ACLU attacks US Catholic hospitals, saying 'health care' is restricted [CWN]

That is “funding” in the exact same sense that Planned Parenthood is being defunded.

The parallels are too close to be a coincidence. Planned Parenthood is also being touted as a “safety net” for poor women who have no other place to turn to.

Which is, of course, disingenuous at best, since Title X funding is a completely different animal than direct pay for services rendered.

:thumbsup: Excellent post.

I was referring to this:

Kansas Governor Defunds Planned Parenthood

Republican Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback announced Tuesday at his State of the State address that he ordered the Kansas health secretary to stop all Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood.

The tax payers should not be funding planned parenthood for several reasons.

  1. they are effectively a Democratic Party lobby and PAC
  2. $500 Million is a crazy big number

Not to mention they are murders… But that’s besides the point… :rolleyes:

Catholic Hospitals doe not receive funding like that. The only money they receive is from Medicare acting like an insurance company.

Forbes magazine:

A disturbing new report from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and MergerWatch, “Health Care Denied,” finds that one in six hospitals in the U.S. are operated in accordance with Catholic religious rules, known as the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs).

While perhaps best known for prohibiting abortion, the restrictions go far beyond that, and impact more than reproductive health.

For women, the impact can be deadly.

Abortions are prohibited even if the fetus has no chance of survival and the mother’s life is in danger. Savita Halappanavar died of sepsis in Ireland because her physicians would neither terminate her doomed pregnancy to save her life, nor transfer her to a facility that would care of her. Tamesha Means was luckier. She survived. Despite starting to miscarry at 18 weeks’ gestation, she says that Mercy Health in Muskegon, Michigan, sent her home, denying her appropriate care and putting her life at risk. There are similar, less well-known cases here, detailed in the ACLU report. Not providing emergency care is a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requirement for hospitals that receive Medicare funding—and Catholic health systems receive billions in taxpayer dollars.

Are the authors of these articles stupid or do they write in the hopes the general public doesn’t understand the truth.

Being a Chiropractor I understand how the Medicare/Medicaid system works. I have a one Doctor practice with one secretary. Based on my overhead my income per Medicare patient is $5.00 and per Medicaid patient is -$11.00. That’s right not a typo it is a negative. I am not complaining, I never wanted to be rich I just wanted to help others.
Matthew 25:40
Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’

My point here is my heart goes out to the hospitals. I can’t even fathom the millions of dollars hospitals must lose every year from the treatment of Medicare and Medicaid. A quick internet search about Medicare funding sheds some light on the subject.

The extra funds are used to reimburse the state’s hospitals for the actual costs of treating Medicare patients.

Basically the author of the first article should have used complete honesty and written all of the bolded text above together to let the general public know what the funding is for.

This country is so anti-business anymore. We seem to thrive on persecuting anyone that is actually trying to accomplish something or help others.
People really need to start seeing the bigger picture instead of concentrating on the one corner of the picture they aren’t happy with. People tend to concentrate on what they want or what they will get instead of thinking it through to then end and realizing how getting what they want might tip the scales to the point of closing hospitals.

Yeah that is a great solution. :shrug:

A link would be helpful.

But the quoted scenarios have been discussed here. And none of those scenarios even come close to what is described.

In neither of those cases was an abortion necessary. In either of the cases a pre-term deliver would have achieved the same end with the intentional destruction of an innocent human live. The fact that the ACLU seems to think hacking up a baby in the womb is the only essential means to save the life of the mother shows their ignorance of both Catholic teaching and medicine.

That’s a great article.

I got the quote from the original OP link. At the bottom of the article the Forbes article is used as a reference. Her it is for you:

Thanks for the link. Here’s Ms Stone’s conclusion:
Healthcare decisions should be that—made between a patient and his or her physician, and not subject to anyone else’s religious beliefs. The rise in Catholic health systems hurts patients, particularly as patients are often unaware of the restrictions until they find themselves in urgent need of care. Hospitals must be required to clearly state what services they provide or deny. In my opinion, taxpayer monies should not be used to discriminate against patients nor given to facilities that deny appropriate and necessary medical care.
Which is the usual pro-death talking points. As if healthcare decisions should never have an ethical consideration. :rolleyes: Or that hospitals are just the medium by which doctors and patients come together, and don’t have, or can’t have, any positions of their own, and cannot require doctors that use their facilities to conform to certain ethical standards.

If a patient and a doctor agree on some course of action, it doesn’t mean they get to compel others to provide facilities or supplies to carry out that action.


What irks me about this whole issue is the double standard. I know of OBs refusing to provide care to women who refuse to abort babies with Down syndrome or other prenatal conditions. Rick Santorum, a guy who I assume is more well-connected than the average parent, had to fight to get care for his disabled daughter, Bella. Some doctors refuse to give any pain medication to people from certain demographics, even in situations such as a heart attack, kidney stone, etc.

The ACLU, as far as I know, has never spoken out about these denies of “appropriate and necessary care”. Seems the ACLU and others who are bashing Catholic hospitals here, are just being inconsistent.

There’s an even worse possibility, though. They actually agree with physicians who think that prenatal care for a fetus, or postnatal care for a baby with a terminal diagnosis, is actually NOT “appropriate”. So, physicians who refuse to provide care in such cases, aren’t doing anything wrong. :rolleyes:

That still doesn’t explain the silence about refusals of care motivated by racial prejudice . Now I guess one can argue “But the Catholic Church controls 1/6 of the nation’s hospitals! That’s a much bigger issue than a handful of racist kooks who managed to get a doctor’s license!” But way more Black people are killed by other Black people, then by white (or Asian or Hispanic or mixed race) cops, but you wouldn’t get that sense from the Black Lives Matter crowd.

But I’d think that the actual number of patients with any credible claim that they suffered some kind of injury from “refusals of care” based on Catholic beliefs, is probably NOT more than patients who suffered injury due to refusals of care based on racism or other non-religious beliefs.

It’s really sad considering that the ACLU actually used to support people who ran afoul of the government due to their religious beliefs, such as the Tinker children who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance due to their JW beliefs. That makes me wonder, if some hypothetical JW group had enough resources to run a hospital, but refused to provide blood product transfusions, would the ACLU sue them, too?

Whoah! Can you update your quoting? The indented text is NOT mine. It is Mrs Stone’s from the article linked.

I’m really sorry, the software won’t let me edit my post anymore. :frowning:

I do realize that you disagree with Stone’s conclusion. The eyeroll was directed at her, not you. Hopefully other posters reading this will also understand that.

Mea culpa. :blush:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit