrine of original sin. "And the reason for this is in the fact that God allows the devil more power over that act (copulation) than over other human acts, because of its natural nastiness, and because by it the first sin was handed down to posterity. Therefore when people joined in matrimony have for some sin been deprived of Divine help, God allows them to be bewitched chiefly in their procreant functions." Here is an example of their madness: "And what is thought of those witches who in this way sometime collect male organs in great numbers, as many as twenty or thirty members together, and put hem in a bird's nest, or shut them up in a box, where they mover themselves like living members, and eat oats and corn, as has been seen by many and is a matter of common report?"They reported about one young man who approached a known witch to restore his penis and he was told to climb an certain tree and he could take any of the several members but when the chose a big one, he was told that he couldn't have that one "because it belonged to a parish priest." I think the Church's continued condemnation of artificial contraception shares the same degree of credibility.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

20. First, olegramps, remember that the paragraph is your friend

Second, the Church has changed its teachings on several topics.

It used to be considered that slavery was morally acceptable. Indeed, some Catholic institutions in the antebellum American South owned slaves. There were teachings saying that slavery was evil under some circumstances;, but it was not until 1888, that Pope Leo XIII issued an encyclical saying that slavery is evil in and of itself.

It is still officially the teaching that taking interest on a loan in any amount was a sin of usury. Pope Benedict XIV's encyclical Vix Pervenit of 1745 says in part

The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.

This teaching has been quietly dropped, basically because it does not match economic reality. Once again, the Church tried to ignore the real world, and the real world refused to be ignored. As Philip K. Dick put it, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".

The Church used to accept torture at least under some circumstances; now the teaching is that torture is intrinsically evil under all circumstances. Similarly, the Church used to accept capital punishment; the current teaching is that while capital punishment is not intrinsically immoral, there are almost no circumstances in which it can be justified.

Those who claim that Catholic teachings never change are either ignorant of history or else lying -- something which the Church has not changed its teaching about.

[olegramps]

21. Absolutely, the Church has reversed its stance on a number of issues.

I cited the persecution of witches because it is mostly unknown to both Catholics and Protestants. While the Protestants made hay out of the Inquisition, they failed to acknowledge their involvement in one of the most horrific events in the history of Western Civilization. It is conveniently ignored as if it never took place.

Most importantly, it had a profound effect on the sexual mentality of Western Civilization and only in the most recent of times has given way to more enlightened teachings. The Kinsey studies, despite their flaws, were the most significant challenge to both the medical and religious communities' ignorance and inaugurated a challenge to centuries of teachings steeped in ignorance. Having lived through this period, I am especially sensitive to the massive changes that have taken place and were a source of profound suffering that left millions floundering in hopeless guilt. This was especially true of adolescents who believed themselves condemned to hell for harmless activity.