ACLU sues US bishops over anti-abortion policies at Catholic hospitals
The other side is becoming increasingly hostile, attacking the religious freedoms of pro-life Christians with greater boldness. From The New York Times, December 2:
The American Civil Liberties Union announced on Monday that it had filed a lawsuit against the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, arguing that their anti-abortion directives to Catholic hospitals hamper proper care of pregnant women in medical distress, leading to medical negligence.
The suit was filed in federal court in Michigan on Friday on behalf of a woman who says she did not receive accurate information or care at a Catholic hospital there, exposing her to dangerous infections after her water broke at 18 weeks of pregnancy.
In an unusual step, she is not suing the hospital, Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, but rather the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Its ethical and religious directives, the suit alleges, require Catholic hospitals to avoid abortion or referrals, “even when doing so places a woman’s health or life at risk.”
The suit opens a new front in the clash over religious rights and medical care. The Catholic Church has fought against requiring all health plans to include coverage of contraception and is likely to call the new lawsuit an attack on its core religious principles.
Catholic hospitals account for about one in six of the country’s hospital beds and in many regions their influence is spreading as they forge alliances with non-Catholic medical groups.
“This isn’t about religious freedom, it’s about medical care,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the civil liberties union, in a telephone news conference on Monday.
About one of the “medical experts who reviewed the case” quoted in the story, Ryan Bomberger of The Radiance Foundation noted in an email this morning:
The article quotes Dr. Douglas W. Laube [pictured right], who they describe as an OB at the University of Wisconsin Medical School. The NYT, of course, doesn’t mention that he’s an abortionist and the Immediate Past Board Chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
Rest assured the viewpoint of ACLU’s “medical experts” is skewed to kill the baby. It isn’t true the baby “had virtually no chance of surviving.”
It also is not true “in these circumstances doctors usually induce labor or surgically remove the fetus to reduce the mother’s chances of infection.” Certainly no Catholic or pro-life hospital jumps to abortion in such cases. Nor does ACOG recommend it as as a first course of action over “counsel[ing] about… the risk and benefits of expectant management.”
The first noninvasive course of action is to allow nature to take its course, which in this case it did:
Tamesha Means, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, said that when she was 18 weeks pregnant her water broke and she rushed to Mercy Health, the only hospital in her county.
Her fetus had virtually no chance of surviving, according to medical experts who reviewed the case, and in these circumstances doctors usually induce labor or surgically remove the fetus to reduce the mother’s chances of infection.
But the doctors at Mercy Health, Ms. Means said, did not tell her that the fetus could not survive or that continuing her pregnancy was risky and did not admit her for observation.
She returned the next morning, bleeding and in pain, and was sent home again. That night she went a third time, feverish and writhing with pain; she miscarried at the hospital and the fetus died soon after.
At the news conference Monday, Dr. Douglas W. Laube, an obstetrician at the University of Wisconsin Medical School, described the care Ms. Means received as “basic neglect.” He added, “It could have turned into a disaster, with both baby and mother dying.”
Of course, hospital staff may have mismanaged this case particular case one way or another. But even if so, this by no means calls for the overturn of national Catholic/pro-life medical policy to try to save them both, if possible, or again, let nature take its course.
The other side claims not to want the government to meddle with medical policy on abortion.
That is, until it’s convenient.
Pro-choice? No, they want a dead baby by hook or by crook. They won’t win because Catholic hospitals are places of life, not death. It’s the Anti-Child’s Life Union.
8 likes
“It could have turned into a disaster, with both baby and mother dying.”
So, “Dr.”, I suppose it was a baby in this case because it was wanted. If this was unwanted pregnancy situation, I’m sure he would have made sure to say fetus instead.
8 likes
Notice the suit isn’t for maltreatment by hospital staff, which may be a legitimate case, but one directed at every Catholic hospital in the nation. Unfortunately in abusing personal situations to affect national policy they never consider the personal torment of a baby being torn limb from limb.
7 likes
ACLU fails to understand that there is a separation of church and state and Catholic Hospitals do not fall under any federal mandates for ACLU to step in.
“Its ethical and religious directives, the suit alleges, require Catholic hospitals to avoid abortion or referrals, “even when doing so places a woman’s health or life at risk.”
Barking up the wrong tree ACLU because there is absolutely no evidence that any woman has been placed at risk.
5 likes
Unfortunately the credibility of the Catholic Church was put to question when it fired the nun Margaret MacBride when she “approved” an abortion to save a pregnant mother. She was excommunicated, but then was reinstated?
7 likes
LM – not quite accurate. The nun in question automatically excommunicated herself when she participated in the abortion. She claims to have fulfilled the requirements for lifting the excommunication (going to confession and receiving absolution, and resigning her position at the hospital), but that is in doubt considering tha she’s given public interviews since then stating that she feels she did nothing wrong.
Sincere repentance by the petinent is required for absolution to be effective, so she is still likely in a state of excommunication even if she pretends otherwise. Likely she has been informed of this by Bp. Olmsted et al, but she is probably choosing to ignore them (just as she ignores the other teachings of her faith).
7 likes
So what was the proper Catholic response for McBride to do in regards to the situation, then? The woman was going to die, the odds of her making it much longer were nil. She was not going to be able to carry the baby to term and she wasn’t going to survive much longer. This is like the only type of case I can see abortion being permissible, an 18 week old baby can’t survive outside the womb and the mother’s life is just as important. If you can’t save them both, you have to save who you can.
13 likes
Every time there is a case of medical negligence, the entire religious system isn’t sued. The responsible doctors, medical staff, and facility are.
Also, I would advise against jumping to conclusions on this case. Weren’t we led to believe for years that Norma McCorvey was a rape victim? That Becky Bell died of an illegal abortion?
The ACLU has this like Weddington and Coffey had Norma McCorvey, and NARAL and NOW had Becky Bell. Talk about convenient timing.
Let’s get ALL the facts first, and that includes the other side of this story.
7 likes
Jack, your question is answered in this document, which is what the ACLU is suing over. Seems that perhaps directive number 47 on page 26 is applicable here.
http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/ethical-and-religious-directives/
2 likes
The extremes of anything are dangerous places to be. Savita Halappanavar would be alive today had she not been in Ireland. But then again, she might not have survived had she been in this country either. Very sad when common sense does not prevail.
6 likes
So what was the proper Catholic response for McBride to do in regards to the situation, then?
There isn’t an exact answer to that question. The Catholic ethicists that the hospital consulted concluded that the proper Catholic response was to save the woman’s life. The diocese of Phoenix claims that the proper Catholic response was to her die. That doesn’t mean that every bishop would interpret the USCCB’s directives the same way that the diocese of Phoenix did.
6 likes
Savita Halappanavar would be alive today had she not been in Ireland. But then again, she might not have survived had she been in this country either.
Which is it?
3 likes
Jack, those directives explain it better than I can. Catholic physicians are certainly never told to do nothing or to let a woman die. They do their very best to “save who they can,” but they are not permitted to directly kill the baby, any more than they would be permitted to directly kill the baby to save the mother.
In regard to the case of Sr. Margaret McBride, there is VERY serious question as to whether the story the hospital was putting out was correct. (And the hospital side was the only side most of the public got).
A little background is necessary to understand this. The Catholic hospital in question had been at loggerheads with Bishop Olmsted for some time over their practices that apparently did not obey the bishops’ healthcare directives. It’s clear when this case came up, they were going to make the most of the opportunity to embarrass the bishop.
At any rate, much of the information does not add up.
For instance, the story the hospital gave to the newspapers was that an abortion was urgent because the woman was dying, and they used very alarming language about that, but Bp. Olmsted said that when he was originally informed of what had happened, he was told that she had been a patient in the maternity ward (not the ICU, as you might expect if she were dying), and there was apparently no urgent need, because the Ethics Board discussed the possible abortion over a matter of days, not minutes or hours.
Then too, the timeline seems strange. The particular kind of pulmonary hypertension the woman was suffering from can lead to very severe complications, but almost always in the lat second or third trimester, while this woman was barely at the end of the first trimester (around 11 weeks). They newspaper reports said she was already experiencing serious complications, which is possible, of course.
However, the woman’s doctor was said to to have reported not that she was dying, but that she would die “if she continues the pregnancy,” which seems to refer to a later situation, not her condition at the time. It was also confirmed that he was recommending abortion before she even showed any symptoms, from the beginning of her pregnancy, in fact. (This was a known condition, as she had been pregnant before with complications and evidently given birth safely). He wanted the abortion to prevent complications. I also remember reading at the time that some doctors are now treating this condition successfully with good outcomes for both mothers and babies.
Oh, but here is the kicker. The incident was in 2009 or 2010. In 2011 Sr. Margaret received an award from a leftist Catholic organization named “Call to Action.” Here’s the video of part of her acceptance speech. Listen closely to the very beginning of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVbIfjRRSf4
So, she was told by the mother of the aborted child “my life was changed because of you.” Really? After what was reported, the least she could have said is “My life was SAVED because of you”! Sounds kind of mild for what was supposedly done. Anyway, I’m not buying it.
I’m not trying to dismiss in any way this young woman’s suffering or loss. I think she was used, just as the young woman in this story is being used by the ACLU and the abortion ghouls to further their ends.
3 likes
aaaggh, my editing went awry trying to beat the clock! I meant in the first paragraph, “any more than they would be permitted to directly kill the mother to save the baby.”
2 likes
For those interested, the hospital in the Phoenix case put out a 25 page report outlining the development of the woman’s condition and the reasoning that led them to conclude that an abortion was permissible. It’s found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/documents/abortion/lysaught-St-Josephs-Hospital-Analysis.pdf
7 likes
My daughter was watching the biography of the famous female vocal group TLC.
