I’m sure no one, at all, saw this coming.
The threat of a lawsuit — not the actual lawsuit, the mere threat — from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has compelled Catholic hospital Mercy Medical Center in San Francisco to sterilize a woman, despite all Catholic teachings against such a thing.
I’ve never been a fan of San Francisco, but I didn’t know that the local Catholics had their spines surgically removed as well.
So, Mercy Medical — yes, a Catholic hospital — operates as a subsidiary of Dignity Health, California’s largest private health care provider. Rachel Miller, a woman scheduled to give birth by C-section in late September, wanted her doctor to perform a tubal ligation following the birth, which rendering her infertile.
Insert large red flag. Unless you don’t know, or maybe live under a rock, The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization and similar forms of artificial birth prevention control are sinful. Because, oh, maybe because surgically removing procreation from human sexuality (literally) violates natural law up one side and down the other.
Strange enough, Mercy’s policies reflected Catholic teaching in other ways — no abortions or in vitro fertilization. If you don’t want a kid, don’t have one. If you do want a kid, adopt. Thank you, next!
The patient, Miller, says that without Mercy’s cooperation she would have to travel 160 miles to receive the procedure … I’m sorry, really? The Catholic hospital is the only freaking hospital in the entire city of San Francisco that can have tubes tied? Really?
Oh, wait, how the hell can they make THAT assertion, given that it’s against Catholic teaching? Are they having someone flown in for it? In which case, fly the surgeon in somewhere else!
No, really, this is one of the dumbest freaking things I’ve ever heard.
But it’s the ACLU, are we really surprised? Does anyone think, in their wildest dreams, that this IS NOT a setup by the ACLScrew, the Anti-Catholic Litigation Union?
The ACLU only last week sent a letter to Mercy threatening a lawsuit, arguing sexual discrimination by refusing to provide “pregnancy-related care.”
… Really, ACLU? This is a voluntary procedure, not healthcare. Is it a surgical procedure? Yes, but so is liposuction and face lifts, and I don’t hear anyone putting those on health insurance claims. Why? BECAUSE THEY’RE VOLUNTARY! AND SO IS THIS!
Actually, I can even say that, the ACLU claims the ban constitutes “sex discrimination.” Really? I’m sorry does that mean Catholics are discriminating on the grounds of her sex life or on the grounds that she’s a woman? Because either way, go screw yourselves. Preferably with something pointy. With splinters.
And if they insist it’s because of her being a woman … Mercy won’t give men vasectomies, so shut the hell up. The letter also argued that by having religious directives that banned certain procedures, Mercy hospital was illegally engaging in “the corporate practice of medicine.”
Uh huh. We’re not allowed to have doctors with a conscience anymore. Check. I’ll remember that. We must only hire sociopaths to work in medicine. Well, we know surgeons go that way, might as well have everyone else join in.
This week, Mercy gave in to the lawsuit threat, saying Miller will be able to receive her ligation. Which I suppose is a good thing, because I can’t imagine wanting this creature to spawn. I suggest we give full, and free, sterilizations to the entire ACLU branch that went along with this. I’ll volunteer to help sterilize them . I’ve got a poker I can heat up to the proper temperature..
The ACLU attorney Elizabeth Gill said she’s happy the hospital will comply, but that they won’t be satisfied until every hospital are forced to stop following Catholic doctrine.
“Rachel is lucky — she stood up for herself, and she is getting the health care that she and her doctor have decided is best for her,” Gill said. “But as long as Catholic hospitals are allowed to apply the ethical and religious directives, many women will be denied care because Catholic bishops are telling medical professionals how to operate.”
I guess this is some small solace for the small minded. The ACLU just got backhanded and smacked down when they tried to sue the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over guidelines barring doctors from discussing abortion as a potential option with patients.
Thank you for the article! I am following your blog now, and will be posting from it to my blog: http://sardonicexcuria.blogspot.com/. I look forwards to more writing!
We’re glad you enjoyed it! Poke around; judging from your own blog, we’ve got lots you would like.
Only semi-serious here, but pointing furiously at the kernel of truth within the hyperbole . . .
Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, line 2265 of the CCC: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
In that the ACLU has openly declared itself in opposition to the natural creation of life, does that not impose upon us the grave duty of legitimate defense? If so, to what degree could that legitimate defense go in order that the unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm? As well, since those who purportedly hold authority and those who legitimately hold authority are no longer even arguably one in the same, to whom could we turn to undertake this burden?
So, yes. Tongue firmly in cheek but ready to start yelling battle cries at the drop of a Cardinal’s hat, I am stating that a more, umm, concrete method of dealing with these foul evildoers might be considered. Lest I am visited by Large Black GM Products, I rest here.