First up from the God Machine this week is a terribly sad story about a woman named Lori Stodghill, whose family has brought a lawsuit against a Catholic hospital, which has taken an unexpected legal/political turn.
On New Year's Day 2006, Stodghill, aged 31, was seven-months pregnant with twins, when she started to feel ill. She went to the emergency room at St. Thomas More hospital in Canon City, Colorado, and suffered a massive heart attack. Stodghill's obstetrician, Dr. Pelham Staples, who was on call for emergencies that night at the hospital, never answered a page, and an hour after arriving, Stodghill died and the twins did not survive.
Jeremy Stodghill, Lori's husband, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit, arguing that the doctor should have answered the page, should have instructed hospital staff to perform an emergency C-section, and could have tried to save the twins. And as Amanda Marcotte noted, that's where the story takes a politically charged turn.
The hospital's defense, so far successful, is to claim that because the twins were fetuses and not people, this can't legally be viewed as a wrongful-death situation.
Of course, the problem is that the hospital is run by Catholic Health Initiatives—Catholic, as in that religion whose leadership routinely claims that not only are fetuses people, but so are embryos, zygotes, and fertilized eggs. That claim is used to turn women into sacrificial lambs for the faith, denying them not just elective abortions but telling them that it's not OK to terminate pregnancies where there's no chance of producing a live baby. Women who go to Catholic hospitals in these situations have been denied procedures to save their fertility or even their lives. But, as this lawsuit shows, the passionate belief that anything post-fertilization is a "person" evaporates the second it stops being useful as a way to oppress women (and the second it starts possibly costing the Catholic hospital money).
St. Thomas More hospital is now facing criticism from the right for maintaining malleable principles. "There's a difference between being legal and being right," Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land said. "Either a fetus is a person or it's not." Local Roman Catholic Bishops have promised to review the case.
In this meantime, the Catholic hospital and its lawyers maintain that the twins were not yet people, and so far, courts have agreed -- a state district court and an appeals court have sided with the hospital. The case is currently pending at the Colorado Supreme Court.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* As the debate over reducing gun violence continues, it appears many of the religious right movement's leading figures and organizations are siding with the NRA against any new laws or restrictions on firearm ownership (thanks to reader R.P for the tip).
* The religious right was also deeply unhappy with the Pentagon's decision to lift the ban on women serving in military combat roles.
* The New York Times reported this week on the role of American evangelical missionaries working in Uganda on anti-gay campaigns. The piece featured footage from the new Roger Ross Williams documentary on the subject.
* New public opinion research from the Barna Group found that 66 percent of Americans believe no one set of religious values should dominate in the U.S. On the other hand, 23 percent believe "traditional Judeo-Christian values" should be given preference over competing faiths, and among evangelical Christians, the number rises to 54 percent.
* Tragic: "Fifteen years before the clergy sex abuse scandal came to light, Archbishop Roger M. Mahony and a top advisor plotted to conceal child molestation by priests from law enforcement, including keeping them out of California to avoid prosecution, according to internal Catholic church records released Monday" (thanks to reader T.C. for the heads-up).
Leave a Comment:
It is a bit disturbing when science becomes very convenient for the faithful; and then, not so much!
Ending the vicious cycle is the challenge for our time!
And as far as our NRA Christian friends, I believe in their bibles Jesus was packing a Smith and Wesson! (or was it a Colt .45?)
And, yeah, if our dear conservative clergy has been reading the WSJ lately, they may have been led to believe we can't have women in combat because male defecation may, very seriously, get in the way of a good soldier's transsubstantiation! -Kevo
Oh, it will, Kevo. Just give it a few more "translations".
Its the old double standard when it come to money vs life eh.
Jesus choice could have been a Colt P. (Peacemaker)
Could give FOXHOLE a whole new meaning...Or cover my six!
Absolutism, fundamentalism - the mindset that chooses what its 'reality' is will not accept the possibility of error on its own part. You can lead a horse to water, ...
Saint Thomas doubted until he put his finger in the wound, but he wasn't struck down. John 8:3-11, Jesus said, in effect, that he was in no position to come between another and his/her Creator. But people afraid of uncertainty, praying for mercy for themselves and justice for others, will fight to the death in defense of their view of the elephant - the other four blind men are wrong ...
Thank you MANFST98 for sharing such a commonly humane observation! If only more of the faithful would look to the wisdom offered, and not accept the dogma proffered! -Kevo
Speaking of science, the roe v. wade rule of tri-mesters was based on science. She was seven months along thus the fetuses were viable under the law. She could not have obtained an abortion.
Yes kevo, he was and there was something had to be wrong when 4 people wrote of the red letter sermon words. Words regarding caring for elderly, widows, healing the sick, love others as ourselves, even enemies and turning the other cheek. Snark
Paul,
You need to reread the article, the dead woman was not asking for an abortion.
“Jeremy Stodghill, Lori's husband, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit, arguing that the doctor should have answered the page, should have instructed hospital staff to perform an emergency C-section, and could have tried to save the twins.”
The point that the liberals are making:
When a woman comes in to abort a pregnancy, within the first trimester, the Catholic church tells her she is a murder and her eternal soul will rot in hell
But in order for this CATHOLIC hospital to beat the wrongful-death lawsuit (this right to life group) has decided that this is Ok, those were just 7 month old fetuses not people.
Technically and legally, the hospital will win because the law says that fetuses are not people. Those who keep going on about that are missing the whole point that no one argues with that. What people are arguing about is the morality of the situation, not the legality.
Under catholic law, those were human beings that died because the obstetrician did not come in a timely manner and no one else at the hospital stepped up. The catholic church is now going to argue that they really weren't humans because that is what secular law says. If someone now comes in and wants an abortion in the first trimester, or even the morning after pill in the case of a rape, the hospital darn well better comply or they'll have another law suit on their hands. You don't go getting all holy when there isn't any money at stake, but suddenly changing your mind when it looks like your "morals" are going to cost you.
I saw one person argue that the insurance company had to defend the case or they would have to pay out. That may be true, but the hospital should be liable all by itself.