One member suffered sickle cell anemia and had frequent hospitalizations.
This same member became pregnant and was advised to abort. Because of her sickle cell anemia, a genetic condition afflicting people of African ancestry, she was advised by her doctor that she and her unborn baby were at serious risk and to consider termination. At the time she was advised, she was suffering no complications. She was at risk for future complications. She was adamant that she would have the baby. Both are alive and doing well today.
6 likes
“The diocese of Phoenix claims that the proper Catholic response was to [let] her die”
LisaC, please provide a quote to this effect. When did anyone in the diocese of Phoenix ever claim this?
5 likes
OB doctor told my mother in 1966 that I, as an Rh baby, would die in utero and recommended abortion to prevent “complications” which could put her health in jeopardy. He was narcissistic because *he* went to medical school and treated my mother as if she was stupid to risk complications. My mother found a new doctor, who delivered me by C-section at 34 weeks, 4 lbs 2 oz, and both mother and child have done very well.
Hard as it is to believe, there are doctors who can be narcissists and wrong at the same time.
7 likes
Here is a very interesting piece of information I found on Fr. Z’s blog (wdtprs.com/blog). It seems (their coy disclaimer at the end not withstanding) that the ACLU was clearly trolling for clients this summer in Michigan. The person who provided it Fr. Z with a copy of the announcement said that the only hospitals in that part of Michigan are Catholic hospitals.
All part of the master plan. The HHS mandate was just the first step. Now they want to totally destroy the religious liberty of Catholic hospitals and force them to perform abortions. It’s going to be the new Roe v. Wade.
By all means, Jill, continue to investigate this!
——————————————————–
(Emphases mine):
EVENT TO EDUCATE AT PREGNANT WOMEN’S RIGHTS AT RELIGIOUSLY-SPONSORED HOSPITALS
Muskegon, MI – The Infant Mortality Reduction program at Public Health Muskegon County in partnership with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan is hosting an educational event titled Understanding Your Rights at Religiously Sponsored Hospitals on July 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM in the Blue and Gold Room at Muskegon Community College. The event targets advocates for women of childbearing age and focuses on patient’s rights in hospitals governed by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.
Public health is committed to promoting healthy pregnancies and improving birth outcomes. Advocating for complete, quality maternity care is essential for reducing infant mortality. Regardless of religious affiliation, a public health issue arises when hospitals refuse treatment, fail to meet the standards of care, or refuse to provide patients with informed consent.
“Understanding and navigating the current maternity care system is a challenge,” explains Faith Groesbeck, a health educator at Public Health Muskegon County, “especially for women who are particularly vulnerable to risk factors associated with infant mortality.”
Even with a healthy and wanted pregnancy, there are a number of conditions that can arise during or can be exacerbated by pregnancy, including miscarriage, that require an abortion to save the woman’s life or health.
“The ACLU has received several reports that some religiously-sponsored hospitals withhold treatment and information from pregnant women in emergency situations,” according to Genevieve Scott, Cooperating Attorney at the ACLU of Michigan. “Such refusal to provide or permit physicians and other health care professionals to provide necessary care may amount to a violation of state and/or federal law.”
This event is designed to provide an overview of a hospital’s legal obligations to women experiencing a miscarriage or other pregnancy complications. It will also include information on how to get good maternity care and be an engaged and informed health care consumer.
# # #
Note to the editor: This information is not intended to provide legal or medical advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship between the audience and the ACLU of Michigan, and the ACLU of Michigan cannot guarantee you legal representation. No information discussed during the event should be viewed as guaranteeing a specific legal outcome in the future
————————————-
original pdf is here: http://www.muskegonhealth.net/news/130710_knowyourrights.pdf
3 likes
I’d say it has nothing to do with the Bishops. A simple case of medical neglect or mismanagement. I don’t understand why the woman was sent home twice (first with broken waters, second with pain and bleeding), the right course of action would have been to keep her in the hospital, monitor her condition, watch for signs of infection and if there is a concern – induce labour to save the mother.
5 likes
In my original quote about Savit Halappanavar in Ireland, I do believe that had she not been in Ireland (a Catholic state) she most likely would be alive today because the termination of the pregnancy would have saved her life. She was not Catholic, rather a Hindu. Labor was not induced, she went into septic shock, and died. Clearly, under these guidelines, in this country, she would have had the medical procedure and lived. When I said maybe she would be alive had she been in this country, it was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm because there seem to be similarities between her case and the story in question. It is negligent to send a woman home bleeding and in pain. Just the mere fact that medical attention would be withheld under a certain set of circumstances is barbaric. Catholic or not, some of this just reads as wrong.
7 likes
That’s more clear, Laura.
Savita’s death, while tragic, seems to have little to do with Ireland’s laws. Abortion and pre-viability induced delivery are allowed if it’s necessary to prevent the mother’s death:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/rotunda-head-no-confusion-574300.html
Medical negligence happens in all countries, including Ireland. It’s not at all obvious that Savita died because she wasn’t in a country with legal abortion.
