Transgender Man Says Surgery Denied at Catholic Hospital


A transgender man sued a Roman Catholic hospital in New Jersey on Thursday after he says it cited religion in refusing to allow his surgeon to perform a hysterectomy procedure he said was medically necessary as part of his gender transition.

Jionni Conforti’s sex and gender discrimination lawsuit comes at the same time as new regulations hailed as groundbreaking anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals have come under legal attack from religious groups.

Conforti, 33, of Totowa, had scheduled the surgery at St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center in Paterson in 2015. But he alleges in the federal lawsuit that a hospital administrator then told him the procedure to remove the uterus he was born with couldn’t be done because it was a “Catholic hospital.”


It sounds like she is more interested in the forcing the Catholic hospital to violate its doctrine than in actually having her uterus removed. She’s in New Jersey, there are probably a 100 hospital within 100 miles that would be happy to feed into her delusion.


Not un like the baker,florist,B&B business’ ,countless other businessess’ brought to their knees by these narcissistic attention mongers.:frowning:


Per this tweet, check out what is being cited in the lawsuit:

Transgender man sues Catholic hospital for denying hysterectomy—claims violation of Obamacare nondiscrimination rule…


That’s what this is always about.


Almost certainly true, but I’m sure the knee-jerk reaction will be to claim that because this hospital almost certainly receives government money, it shouldn’t be able to decline to provide legally permissible services.

I should say that I’ve never felt this argument is nearly as iron-clad as its proponents believe. There’s no reason that in a secular, pluralistic democracy (as opposed to a theocracy, or an explicitly atheistic government) that this follows. The government (at least in theory) is neutral towards the rightness or wrongness of particular religious traditions and should be free to provide funding for a variety of institutions, with potentially contradictory elements, to serve a specific role so long as it serves the common good.

The government provides a hospitals money because they perform services which benefit society. While Catholic hospitals may not perform certain medical interventions (e.g., sterilization, abortion, euthanasia, etc.), the money that would have been spent on these interventions will doubtless be used in some other way. And so just as we find it perfectly acceptable for an orthopedic surgeon to limit his scope of practice to hip and knee replacements, or just as we find it acceptable for specialized clinics to possess a scope less than the full scope or practice, there’s no reason that this rationale can’t be applied to religious hospitals.

Besides, whatever surgery this particular hospital performs instead of this hysterectomy will free up another, non-Catholic hospital to perform the requested surgery.


Hippocratic Oath comes to mind.


There were two lawsuits against Catholic hospitals that failed last year. One lawsuit was against a Catholic hospital not doing ‘abortions’ and another lawsuit against a Catholic hospital was because they didn’t do ‘tubal ligation’:


The fact that there are always other hospitals nearby that will perform these surgeries is just proof, IMO, that these people want to start something with a Catholic hospital. Religious bigotry, again IMO.


It’s not always possible for someone to go to just any hospital they want to. In my own heath care plan, only one hospital is “in network.” All other hospitals would be “out-of-network” and most of the costs of receiving care in such hospitals wouldn’t be covered by my insurance.


To win a battle you have to chip away and win the small battles. This is one small toward coercion for the Church.

It won’ be long now.

  1. lose our tax exampt status
  2. be forced to use Church buildings for objectionable ceremonies
  3. forced to perform rites and in the case of hospitals, procedures, that are objectionable.
  4. give it up to the state. The state will take uncooperative church property and hospitals for the “public good”.
    The new intolerance won’t stop at recognition of “equal rights”, it will push til it crushes the public expression of religion.
    Europe is already ahead of us.


Why did they allow him to schedule the surgery in the first place? Are they only refusing because of his trans status?


So if get sick out of state, you just die in the street? In any case, this is basically elective cosmetic surgery, which insurance doesn’t usually cover.


Probably because hysterectomy must be therapeutic to be licit. My mom had one 25 years ago due to benign tumors. Even insurance would not pay for it unless she went for a second opinion it was necessary.

This surgery was not medically necessary due to a diseased uterus. It was an elective procedure. Not sure why it was scheduled there. Unless the surgeon was first told it was therapeutic.


In New Jersey, Conforti, who is represented by the nonprofit Lambda Legal, said that a nurse in charge of surgery confirmed the procedure could be scheduled, but that his doctor was told a week later it wouldn’t be allowed because it was for gender reassignment.

Reread the article and answered my own question. I wonder if they would have done it for non-therapeutic reasons if he were not Trans. I’d assume not, but the wording in the article isn’t clear on that.


Even if we assume that’s true in this particular instance, I’m still not sold on this justifying religious hospitals to perform non-emergency surgery. It would seem that a more appropriate course of action would be to pressure that insurance company to expand their “in-network” roster to include another, secular hospital.


Elective bodily mutilation is not medically necessary.


This sounds like an argument with the insurance company, not the hospital.


Trying to prove a point against Catholic hospitals and perhaps looking to make some money at the same time?


“I felt completely disrespected as a person,” said Conforti, whose transition began in 2004. “That’s not how any hospital should treat any person regardless of who they are. A hospital is a place where you should feel safe and taken care of. Instead I felt like I was rejected and humiliated.”

This seems rather childish. She is the one failing to show respect. The very idea that she was humiliated just by being told “no” indicates a tremendous lack of maturity. If I were the legal team, I would view this as an opportunity to put transgenderism on trial. Make this person prove that she is a male. The mere fact that she had a uterus is pretty good argument for her female nature.

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