Old bat-you missed my point. I was alludding to the fact that the hospital is way off base trying to say those fetuses were not people. They are trying to misinterpet roe v. wade and pro-choice views while ignoring the simple fact that we found a compromise in the tri-mester ruling. I know she was not seeking an abortion but if she was it would have been denied because under present law those fetuses were far enough along to live out of the womb.
Sorry-but then again the hospital wants confusion in this case.
So a zygote is a baby unless we screw up then it is not? This is the same group that protects pedeophile priests and bishops..What would we expect from such disgusting people?
It also highlights a potential for changing criminal law. If, at conception, it is considered a "person" by law, that poses a whole new range of possible criminal consequences. Should a woman fails to get prenatal care for her child and as a result it is "stillborn", is that murder or at least a homicide? What if the mother takes drugs or alcohol with the same results? Or, as some religions believe, medical intervention is prohibited-which religious belief takes precedence and does it become a crime to observe the other religious belief? What if a woman accidentally falls and her unborn dies as a result of "negligence? What if the scenarios listed above result in the child being born with a physical or mental handicap or a severe physical deformity, what is the law since it is a " person" at the moment of conception? Closing one door on abortions as defined by Roe/Wade-opens the door to criminal liabilities that would not otherwise be pertinent to a non-person fetus!
Let's go the other way and say that if the mother dies in childbirth but the baby lives, the baby should be arrested for homicide.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Jesus was packing a Bushmaster modified to be full automatic and a 30 round clip.
But but but they threw out all the gospels that disagreed with papal rule. Those 'not good enough to be Catholic' traitors have always misinterpreted biblical meaning...except regarding second rate citrizens and subjects..er..I mean women. A pagan king gave the pope what he demanded...the current bible...just before he died and then he was baptized...to prevent a civil war in Rome between pagans and Catholics (all Christians were Catholics at that time).
"Freedom will only come when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." But man's desperation to be saved from his fear perpetuates this belief in fantastical delusions...er I mean religions. Spirituality is subjective.
God is not "a" being...God "IS" being and IS everything...in form or formless. Ha...this makes it easy to see why people demand a Being huh.
Fact, this type of hospital has a policy that states if a choice must be made as to whether to save the mother or her unborn child they will opt for the unborn child-you have no choice.
Yet here they have allowed both to die and now want to use their homicidal actions as a battle against abortion. Screw the law on tri-mester, the heck with the scientific difference between a zygote and a fetus no sir this is a clear cut case of forcing an issue through cold hearted irreverence of both humanity and the law!
Were HITLER & HIMMLER "Good Shepherds"?
Have you every thought about this problem.
One of the strongest images and allegory's of religion is that of a shepherd and his flock: David's PSALM 23: "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want...."; the Pope carrys the curved shepherd's staff (as do many other religious figures) "Thy Rod and Thy Staff" and is the Shepherd of the flock of the Catholic faithful - as is a priest, pastor, minister faith leader, etc. to the members of his congregation.
Through time that analogy has always been extreme comforting & consoling, BUT have you every really considered it's reality and potentially it's hidden meanings?
Think of a shepherd and his flock.
What happens to the lamb of a shepherd? Lamb chops, leg of lamb - what's your pleasure?
What happens to the sheep of a shepherd's flock? Wool and then mutton chops and stew.
A shepherd KILLS HIS FLOCK or SELLS THEM TO SLAUGHTER. That's what his flock exists for - a supply of wool and a supply of food - DINNER.
So a shepherd, as a normal matter of course, "betrays" and slaughters the members of his flock. The flock which that he earlier protected and cared for all lives - lives that he is directly responsible for ending.
If that is the normal, expected out come of the true relationship between and shepherd and his flock - the only purpose for their existence to begin with - what is the real and true meaning and reality behind the consistent image of a religious shepherd and the flock of his followers?
If we can find mysterious, misinterpreted and questionable (but extraordinarily rewarding both financially, in publicity, in power and in determining the nature of US support for Israel) "end of days" manipulations & meanings in books of the Bible and related writings, THEN:
What is the true and unrevealed hidden meaning of a betraying shepherd and the flock he betrays?
Are we to be delivered FROM something or TO something?? Why was the image of a betraying shepherd (a necessary means & method of physical and economic survival) and his doomed flock placed in our belief writings?
Now, will you ever look at the concept of the GOOD SHEPHERD the same way again?
There is NO "GOOD" SHEPHERD.
Re: #2
Copy and past same exact comment from last week.
Got anything new to add to the discussion?
There is the story of the new preacher who gave the same sermon two weeks in a row. The elders figured that he hadn't had time to prepare anything new so they let it go. Then when he gave the same sermon the third time, they talked with him about it. His response was that when he saw change among the congregation that indicated that they were listening, he would go onto other topics.
I used to work at this hospital! While the Hospital group, Centura Health is run by Catholics, the doctors in these hospitals are not necessarily of any religion. Some of the docs are wonderful. Dr. Staples is supposed to be a good doctor. A seven month fetus is considered viable. So according to any laws, these babies should have been saved. Im pretty sure the hospital group will end up paying a lot for this event.
To answer your question, Mr. USARonin....
Your argument doesn't really call into question the theological meaning of the metaphor of the "The Good Shepherd" so much as it calls into question using the rhetorical TOOL (emphasis mine) of a straw "Good Shepherd" to deflect an extremely important discussion on the meaning of "pro-life" and the hypocrisy of many on the US religious right.
The sheeple will not hear you. USA Ronin...It seems to me they prefer to be led..:0(
No surprise that the religious right is Pro-NRA. For a groups of people that are so demandingly certain that their way is the ONLY way, they seem to have a really paranoid streak,
That paranoia extends to their belief system itself. That is why they go to such extremes to "convert" those that don't think the same way as they do. With the billion or so people people out there that don't believe in any religion or, the billions of people that believe in other religions, there has to be that lingering doubt in their psyche of the possibility that they are wrong. So, every time they make a convert, regardless of how many they actually lose, they feel validated. If you really believe in something, it really doesn't matter if anyone else does so as well. If Christians really believed in either testament of their religious beliefs, they could not support or condone all the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christianity in the past or those by Priests of today or the extreme racial and political comments made by Pastors in Churches across the nation. And, if people were really sincere in their beliefs they wouldn't do the things that are commonplace today. You either believe the "book" and act accordingly -or not!