2 likes
LisaC, please provide a quote to this effect. When did anyone in the diocese of Phoenix ever claim this?
The “anyone” was the diocese’s ethicist, and he said it following Sr. McBride’s excommunication. ”There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can’t do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means.”
Interesting thing about pro-lifers: while they claim to believe that termination of a pregnancy is morally acceptable to save the life of the mother, they’ve never heard of a woman whose life, they believe, should have been saved.
8 likes
@ Navi, I suppose it all depends on what we read. In looking at a review of the articles, it does clearly state that had labor been induced, she would have lived. In the case surrounding the nun Margaret McBride, the case does seem to suggest that the mother did live because the pregnancy was terminated. She was excommunicated, then reinstated. Medical decisions should be made on a case by case decision involving attending physicians who are intimate with the case. As clearly occurred in both cases. In one case, the mother did not survive. In another case, the mother did. It is a very slippery slope we are on, when decisions will be made by an “arbitrary set of rules” not based on medical instances.
7 likes
I feel compassion for Tamesha Means. She lost her child and it looks to me like the ACLU is using her. If the medical facts are truly as this case presents, she should be suing the hospital for malpractice. If PROM was truly diagnosed, I’d be shocked that a hospital would send her home instead of admitting her for observation. That seems to be the standard of care and trying to manage PROM without admitting to the hospital seems to be a controversial approach to be tried only under particular circumstances.
But suing the USCCB over the directives is a joke and demeans both Tamesha’s suffering and the life of the lost child. It’s sad that the ACLU has been so corrupted.
2 likes
“It is a very slippery slope we are on, when decisions will be made by an “arbitrary set of rules” not based on medical instances.”
My guess would be that you haven’t actually read the directives, which you claim is an “arbitrary set of rules”.
2 likes
In the case of the woman involved in the Margaret McBride case, I believe that the correct decision was made in the first place (the termination of the pregnancy). Apparently the panel overseeing the decision agreed as well. McBride followed the “decision tree”. The woman lived. McBride was excommunicated. If she followed the guidelines, was then sanctioned, only to be reinstated, the initial credibility of the Catholic Church looks dodgy at best. If the rules weren’t so arbitrary, the non-medical outcomes of the case wouldn’t have been so sensationalized.
9 likes
“If she followed the guidelines, was then sanctioned, only to be reinstated, the initial credibility of the Catholic Church looks dodgy at best. If the rules weren’t so arbitrary, the non-medical outcomes of the case wouldn’t have been so sensationalized”
What “guidelines” are you talking about? Margaret McBride certainly didn’t follow the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church when she allowed an unborn baby to be intentionally killed as a supposed treatment for PH. What is “arbitrary” about the moral teaching that every life has value and it is an intrinsic evil to directly and intentionally kill an unborn child? The death of an unborn child is not evil, even if that death occurs as a result of life-saving treatment given to the mother. The intentional killing of that child is evil.
2 likes
47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a
proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they
cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of
the unborn child.
Why isn’t the above quote that you pointed out here applicable to this situation? If the woman was indeed going to die (as in the McBride case) why would this logical argument not (which was apparently followed) be acceptable?
7 likes
Hi Lring,
I’m convinced the ACLU has been chomping at the bit to force abortion down the throats of Catholic hospitals and this golden opportunity has fallen into their laps. Like Norma McCorvey was for Weddington and Coffey and Becky Bell was for NARAL and NOW.
Exploiting personal tragedy? What has greater emotional appeal than personal tragedy? What presents a better opportunity? Of course they will exploit it for all it is worth.
We now know that McCorvey wasn’t a rape victim, and Becky died of natural causes around the time she miscarried. So what? The damage is done.
3 likes
Why isn’t the above quote that you pointed out here applicable to this situation?
Are you referring to the Tamesha Means’ case? I thought it was applicable, that’s why I pointed it out. The hospital could have used any treatment modality it thought was best to treat the patient’s PROM, even if that treatment resulted in the death of the unborn child, and still have been compliant with the USCCB directives. (Which is wjhy I think suing the USCCB for these directives is a joke.) If the facts of the case as presented by the ACLU are true, it seems that Tamesha’s PROM wasn’t treated at all. She was given no information and sent home. That’s certainly not standard care for PROM.
If you were referring to McBride’s patient, then by okaying an abortion McBride was in direct violation of directive #45.
2 likes
It is evident to me that the logic behind the McBride case was 46, not 45. If it had been 45, then I believe that McBride never would have been restored after excommunication. 46 would be the logical reason to terminate a pregnancy in the event of saving the mother. It would not be 45. I have read the statement and it appears that abortion is a viable option, medically speaking, when saving the mother. No? So there does appear to be an arbitrary set of conditions governing what is and isn’t acceptable in these cases. And it is up to the medical establishment to make the determination which of 45 and 46 are the best option? That isn’t a definitive set of rules, they are arbitrary guidelines, IMO.
5 likes
“Interesting thing about pro-lifers: while they claim to believe that termination of a pregnancy is morally acceptable to save the life of the mother, they’ve never heard of a woman whose life, they believe, should have been saved.”
This doesn’t make sense. You have pro-lifers on this exact thread saying that a treatment that caused the death of the baby would have been morally acceptable in the case the McBride lady was involved in, unless you consider inducing labor or removing the placenta, fetus and all, not abortion (which it is, if abortion means terminating an existing pregnancy before the end of it). Those people just seem to have an issue with certain procedures that directly kill the baby versus procedures where the baby dies as a sad and unfortunate result. Other pro-lifers do not make such distinctions, and consider all ways (that don’t cause suffering to a pain-capable baby) to end the pregnancy early equally legit if it’s for a life or death reason. So I don’t think your comment makes sense, even directed at the Catholics.
8 likes
Laura, you completely misunderstand the directives if you think Catholic hospitals are supposed to choose between which ones they will apply for particular cases. They are supposed to operate in compliance with ALL the directives ALL the time.
1 likes
Interesting thing about pro-lifers: while they claim to believe that termination of a pregnancy is morally acceptable to save the life of the mother, they’ve never heard of a woman whose life, they believe, should have been saved.
That’s probably because most pro-lifers aren’t obstetricians, so don’t possess enough information to identify such a case, and because they’re so rare that someone who isn’t an obstetrician is unlikely to ever encounter one. We only know what the media and third party commentators tell us, which is not always the whole story.
In looking at a review of the articles, it does clearly state that had labor been induced, she would have lived.
That is plausible, but the official report from the HIQA identifies several other problems with the healthcare Savita received. Correcting some or all of these may have changed the result:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1009/479282-savita-halappanavar/
http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/hiqareport.pdf
Why isn’t the above quote that you pointed out here applicable to this situation? If the woman was indeed going to die (as in the McBride case) why would this logical argument not (which was apparently followed) be acceptable?
At issue is that, according to Catholic teaching, directly and intentionally killing an innocent human being is an intrinsic evil and that it’s never permitted to do evil even to accomplish a good end. Or as a syllogism,
P1: Deliberately killing an innocent human being is always wrong.
P2: Abortion deliberately kills an innocent human being.
C: Abortion is always wrong.
(taken from here).
The classic example that’s always given is a craniotomy performed during childbirth (which would never be allowed) versus removal of a cancerous uterus (which would be allowed, even if the woman was pregnant, because it’s a valid medical procedure rather than an intentional killing). As noted by LisaC above, some Catholic ethicists deny that the action sanctioned by Sister McBride would have constituted an intentional abortion (though this is not the position the American bishops take – hence the excommunication).
A similar case came up in Manchester when conjoined twins Jodie and Mary were born. Only Jodie had a working heart and lungs, which both girls relied on. Separating the twins would have meant severing one of Mary’s key arteries (thus directly killing her), but not separating them would have meant both would die:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/05/sarahboseley
The girls’ parents (devout Catholics) objected to the separation, along with the bishops and some Catholic-leaning pro-life groups. Their doctors wanted to carry out the operation. The case was brought before the Court of Appeal, which ruled in favour of separation. I think the doctors did the right thing. Both outcomes would have been fatal for Mary, so there was no serious conflict of interests. Additionally, Jodie’s life was threatened by Mary’s very existence (a contrast to, say, a soldier that takes advantage of a human shield to protect himself from a javelin). But it strains the meaning of the words “intentional” and “killing” to deny that this would be an example of it. The same goes for abortion to save the mother’s life. I do think it would be acceptable in that case, and would have to agree with Philippa Foot that this is one area where the Catholic doctrine on abortion must conflict with that of most reasonable men.
1 likes
Hi Jack,
I see your point.
Yes, in the perfect world no woman is ever at risk with her pregnancy and there are never life and death decisions that may have to be made. Unfortunately this isn’t a perfect world.
I point out that pregnancy termination, i.e. abortion, is just that. Some of the semantic gymnastics by people on this blog to explain why terminating the pregnancy to save the mother’s life isn’t really an abortion to save the mother’s life have boggled my mind. Even when it comes to ectopic pregnancies. I’ve even had posters angry at me for pointing out that yes, tragic as it is, a pregnancy termination that is fatal to the fetus may have to be performed to save a woman’s life. You can call it what you want, but it is what it is. Fortunately another nurse on the blog backed me up.
I would point out that no matter how anyone wants to view it, Michelle Duggar had a premature termination of her pregnancy with Josie to save her(Michelle’s) life. It came to the tragic and terrible decision to have to take a baby dangerously early, with the likelihood the baby wouldn’t survive, so as to save the mother’s life. Thankfully she survived. Had she been terminated sooner, its likely the baby’s life would have been sacrificed to save Michelle’s.