Sorry Bruce
We are much smarter than Bronze age man...we now have science and don't have to rely on fairytales and fables any longer. Not so 'tribal' any longer with campfire stories to tell our youth to make them feel safe and superiors protective. It's no longer a question of not knowing...it's not wanting to know that blinds us and keeps us believeing what we've been "told" to believe.
One could say that Hitler was very religious. His attack on the Jews was motivated by religion. He really did seek out religious artifacts,though it is unclear as to whether he did so because he thought the power they held was from a god or alien technology or even a once highly intelligent mankind that has either gone extinct or left this Earth.
The fact that (like Bush) he required an oath of loyalty from his generals shows he somehow thought such oaths had meaning.
Of course some would argue that NAZI and KKK are in themselves religions. They actually believe in a superior race. Sound crazy? Listen to evangelists yap about Islamis! Same bull just a different pasture.
Godwin'ed!
I would disagree with Richard Land that "either a fetus is a person or it is not." The question of whether or not a fetus is a person depends on its stage of development. Legal scholars please correct me if I am wrong, but I think Roe V. Wade says a women has the right to choose an abortion during the first trimester. That means that the rights of the fetus do not begin until it reaches a stage of development such that it can survive outside the womb. Thus a fetus is not a person until it reaches a stage of development such that its genetic potential to be a viable human being has a real chance of being realized.
In cases where the fetus has a genetic condition such that it cannot survive on its own with normal infant care from responsible parents, it should always be the choice of the parents whether they want the responsibility of caring for the child including paying for extraordinary medical intervention.
In the case cited it should have been the choice of the parents to decide whether to save the twins. The report above does not say where the father was in the critical moments in the emergency room or whether the mother was conscious and able to make a decision to save her babies even though she herself could not be saved.
The critical issue of CHOICE is at the heart of the case, as it is in nearly all discussion of the issue of abortion.
The kids were seven months along, way past the first trimester. And the people who made the "choice" in this case was the hospital.
dkm: my point is that it was not the hospital's choice to make. It was the parents, unless they were not able to make the decision. If the hospital wants to claim that they had the right to make the choice, they need to prove that the parents were not capable of making the choice, i.e. the mother being unconscious and the hospital could not get in touch with the father on time.
Neither the State nor the Church has the right to decide in such cases. The hospital as a big institution should make the choice only when the parents are not able to make the choice. It is the parents who have to take responsibility and deal with the consequences of the decision.
When life-saving becomes a question of semantics, it's debate over a grave.
The viability of the two male Stodghill fetuses, who were at a seven month gestational age, is a huge factor in this case. Ninety percent of fetuses who are twenty-eight weeks old can live outside the mother's womb, due to, for example, premature birth. They will need some special care, but they can survive.
This is why Roe v. Wade set parameters for abortions. Fetuses in the first trimester cannot live outside the womb, therefore; abortions were declared legal in the first trimester. Roe v. Wade did not push for abortions of viable fetuses.
The defense attorney for Catholic Health Initiatives argues that only those born alive are considered persons (who can then be murdered). I argue that these two boys could have been born alive with an emergency C-section. The hospital neglected to try to save these boys, and that goes against the "Do no harm" professional ethical standard of doctors. In this case, neglect may have contributed to the death of the Stodghill twins. They didn't even try a C-section. Shame on them.
The point is moot. There was no doctor at the hospital to do any caeserean. He didn't answer the call. I am pretty sure that the med clerk or nurse called and left a message, but he obviously did not get it. If they just thought she was ill, they probably thought it wasn't life threatening and didn't start freaking out until she started to die. Then they're going to go crazy trying to get a doctor in there.
"dkm: my point is that it was not the hospital's choice to make." I agree that it was not the hospital's choice. However, the hospital did make the decision to allow the fetuses to die through inaction. That is the point of the lawsuit. The idea that "the parents" should have made the decision what to do is just plain stupid when you realize one of the parents was dying at the same time.
The point of the blog was to shine a light on the hypocrisy of the Church as it relates to their definition of "life" and how easily it can change when the result could cost them money. The Catholic Church has always defined "life" as beginning at conception, unless that doesn't work for them.
I completely agree with Eileen. Seven month fetuses are able to survive outside the womb with assistance. This whole event was a travesty...and DID violate the Hippocratic oath of "Do No Harm" for the babies. The mother's condition post-heart attack may have rendered her unable to be saved but there are criteria/standards of care (ACLS) for resuscitation of pregnant women which speak specifically to this situation which address attempting to save the baby(ies) if viable. My heart goes out to this man who lost not only his wife but his babies secondary to the hospital's failure to act. Shame on them!
The St. Thomas More Hospital website advertises its policy on Patient Rights: http://stmhospital.org/body.cfm?id=81
Patient Bill of Rights
Patient Rights:
Centura Health Hospitals support the rights of all patients across the lifespan including geriatric, adult, adolescent, pediatric, infant and neonatal populations. These rights may be exercised through the patient individually or through their surrogate decision maker (legal representative).
"...neonatal populations" is the key phrase that stood out for me.
The hospital also has "The Birth Place," where the care is compassionate and personalized, the facility includes a dedicated C-section operating room, and, for babies requiring specialized care, immediate transport to Neonatal Intensive Care Units in Colorado Springs and Denver. http://stmhospital.org/birth
It all sounds so soothing and responsible and ... Catholic.
But...
Pregnant woman comes into emergency room. Attending physician paged immediately.
Patient is diagnosed as having a heart attack. Attending physician not responding. As minutes stretch on, other doctors are paged due to the critical state of the patient.
An hour later, Mother dies. The twins, denied placental oxygen, also begin to die.
Because this is a hospital CPR/heart palpation and artificial respiration begun for continuing blood flow and oxygen to the twins.
No doctor within an hour of St. Thomas responds to their pages or calls in.
Twins heartbeats begin to slow under artificial life-support.
Emergency cuts made to remove twins from deceased mother, via telephone to another doctor working in another emergency room in another hospital.
It all boils down to St. Thomas being a badly run hospital if they don't have some insurance or managerial safe-guards to prevent such lawsuits. /s/
I wonder: What was the status of the Stodghill family's health insurance coverage?
7 months is a viable fetus. Maybe a bit iffy for twins, but my sister had one of her daughters at 6 months... 40+ years ago and though she was in intensive care for 6 weeks, she survived with little effect, except for eye sight issues.
But Jebus...the nurses had to know a "C" section was needed. They did nothing...nothing...they had to know the fetuses would die without intervention...yet nothing was done. The hospital should be sued for mal practice or unneccessary death...or for being incompetent. Fetus? Person? Geez, that's hardly the point. Poor man. Shame and sorrow because of this hospital. Not God's will because their God apparently allows anything...like an unanswered emergency page(and no back up plan). Something is very very wrong here.
I do agree that until that first breath is taken there is no person...only a possible person.
The 31 year old mother weight over 400 lbs the day she and her twin fetuses died. Perhaps she should have been hospitalized long before her fatal emergency trip. She had a two year old, perhaps she should have been on a safe birth control, such as an IUD, until she was in shape to successful carry a second pregnancy to term. Plenty of blame to go around. But not criminal in my opinion.
If someone didn't make a choice, why was the doctor called? It seems wishy-washy to me. And Chris, it shouldn't matter the weight of the mother? You can't pick which people are ALLOWED to get pregnant. In that case you should also say 'Everyone on medication, people who drink, people under the age of 18 so on and so forth, shouldn't have babies so if the children die, it's the mother's fault.' That's really messed up. And since she went to a Catholic hospital, maybe she didn't believe in birth control.
Classic victim blaming, there, Chris.
Perhaps all women who die due to complications of pregnancy have only themselves to blame, eh? They had the sex, they picked their path?
Funny how it didn't occur to you to blame the husband. He knew what she weighed when he had sex with her, presumably. He could have used a condom. He could have used some method of birth control. He, too, could have taken her to the hospital sooner.
But you're here to tell us why the dead woman is to blame. Imagine that.
Do men who are mugged share any blame for the crime they suffer? They choose to carry a wallet, after all. Plenty of blame to go around there, too. But no one goes online to chastise men for the crimes against them. Somehow the internet is full of people lined up to tell women why they are at fault.
amber1992 & ForceStrong: The pregnant woman was also a nurse. She should have anticipated complications during her pregnancy and have a plan in place. I wonder if she had a ob/gyn that specialist in high risk pregnancy and if the fetuses had their own neonatal specialist.
On New Year's Day she tried to reach her doctor by phone. Unable to reach him she called her husband at his job. He took her to the hospital.
She should have called 911 for an ambulance. Hopefully they could have arrived at a hospital with a staff that could handle both her and the fetuses.
Weighting over 400 lbs with twins she should have already been hospitalized for monitoring and in a setting for an emergency delivery.
Yes, I stated she was responsible for complications that resulted because of her weight. That's a responsibility a woman takes before and during her pregnancy. Just like a woman that continues to smoke and use drugs before and during their pregnancies.
Amber1992 & Forcestron: The mother was also a nurse. She was the one going to the doctor's and getting weight. She should have been under the care of a high risk ob/gyn and the twin fetuses should have had their own neonatal specialist. On New Year's Day the mother tried to reach her doctor and couldn't. Then she called her husband at his job. He took her to the hospital.
She should have called 911 and hopefully they would have taken her to a hospital that had the staff to care for her and the fetuses. She should have been prepared for a risky pregnancy/delivery and had a plan in place.
As I stated a women weighting over 400 lbs. pregnant with twins should have been hospitalized for proper monitoring and in a setting to handle an emergency delivery.
Yes, I'm stating that a woman that weights over 400 lbs when she is seven months pregnant should expect complications. Just like a women that smokes or uses drugs when she is pregnant. A woman must accept responsibility to any harm to the fetus if she isn't properly taking care of herself before and during a pregnancy.
Of course the father is also responsible if his wife was not in proper physical condition to successful carry a second pregnancy to term.
You both can state that I'm blaming the mother that weighted over 400 lbs. for her medical complications and you are right.
Every week I can't help but worry a little more...the only thing in this world worse than a nut with a cause and a gun is a religious nut with a cause and a gun...
Re: #4
How about a religious nut with a cause and the political power to impose their religion on others?
An American Inquisition...
You mean like the Dakotas and Mississippi? Look around, we are being consumed by religious zealots and their idea of morality. The same people who complain about these religious nut cases are voting for these religious nut cases.The definition of an idiot is someone who continually does the same thing, over and over again, expecting different results! Gerrymandering has mad a mockery of our democratic process,
If you take away our assault weapons, how are we going to slay the minions of the Anti-Christ during the climactic battle of Armageddon? Sure, winged horses and flaming swords look cool, but they just don't have the same stopping power.
Girls can't fight, though. They need to stay back in Heaven, barefoot and pregnant, minding the hot stove full of manna, and keeping the cloud tidy.
Bruce G
“The definition of an idiot is someone who continually does the same thing, over and over again, expecting different results!”
Correction that is not the definition of an idiot, that is the definition of insanity. :)
An idiot is someone who hasn't a clue.
Thanks for your feedback. You will notice I did not "quote" anyone as the source of that statement. Otherwise I would have attributed it to either Albert Einstein or Ben, Franklin who are both reported to have used the statement with the word "insanity" and, I would also attribute it to them as well, had that been the case. With poetic license, many people, including myself have,over the years, manipulated the ending word to satisfy their own interpretation of the circumstances they wish to subscribe it to and TO highlight a point. You would be correct if I had used it as a quote but, alas, I did not! I stand by my definition using the word idiot!
"Either a fetus is a person or it's not."
If it's a person then call it a person. Stop using the other word.
When is a car officially a car? When it's on the assembly line or when it's done and out of the factory?
Interesting analogy.
You can sell a car.
When the car is out of the factory than it is a car, otherwise it is just parts to a car. The car is not complete until it gets off the factory line. Just like when you go buy replacement car parts.