And with ectopic pregnancies, dance around the fact as much as they want and call it what they want, the fact is the pregnancy is terminated to save the mother’s life.
9 likes
(my last comment is in moderation)
Anyway, the point I was trying to communicate is that, even if pregnancy termination would have been necessary to save Savita’s life, Ireland’s abortion law was not the cause of her death. Doctors who practise in Ireland attest to this.
(though as stated in the report I linked to in my currently hidden comment, the medical facts demonstrate that there were other deficiencies in her care which probably sealed her fate – so it is far from obvious that inducing labour was the only way to save her).
2 likes
I suppose that I do misunderstand the directives then. Why would both 45 and 46 exist then? If the mother’s life is worth saving, then 46 would be applied (McBride, case in point). It seems to me to be an area of grey, with medical establishments applying specific criteria (arbitrary) to specific situations to determine which is the acceptable outcome.
Please explain.
5 likes
Mary,
Yeah we have had that conversation. :)
I had a friend call me a few years ago. She had an ectopic pregnancy and in tears she asked me if she was having an abortion. NONE of the women I know who have had ectopic pregnancies removed would EVER consider themselves post abortive.
Maybe in the medical field you call it abortion. I do not. Neither do they.
3 likes
“Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life,” he said. “If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will induce labor or perform a Caesarean section.”
“[The doctor’s] intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby,” Koop continued. “The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”
– Former United States Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
The principle of double effect.
2 likes
Laura, the purpose of the directives are to guide Catholic organizations (and individuals) involved in medical ministry on how to navigate the moral and ethical situations that can arise in medical care. It is possible to avoid a direct and intentional killing of an unborn child while still providing life-saving care to a pregnant woman. You may understand better if you read the Introduction portion of the directives. They are not “arbitrary”. They are carefully thought out and considered directives for how to minister in medicine while following Catholic ethics and morality.
1 likes
Hi Carla,
Again, it wasn’t you specifically I was referencing, it was several people on this blog.
In fact, it pained me that you were angry with me and I told you so.
My argument isn’t over the term “abortion”, its people using various semantics, as Jack describes, to avoid calling something what it is or to deny why it is done. That drives me to head pounding frustration.
Thanks to better diagnostic techniques, an ectopic can be diagnosed and terminated before a Fallopian tube is ruptured, greatly enhancing a woman’s ability to survive and enabling the woman to conceive again. However, we still have emergent situations where the tube has ruptured or is bleeding. Whatever semantics one may choose to use, or whatever reasoning, this is a pregnancy termination to save the life of the mother.
Whether the baby is directly aborted or dies as the unintentional result of let’s say, chemotherapy, it makes little difference. The baby’s life was sacrificed to save the mother’s.
My point is only that in this imperfect world, there may well be situations like the McBride case where very tragic and difficult decisions must be made.
7 likes
Hi Carla,
I greatly respect Dr.Koop but wasn’t he a pediatrician?
Its entirely possible Dr. Koop never saw such an abortion, I’m not surprised. Thankfully they are not that common. Also, wasn’t he referring to late term abortions? I can count the number of ectopics I’ve seen on both hands.
That aside, yes every effort will be made to save mother and child, but that is no guarantee that the child can always be saved or that difficult..and potentially fatal decisions, as in the Duggar case, won’t have to be made.
Honestly Carla, I don’t want any anger or misunderstanding between us. I like and respect you too much. Please understand that my issue is with people who twist themselves up in semantic gymnastics to avoid facing up to or calling something what it is.
6 likes
No worries at all Mary.
I love you too much.
:)
2 likes
I agree with you Mary. Reason 38563 I’d make a terrible, Catholic, I see no moral difference in terminating a pregnancy to save a life based on the method used. It’s the same outcome. And it’s definitely semantic wrangling to pretend that some procedures involve saving the mother but magically have nothing to do with directly causing the child’s death. Just doesn’t seem any different to me (no offense to Christians, not saying anything is wrong with your ethics, but I just can’t see any real difference). Those directives seem overall good except for that IMO.
8 likes
”There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can’t do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means.”
Interesting thing about pro-lifers: while they claim to believe that termination of a pregnancy is morally acceptable to save the life of the mother, they’ve never heard of a woman whose life, they believe, should have been saved. – See more at: https://www.jillstanek.com/2013/12/aclu-sues-us-bishops-group-over-catholic-hospital-abortion-policies/#comments
LisaC, you are not stating his position correctly or fairly. He did not say the mother should be allowed to die. He meant that a mother might die in spite of all his efforts to save both her and her child, as he is definitely required to do under Catholic ethical standards. But while that is a tragedy, that doesn’t justify deliberately killing the child.
You are also stating Catholic teaching wrongly. “Terminating a pregnancy” in the sense of deliberately ending the life of an unborn child is never allowed. If a child is viable, or close to it, then a premature delivery (which also “terminates” a pregnancy”) would be allowed, and the doctor would then fight like mad to save the baby. What Catholic ethicists would accept is that a legitimate medical treatment applied to the mother might harm the child, or even lead to its death, but that is only the indirect result of the treatment, and not willed by the doctor, so it is not deliberate killing and therefore not sinful. This is the best I can do to explain the principle of “double effect” here.
Catholic teaching does also insist that the mother’s life is to be saved in every instance possible. The big difficulty we have in our country is that while people have no problem recognizing the importance of the mother’s life, they do have a problem understanding is that the unborn child is also a human being and also has a right to life.Why should there be any surprise then that Catholic should stress that the child has rights? You evidently don’t accept that. Fine. But please don’t mischaracterize what we are saying.
Bishop Olmsted pleaded eloquently (don’t now if I can find the link) for people to realize that in the Arizona case the great wrong was that instead of being treated as a human being and a patient, the child was allowed to become an object, a mere obstacle to the mother’s life and recovery. No one should be treated like that. That is what we are saying. I find it very telling that in all the leftist Catholic congratulatory fervor for Sister Margaret for saving the mother’s life, not one person that I can remember even paused for a moment’s reflection or prayer over the other human being whose life was sacrificed so she could live. Not cutting it for me. I don’t expect this of abortion supporters, but you would think I could expect it of Catholics. But no.
2 likes
And it’s definitely semantic wrangling to pretend that some procedures involve saving the mother but magically have nothing to do with directly causing the child’s death.
I don’t know about other faiths, but Catholic ethics and morality doesn’t require “pretending” that life-saving procedures for the mother don’t directly cause the child’s death. In fact, that possibility is explicitly stated in directive #47. It can be perfectly ethical and moral to save the mother’s life using treatments that may result in the death of the child. The end result may be the same for the baby, death. The end result for the soul of the mother and those involved in decision-making and medical care is not at all the same. You might not see a difference, Jack, but we believe God knows our hearts and intentions perfectly. It makes all the difference in the world to carry out an action with the sole purpose of killing an unborn child than to carry out an action in an attempt to save a life, resulting in the unfortunate death of the unborn child. We cannot intentionally kill the child in order to save the mother. Catholic ethics results in some different treatment modalities for ectopic pregnancy and perhaps a few other medical circumstances as well.
1 likes
Removing a eighteen week old baby from his or her mother’s uterus is directly killing the child though, even if it’s to save the mother. That’s what I get stuck on, whether it’s a D & C or pre-term labor, you’re deliberately causing the death of the child to save the mom. It’s even more clear to me with cases of ectopics or earlier fatal pregnancy conditions (say if the baby was only nine or ten weeks old). I saw an argument once where people were saying the moral response to a tubal pregnancy is removing the tube (which kills the baby) instead of the woman taking that medication which is safer than the surgery to remove the tube and leaves the woman’s fertility intact. Makes zero sense to me, how that could possibly be different morally. Like I said, I’d be a terrible Catholic because the subtle difference looks like no difference at all to me. The “natural death” argument doesn’t seem to apply, because naturally both mother and baby would die. I really doubt I will ever see this distinction.
8 likes
I think, Lrning, it’s the same distinction I do not see between NFP usage to space or avoid pregnancy and using forms of contraceptives, you guys see some distinction in intent and I don’t.
8 likes
You do not see because you choose not to see.
INTENT is everything Jack.
Tiller killed late term babies in the womb, delivered their dead bodies, baptized some, took their pictures with parents and then incinerated their bodies. His intent was to KILL them for the “health of the mother.” Depression falls under that umbrella.
In Jill’s case babies were delivered early and left to die in a soiled utility closet. The INTENT was to kill them.
A woman pregnant with a later term child in a life threatening situation may have that baby delivered. Her baby is given to that mother to have and to hold and to love on until that child passes away. The INTENT is to save. The unfortunate result is that the child may die. The principle of double effect.
I do recall that doctors used to take an oath.
FIRST DO NO HARM
2 likes
Thank you Lrning.
1 likes
Can you unhide my 6:12pm post?
Please and thank you <3
2 likes
Carla I wasn’t talking about later term babies, where the procedure is early term labor either way I don’t see how it could possibly be safer for the mother to deliberately kill the baby. In a true emergent situation certainly a three day procedure isn’t going to save her. What I am talking about is pre-viability babies that have no chance of surviving, like with my example of the baby stuck in a tube. In these situations whatever you do to end the pregnancy is killing the baby. Your intent is to save the mother, but the baby is going to die. So I don’t see why some methods are morally superior. Removing a whole tube in a more invasive procedure than taking the medication? If the baby’s life is sadly lost anyway, I don’t see why the priority wouldn’t be to find the safest way to save the mom. I was not speaking of Tiller and his “health” reasons (and most of the babies he aborted were ill themselves, not their mothers), or Jill’s hospital leaving babies with Down Syndrome to die. I was talking about very pre viability babies where their mother is in grave danger. The intent in that situation is to save the mother no matter what method is used.