...and another thing:
To go along with the car theme, I would hate for people to treat having a a kid like buying a car. They want to have an abortion because they wanted to know what gestation feels like so they can officially have one for real later in life...this is like a test drive and should not be a way to approach the issue.
If you're not ready to "buy a car" don't "go to the showroom"
This strawman.
That's been thrown at pro-choice advocates for decades and it's always been bullpucky.
People sometimes eat food, go through the motions for show, only to throw it up again. That doesn't mean we ban eating. It means that individual has mental health issues that need to be treated.
There aren't hordes of women "rehearsing" pregnancy for the fun of bleeding vaginally. We don't practice having surgery by slitting open our own chests. We don't jam our fingers in electrical outlets just to be familiar with defibrillators should we ever need to be resuscitated. We aren't amputating our limbs simply to see if we could adjust to losing a limb.
But I'm sure women everywhere appreciate the assumption that we're so frivolous and stupid.
Sooo... the very organization who systematically de-humanize and ostracize women seeking even a morning-after pill are okay with the defense their lawyers are using in this lawsuit?
These regally-robed pillars of rectitude, these authorities of morality (yeah, we can go off in another direction on that one) who claim to be God's mouthpiece on earth, who say that God's standards must be applied even when it would create hardship or death for any woman, now have given permission to their lawyers to claim in a court of law (on the record) that the unborn are not people and therefore there is no obligation to go to any lengths to save them.
Add this to the systematic hiding of pedophiles in their midst for decades (centuries?) and you get a growing case to be made for spiritual fraud from the Catholic hierarchy.
My heart actually goes out to lay people and the parish priests who are actually trying to so some good and are thwarted at every step by their corrupt and hypocritical leadership.
That is a defense always used by Catholic hospitals and doctors who are accused of killing fetuses. You see, there is money involved. That consideration is also thought to have had something to do with the coverup of sexually assaulting priests.
DkcaJ -
Yes. See my comment at 10.2
Each and every week we learn that the LORD works in mysterious ways!
And who are we- Original Sinners all- to question HIS motives?
(Best I can do, fans; I have plumb run out of snark today. . .)
Take a day to reflect on life then by tuning in Limbaugh or FOX. Regain that old fighting spirit! Follow along as the dogs chase their tails only to discover they prefer the dung left by other dogs on the lawn.
St. Thomas More Hospital, huh?
Richard Rich at least got Wales out of the deal when he sold his soul. St. Thomas More Hospital's price is a measly few million bucks.
A hospital for all seasons!
Good one! Loved the movie...
oddly appropriate and ironic that the hospital bears the name, 'st. thomas more' whom robert bolt mythologized in 'a man for all seasons' as being a generous latitudinarian. the reality was that that he was a bigot and hypocrite to the core, quite possibly a sociopath, given to scatological disputations, and addicted to racking and burning anyone who didn't share his religious delusions, some for the impudence of wanting to read the gospels for themselves.
So Dems, be careful what you wish for.
Are you (we) going to be happy if the court rules that yes a 7 month old fetus is a person under the law? This would require the corner to get involved in stillbirths. etc.
And make an abortion at this point equal murder.
Ironically, this has become neither a conservative or progressive case challenging one law or another or challenging one practice or another. It is a civil case about willful negligence and damages with the determination of the amount of damages riding on the determination of the courts on who/how much was actually damaged.
A C-Section at 7 months gestation was in no sense an abortion to save the mother's life. It would have been, given the gestational age of the babies and the current state of technology of neonatal ICUs, pretty routine, especially for a twin delivery, within the "standard of care" definition. That there was no other physician available who could perform a C-Section or, perhaps, no neonatal ICU services, is a big FAIL for the hospital and its emergency services and the community at large.
I get what you are saying but you are missing the point.
"Dems" (???) aren't making a viability argument with this posting. Or even arguing whether the decisions are correct under the law.
What is being pointed out is the absolute hypocrisy of Catholic authorities claiming absolute authority over defining personhood in subjugation over women, but conveniently claim that a Catholic hospital has no responsibility to act to save what they define as 'a person' because of a legal definition, just to save themselves money from a lawsuit.
It goes directly to the question of the credibility of the Catholic Church that the official stand is to demand that women die in dangerous pregnancies because God's law is more important than man's law, but then they rely on man's law to get them out of a tough spot over money. It points out that the "God's law" argument that they use is just a bunch of bullsh*t.
This hospital has a heliport on the lawn. Those babies could have been in Denver in15 minutes. A 7 month fetus is viable. They are going to spend a whole lot of money on this one! And you all know that the doctors never get fired. I am sure a nurse or a med clerk will lose their job over this one!
If anyone gets fired, it should be the doctor on call who did not respond to his page. I am not a doctor, but my occupation requires that I get to the hospital within 30 minutes of being paged. That rule was consistent in the 3 different hospitals in 3 different states where I have worked. This would never have happened if the DOCTOR ON CALL had responded to his page.
Steve fitt-3304217
I again say, reread the article no one asking for an abortion.
To my knowledge in all 50 states NO ABORTION after 12 weeks of being pregnant.
@ Old Bat
My point is if the church loses and the father wins, then the 2 fetuses become "persons" who can be wrongfully killed.
This would be a big change in the law.
I did not say anything about abortion.
and in addition news from a busy week of possible interest to "twig" readers:
Lawmakers want to honor the victims of the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham Alabama with the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor that Congress can bestow.
http://news.yahoo.com/recognition-sought-church-bombing-victims-214034536.html
----------
A new Pew study finds that 73% of white evangelical Protestants consider abortion to be morally wrong — outpacing Catholics (58%) as the religious group most opposed to abortion.
It also finds that White evangelical Protestants are the only major religious group in which a majority (54%) favors completely overturning the Roe v. Wade decision. Large percentages of white mainline Protestants (76%), black Protestants (65%) and white Catholics (63%) say the ruling should not be overturned. Fully 82% of the religiously unaffiliated oppose overturning Roe v. Wade.
http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/roe-v-wade-at-40.aspx
----------
Two former members of the Church of Scientology have filed a lawsuit accusing the church of deceiving members into donating millions of dollars to church-backed projects and programs they claim were never completed.
http://news.yahoo.com/church-scientology-sued-two-former-members-over-donations-215540055.html
----------
The New Mexico teen accused of killing his family and plotting to randomly gun down Wal-Mart shoppers spent much of the day after the early morning slayings at his church, wandering the campus as dozens of Sunday school teachers were being trained on how to deal with a shooter, a security official said.
http://news.yahoo.com/nm-teen-spent-time-church-family-slain-154825889.html
----------
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is hemorrhaging money on legal and professional fees as a result of its bankruptcy and will be unable to pay its monthly operating expenses beginning in April unless the judge suspends those payments, it says in court documents filed Thursday.
James Stang, lead attorney for the bankruptcy creditors committee, blamed the cost of the bankruptcy - nearly $9 million in fees paid to date - on the archdiocese's aggressive efforts to throw out hundreds of sex abuse claims.
http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/milwaukee-archdiocese-says-its-going-broke-628gmme-188309451.html
----------
The stunning 103-year prison term imposed on Brooklyn 'therapist' Nechemya Weberman for sexually abusing a girl has unleashed fierce debate, with many members of his ultra-Orthodox community saying the harsh sentence is unfair especially compared with punishment meted out to other notorious criminals.
http://forward.com/articles/169782/nechemya-weberman-gets--years-for-sex-abuse-and/?p=1
----------
Pope Benedict urged Catholics on Thursday to use social networks like Twitter and Facebook to win converts, as he launched his own smartphone app streaming live footage of his speeches.
"Unless the Good News is made known also in the digital world, it may be absent in the experience of many people," the 85-year old Pope said in the a letter published on the Vatican's website.
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/01/24/go-forth-and-tweet-pope-benedict-sees-social-networks-as-portals-of-truth/
----------
The American Bible Society released its latest study of "America's Most [and Least] Bible-Minded Cities."
24 of the top 25 "most" are in the South while 5 of the top 6 "least" are in New England.
full results:
http://www.americanbible.org/content/what-are-americas-most-bible-minded-cities
--------------
and in a ps to that religious freedom study steve mentions
Asked for their opinion as to why religious freedom is threatened, 97 percent of evangelicals agreed that "some groups have actively tried to move society away from traditional Christian values."
72 percent of evangelicals agreed that gays and lesbians were the group "most active in trying to remove Christian values from the country." That compares to 31 percent of all adults who held this belief.
http://www.barna.org/culture-articles/600-most-americans-are-concerned-about-%20restrictions-in-religious-%20freedom
Re: #11
In the last paragraph:
So.......
These people think that religious freedom is threatened, because the rest of society is not required to have the same religious values as they do.
!?!?!?!?!
Perhaps they misunderstand what "religious freedom" actually means?
quite right, as steve noted the survey found that "23 percent believe 'traditional Judeo-Christian values' should be given preference over competing faiths, and among evangelical Christians, the number rises to 54 percent."
ps
"some freedoms are more equal than others"
They're actually no different than the Good Pilgrim Fathers who came here in 1620 after being thrown out of the most religiously liberal and tolerant country in Europe. Their idea of "freedom of religion" was their freedom to torture, maim, and kill those not of their particularly "pure" version of religious lunacy.
My brother has made the argument that his salvation is in jeopardy because I will not allow him to save me. He has biblical quotes which he interprets as supporting this.
And if you think he's nuts, just wait until I tell you about the cousin who wanted to kidnap me for a "prayer intervention". He's actually a preacher..with a congregation and all. Wackos!
It's like the guys who get in your face and tell you you're going to hell unless you accept JC as your savior. And they think they're doing you a favor!
When I was in college, I had some Southern Baptists friends who were determined to "save my soul." I later found out that they actually put together a stategy to accomplish this goal. They are still disappointed.
Russell L. thanks for the blogs, news pieces, etc. It made for a very interesting read.
So many of out discussions about religion and politics depend on definitions. What do we mean when we use the words "god," "religion," "morality," "church." So many times these words mean different things to different people and so many times these words are thought to all refer to the same opinion or vision and are used interchangeably.
Do I believe in "God?" It depends on what you mean by "God." Do I believe in Zeus, Wotan, Athena, Jehovah, Alla, Zoroaster? No. Do I believe in a creative force in the universe? Yes. Do I believe that that force is conscious and is aware of my existence? I do not know. It would be nice to think so, but my believing it one way or another does not make it so or not so.
Do we live in a moral universe? Do I believe there is an old man with a long gray beard sitting up on a cloud somewhere passing out fates and rewards and punishments? No. Do I believe we live in a universe where actions have consequences? Yes.
So often our discussions are based on terms that are undefined or very fuzzily defined. This is true in both our discussions of religion and also of politics. What is "Liberty" and what are rights and where do rights come from?
In order to make informed choices about any of these topics, we need to define our terms and do so with sufficient precision that we do not end up saying something that is patently absurd because it does not relate to reality.
There is a problem with your definition theory there bflynch, since everybody has had different experiences with "god," "religion," "morality," and "church" that nobody will end up agreeing with anybody.
If we do not define our terms, we just end up talking past one another. We cannot even begin to agree unless we know what we are talking about. We keep using general terms when we should be using precise terms. "Church"? Which church? The Catholic church, the Baptists church, the Unitarian church? Do you mean church- an organization; or religion-a relationship with a supernatural or ultimate power? How are we going to know whether our individual experiences with god are at all like someone elses experince unless we decribe the experiences?
Why does it matter? Why the need to compare and contrast religions? To borrow your words, bflynch, religious stuff is absurd and does not relate to reality.
The problem is when you start trying to simplify terms like god, religion, morality, and church that are so used together it starts to become complex, because all of these so-called religious leaders have all different ideas and twists to what all these words should mean. You would never ever get them to settle on any set of definitions or what it is all about. It is all different and there is only a certain amount of truth in it all. How many different groups are there alone just in the Christian religion?