9 likes
Navi, sometimes it helps to e-mail one of the mods. They may not see every comment posted, but they will check their e-mail eventually.
2 likes
Well Jack.
Tiller’s victims had disabilities? Most? Some? All? Got a link?
I had a friend who was 17 weeks along and developed a blood infection. She was induced, the baby was delivered and was not going to make it. She named him, held him and loved him and her life was spared. Is that morally superior to shooting a baby in the heart to kill them, saline, tearing the baby out in pieces?
I think so.
An ectopic pregnancy will not make it. The baby will not survive. The growing baby or the tube will be removed. The grief my friends feel over their babies lost in ectopic pregnancies is the same.
Is the INTENT to kill the child? No it is the unfortunate result and a heartbreaking one at that.
I do not believe you like to think of anything as morally superior. Maybe that is the issue.
2 likes
I don’t think that’s a fair criticism of me, I think plenty of things are morally superior than others. I think being in a monogamous marriage is morally superior to sleeping around, I think treating your kids nicely is morally superior to beating them, whole bunch of things are morally superior to others. So I don’t think that’s very fair.
I don’t think the conversation is getting anywhere. I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying.
8 likes
Then please clarify.
Does intent mean anything?
It does to me.
2 likes
I literally said
“The intent in that situation is to save the mother no matter what method is used.”
in the situations I am talking about (emergency life or death), like with ectopic pregnancies and such.
8 likes
In these situations whatever you do to end the pregnancy is killing the baby. Your intent is to save the mother, but the baby is going to die. So I don’t see why some methods are morally superior.
Please clarify this.
1 likes
Those who want legal abortion say the semantics debate is the fault of pro-lifers, not themselves. What??? They need to look themselves in the mirror.
Of course the act of saving a woman with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy is not the abortion that pro-lifers are against, in very general terms.
I’m with you Carla on the importance of INTENT. Whether people like it or not, morals and ethics matter in life. Without them we end up doomed, with elective abortion, and irrational justification of such.
Hopping off the soapbox now, this debate is brutal. God bless you, Carla and all who fight for LIFE.
1 likes
I already tried, I’m sorry I’m not making myself clear.
6 likes
To my friend Jack,
You make yourself very clear. We share a mutual frustration. We understand these are terrible and heartbreaking decisions that must be made and whatever semantic gymnastics people want to engage in, it doesn’t change the basic fact: The life of the unborn child was sacrificed to save the life of the mother. In this imperfect world, this happens.
To my other friends on this thread,
We can philosophize, rationalize, seek religious direction, and engage in semantic gymnastics. I respect and understand where you are coming from. However it doesn’t change a basic fact: The life of the unborn child was sacrificed to save the mother. In this imperfect world, this happens.
When a living unborn baby is removed alive from a fallopian tube thanks to early diagnosis and dies, this was done to save the mother’s life. When the woman with the potentially fatal uterine infection that resists all treatment is induced at 5 months gestation, the life of the unborn baby will be sacrificed to save hers. When the decision was made to prematurely deliver Josie Duggar, a decision was made to possibly sacrifice her life, or subject her to future disability, to save Michelle’s life.
I’m sorry my friends, it is what it is.
7 likes
I agree.
HEARTBREAKING.
To those who grieve their precious little ones and would be crushed to think others consider them to have had abortions.
Can we clarify that please?
Would you at least agree with me that you would not find a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy removal seeking post abortive care or a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat?
You wouldn’t offer post abortive resources to a mother who had an emergency c-section to save her life and the unfortunate result was that her child died? Would you refer her to Silent No More? Yeah come march with all of us that aborted at Planned Parenthood!!
Can we agree on that? I see the difference. Do you?
Some symnatic gymnastics are necessary. THEIR grief is theirs and theirs alone and they are allowed to frame their experience in whatever way they deem appropriate. We are to tread lightly and gently in these cases.
3 likes
Why would I recommend someone who had a life-saving abortion to post-abortive ministry? It seems like a grief counseling therapy, or a group for parents who miscarried or had stillborn babies would be far more appropriate for someone who had no real choice in their child’s death.
And I wouldn’t be like “Hey you totally aborted! Admit it!” to some pro-life grieving mother who had an emergency early c-section. I’m not a monster, for goodness sake. Having a certain opinion doesn’t mean it’s necessary to express it to certain people for whatever reasons.
4 likes
Glad to hear it.
So we agree. Good. I’m done.
3 likes
Thank you Jack,
Good points.
Certainly parents would mourn their loss and the heartbreaking decision they were forced to make. No one trivializes this, or the anguish of a post abortive woman. However people seek solace, be it religious, philosophical, or with counseling or seeking support from others who have been through the same, is individual.
My point is the decision to save a mother’s life by ending the unborn baby’s may have to be made. We may want to say the intention was not to kill the baby or it was the indirect result of let’s say chemotherapy, but the result is the same, the live of the mother takes precedence. Of course no one wanted this or planned for it.
4 likes