Deb: My whole point is that we use these terms as if they were simple matters and had common definitions, and we, therefore, gloss over the real complexity and differences of opinion. If we define the terms, the religious leaders and politicians who are throwing the terms around cannot get away with much of their propaganda.
I watched one of my favorite old movies night before last: Inherit the Wind, Spencer Tracy, Frederick March. If you have not seen it, I recommend it. It is about the Scope's Monkey Trial. The use of religion to justify repression of intellectual inquiry and political grandstanding is dramatized and debunked.
Sure looks like when it comes to money before people it speaks volumes with these churchs. These church leaders are hypocrites and deceivers the way this is going.
Nate Silver and the empiricists who are revolutionizing campaigning are undermining the religion of campaign advisers who rely on gut instincts to predict election outcomes. The Obama campaign restored some of the science to political science by actually using empirical tests of their campaign pitches. Instead of relying on the gutcheck of a party hack to judge where the millions of dollars of advertising money went, they would get feedback on effectiveness by measuring responses with unique text codes or web addresses.
Prior to 2012, the business of helping people choose their elected officials had become a 6 billion dollar industry. There is strong incentives for their "gut" to tell them to go with a particular 8 figure ad buy. It is run by a priesthood resistant to any empirical checks on their powers of divination. It is an ancient religion in the Dem party that must be swept away, where the wise men party hacks are priests of the cynical and corrupt self interest- of appealing to the worst of human instincts.
I just don't see that the Dems are learning fast enough. If you look at Tim Kaine's pronouncements in spring 2010, you would think the DNC had fully internalized the lessons learned by Obama's 2008 Victory Lab techniques. (article) They didn't. He was talking about voter modeling and microtargeting, but they were clueless. This article pointed to a 2012 execution, but if you look at the district votes where Obama won, Dem House candidates lost in 14 races (spreadsheet here). It was pathetic they couldn't even manage to persuade Obama voters to vote for their candidate.
Pathetic. What we need is a new atheism about the mystical powers of the party elites who deny the usefulness of voter models based on empirical data. That is the important struggle of science versus religion in the party.
On the other hand, they do seem to be trying new methods of promotion that I've never witnessed or, perhaps more accurately, been subjected to before. They were promoting donations with techniques that resembled those of a car dealership, with door prizes like hats and T-shirts for the first to donate small sums, sweepstakes for trips to meet the President or VP, and other incentives. Definitely a step up in mass appeal from wine receptions and grip-and-grin photos.
I'll admit I was a little taken aback by these email donation requests. At first it seemed of dubious ethics considering laws about buying votes. But they weren't buying votes, they were buying donations. I wonder how effective it was, and if this is another internet-enabled wave of the future.
Well it's not that sort of thing- it's the thing about how marketers know who to send the diaper flyers to. The joke is that sometimes the consumer modelers know the mother is expecting before the husband does.
They can model potential voters the same way, so they know which unregistered voters on a block are most likely to be Obama voters before they knock on the door. You can read some of the Victory Lab book online without buying it, but using the kindle feature to download a sample- which gives you more than the online "look inside" feature. You don't need a kindle- you can use the Kindle for PC application to view it. Interesting book, though the author Sasha Issenberg mostly talks about techniques already well known to GOP operatives.
Coming from a technical background in data mining and statistics, what he was talking about were fairly primitive models- even by published techniques current when I left the field over a decade ago. I would be shocked if what OFA used in 2012 weren't light years ahead of what Issenberg described.
Nonetheless, the author presents his material as representative of this new data driven empirical approach to running a campaign, and it is both starling, compelling, and suggestive of new political opportunities for progressive activists who embrace them.
Here is a public article an MIT by Issenberg that mentions some of the random sample methodology.
It points out how the loss of the Mass. seat to Brown in 2010 was a shock to Dems because the party had resisted modern randomized testing to achieve highly accurate predictions. With the loss of 14 House races in districts that voted for Obama, it is clear the DNC party hacks remain resistant to empiricism. Political advisors are paid big money for their gut check. Relying on data instead would put a lot of these advisors on the street.
None of these articlest go much into the types of feedback you get instantaneously online- (Mojo has a rough graph of some of the inputs). Propublica has a YouTube about microtargetting in the 2012 campaign mentioning that Obama's adaptive algorithms were modifying the mail titles based on the email open rates. It is natural to assume they would do the same with content based on donation rates. What I mean by adaptive content is that you maximize donation rates by sending out a set of themes from current news to a portion of your particular microtargetted audience. Based on that learning , your mail program then uses the theme (s) that garnered the best rates.
To be fair to the GOP, Romney and Rick Perry had data analytics teams. Romney in fact used microtargetting from the beginning of his political career. Issenberg notes that Romney's 2012 data team was one tenth the size of Obama's, and that they were confused by Obama's seemingly random advertising buys. Without knowledge of the profiling OFA was doing, it was impossible to reverse engineer the rational for their media activity. Romney's team also skewed their data baking in assumptions of who where likely voters- assumptions that turned out to be wrong.
Anyway, here is a Campaigns and Elections article that provides similiar information.
Supposedly, DCCC had a team using OFA 2008 techniques. Aaron Strauss apparently headed the group, but from this RollCall article, it appeared they mostly saw it as a way to optimize ad buys, not as a mechanism to fundamentally transform the way they interacted with the electorate, to a process more akin to a local election when the candidate walks the precincts.
Placing OFA outside of the DNC appears to be a smart move. The dinosaurs have no interest in letting the mammals live.
Morals be damned, their revenue is at stake!
Some people will jump on a grenade to save others while others would toss the darn thing into your lap to save themselves.
I reckon it all comes down to individual character rather than any belief. This Doctor was irresponsible,period,end of story! All the BS being used to side step the fact that he failed to give a damn ain't helping anybody.
So her doctor wasn't there. It took still took an hour for her to die. Is there some managerial or insurance mandate that he was the only doctor she was allowed to have?
How many doctors within an hour of St. Thomas who could have been there.
How many more within phone contact to guide a nurse's competent hand in getting the babies out after the mother died?
ouch. good point.
NeedMoreCoffee - very well stated.
The local women's rights group in Colorado should "crucify" the Catholic Church for its inconsistent positions. When the bishops get involved in politics with anti-abortion legislation, the women's groups should be right their citing the legal defense in the hospital case. In fact, the women's groups should be putting up billboards everywhere in the state with a cite to the legal defense. Nothing could be more effective on the groups pushing anti-abortion laws than to get the public talking about the case. With billboards the bishops can run, but they can't hide. No song and dance about legal theories is going to fly with the public. The hoped for result should be the anti-abortion groups split with the bishops which diminishes both groups efforts to pass anti-abortion laws. This legal case also provides politicians who support women's choice with ammo for legislative hearings. It would be embarrassing for bishops and any other Catholic groups to appear at the hearings and have this case brought up during the hearing.
Was this doctor the only obstetrician available?
Is there a reason he didn't answer the page?
What were the protocols for the hospital to follow if a doctor does not answer a page?
Given the fact that the obstetrician was not available, if the staff had tired to save the babies, did they have the training to do an emergency C-section?
Why on earth would the hospital lawyers respond the way they did? Did it not occur to them how ridiculous and hypocritical this would make the hospital look?
This sounds like a preventable tragedy to me. Surely some other doctor could have performed a c-section. Those babies might have been saved. I don't think the fact that this was a Catholic hospital is even relevant. It just sounds like an understaffed and incompetent hospital.
When I was young I was a licensed paramedic. We are trained to deliver babies. I think any trained staff could have saved those babies. The mother was dead and beyond pain. A C-section in such a dire emergency is not that difficult. I don't understand why someone didn't try. A 7month fetus is usually viable, and can be saved. Catholics would have had to see those twins as "persons", to say otherwise is a lie. I cannot know why the staff did not try to save them. I need more information, for one thing. Were there other problems?
What was the reason the Dr. didn't answer his/her page?
Unless this was some sort of clinic or Immediate are facility, there has to be a physician on duty 24 hours. If they had an emergency room they had to have an MD. Unless there was an overiding situation not stated, even paramedics have preformed emergency c-sections. You don't have to have an OB-GYN available to do that.
That's correct. I don't understand what could have happened for things to go so wrong.
Strange End-Times
Beliefs Of Some
'Evangelical' Christians
By Norio Hayakawa
7-28-6
I wonder how Israel feels about this push to send their country into war. Some people can't mind their own business. So I offer a quote..."The Lord is my Shepherd I shall not want"
PS: What about that other one.."Thou shall not kill? I guess they don't see themselves as the Anti-Christ.
Most Israeli politicians are happy to take money from the Christian Zionists and accept their support, failing to realize that the goal of these "allies" is the return of Jesus and that all but 144,000 Jews - who proclaim him the messiah and deny Judaism - be cast "into the fiery pit."
Fear not good people!! When Obama Care is fully implemented nothing like this will ever happen again!! Washington can manage healthcare better than the Almighty. After all, federal, state and local taxes often total 50 to 70% . All God asks is 10% so with all this extra cash and power the prototype hospital of the future will be able to heal anything that ails ya! Plus, all churches that dissent from Big Brother will be exterminated at the current rate of Federal corruption and Christian bashing!!
Anyone who pays 50% to 70% in total taxes has an fool for an accountant. And I don't know or have heard about any rich person that pays anything near those percentages. Maybe you can provide us real facts, assuming you have any thing beyond a Tea Party talking point. If you can't then you are wasting bandwidth and space on this blog.
It's just baloney, Mike, or as Rachel would say, bullpucky. He's talking out of his you-know-what. Put him on Ignore and find a new level of serenity. ;-)
God had his chance to provide healthcare to everyone. He did a crappy job.
If money is the problem, maybe God should ask for more than 10%. Better yet, maybe it should eliminate all the the middlemen who, in this case, don't seem to have bothered to use it for what it was intended for in the first place.
Let's face it, in the long history of humanity, God has never personally seen a penny of that treasure.
Are you on something or just naturally daffy?
God only knows. And he ain't talkin'.
Regarding Archbishop Mahoney and the scandal over hiding pedophilia among priests, I understand that the Catholic church deems its priests to be an earthly incarnation of Christ, to be protected from the secular world at all costs. It's this distortion that has led church officials to choose deception about the priests' transgressions over truthfulness that would protect parishioners from further illegal acts.
Secondly, it's not uncommon that priests reach adulthood being sexually immature as a result of the church's policy of celibacy and turn to children to satisfy their human urges. What is even more repulsive is that abuse of little girls is not nearly so troublesome to the church as abuse of boys, because one is homosexuality and the other is "normal."
Much more on this subject in an excellent Oscar-nominated documentary called Deliver Us From Evil, available as streaming on Netflix. Highly recommended.
If the authorities in this country and many other countries charged every person in the Catholic Church that was involved in the coverup, Pope Benedict would not be able to travel in most of Europe, North American and a host of other countries. He was the previous pope's right hand man who was responsible for handling those abuse cases. The buck stops in the Vatican.
Obama Say--When I say God bless America, I can't help thinking He still has some work to do. (Obamasay.com)
I checked out your website.
To be honest, I just find your posts confusing.
Thank you. You will not be surprised that I get very little traffic. Thanks again for taking a look. (obamasay.com)
You can always tell how passionate conservatives really are about their precious principles when money is concerned. Doesn't play into the mix at all. Not in the least. They might as well be the most hedonistic barbarians in the world....and that's pretty much who they really are as this case in point illustrates.
When greed is your foremost and only true god...really...the fate of a one-cell zygote or even a third trimester set of twins are marginal in their estimation at best. Can you say the Catholic bishops and Religous Right are unabashed hypocrites? Yes, you can.
The issue is that Colorado law apparently does not provide for the death of a fetus under their wrongful death law which is the only lawsuit that will work for the parents. Perhaps the Church wants the Court to hold that fetuses are in fact persons which will open up a much larger can of worms and suit the overall position of the Church in the personhood argument.
And now.....guns in church!
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2013/01/25/278797.htm
Why is this a defense at all if they were scientifically at a point in development that they had a high likelihood of being viable outside of the womb (regardless of the gross hypocrisy of the diocese that owns and runs the hospital)?