“It is damning that here in California, where abortion care is a constitutional right, we have a hospital implementing a policy that’s reminiscent of heartbeat laws in extremist red states,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said.
A Catholic hospital in Northern California is facing a lawsuit by the state’s attorney general after it reportedly refused to perform an abortion on a woman whose pregnancy was not viable and whose life was in danger.
Anna Nusslock was already in severe crisis when she and her husband Daniel arrived last February at Providence St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka, according to the suit, which AG Rob Bonta filed Monday in Humboldt County Superior Court. A doctor examined Nusslock, who was 15 weeks pregnant with twins, and told her they would not survive, the suit explains.
Without a dilation and evacuation procedure, or, what is commonly known as “an abortion,” Nusslock was also at risk of death, the complaint contends.
However, it goes on, “Providence refused to allow Anna’s doctors to treat her, as the hospital’s policies prohibited them from terminating a pregnancy so long as they could detect fetal heart tones. The only exception was if the mother’s life was at immediate risk, a high threshold that Anna apparently did not yet reach. Only at some poorly defined point in the future, when Anna was close enough to death, would Providence permit her doctors to intervene. Until then, Anna and her physicians could do nothing but wait, worry, and hope.”
Hospitals should not be owned religious institutions. Here is a general reminder to anyone who has a Primary Care at a Catholic or Christian hospital. If you have an alternative hospital that supports the full spectrum of reproductive health, then leave the religious zealot hospital and tell them why.
People should also be aware that not all catholic hospitals are open about being catholic. In some areas they are buying up smaller practices and entire hospitals but keeping it’s previous name so it’s confusing and harder to avoid them.
This is my take. They’re pretty much a business.
Catholic colleges too. They’re making money AND taking public funds.
Businesses with a religious dogma that makes victims out of people for needing healthcare.
I’m in Arkansas. Non religious hospitals exist?
For you? No.
For other people? Sometimes.
Luckyyyyy
Freedom of religion my ass.
Religion is harmful and dangerous, and should absolutely be required to follow the law at the very minimum.
Otherwise it cannot be acknowledged in a civilized society. And should not only lose tax benefits, but be outlawed.“Freedom of religion” at this point is a relic from when literally everyone was severely delusional. Religion and voting is like drinking and driving.
supreme court gonna allow this deadly nonsense and turn hospitals into religious death panels.
Daily reminder that religion is a monstrous evil.
Religion is not necessary for humans to come together in a shared plan to cause harm to others.
But it helps.
Ideology is what is necessary for that, and that does not need to be religious.
I think you need to religiously hold an ideology to die or kill for it.
The only form of ideology that is always religious is religion.Also your post is whataboutism.
You don’t need religion to do that. I got two words for you: Donald Trump. And it isn’t whataboutism, it’s filling in more context to make a truer and broader point. It just kills the anti-religion jackoff fest the internet loves so much.
There’s plenty that can be awful about religion, and we just make ourselves look stupid when we wrongly try to make its evils singular, exclusive to itself. It’s far less comfortable to see that this is a human thing, rather than a religious thing. Pretending It’s only a religious thing and then not being religious pushes the problem away to a nice, safe distance, where we can talk about “them” and fundamentally leave ourselves out of it.
Do note that religion only ever seems to be a problem when it’s conservative or authoritarian, a pattern that holds for many things outside of religion as well, and with startling consistency.
Do note that religion only ever seems to be a problem when it’s conservative or authoritarian, a pattern that holds for many things outside of religion as well.
That’s disingenuous at best.
Religion is a problem when it used to push principles on to other people ( specifically when those principles are harmful and unwelcome ), conservative and authoritarian principles happen to lend themselves to this kind of behaviour quite readily which is why you see criticism aimed at those types of religions.
and with startling consistency.
Perhaps it might be worth looking in to why this consistency exists.
The comment was:
Daily reminder that religion is a monstrous evil.
And you wrote:
Religion is not necessary…
That’s the definition of whataboutism.
Do note that religion only ever seems to be a problem when it’s conservative or authoritarian
Religions claim authority and are authoritarian by definition, religion is extremely harmful just by the fact that it preaches immortality. You also don’t need to be conservative to believe in faith healing. There may be few exceptions to the rule, but by far the most religions contain these harmful doctrines.
I think you need to religiously hold an ideology to die or kill for it.
Thank you for telling me you’re not worth talking to, bye.
Faith is less than nothing when weighed against observable, measurable fact. Religion should never be allowed to overrule science.
If faith is all you have, you have less than nothing.
I believe in freedom of religion, but if your religion prohibits you from the practice of medicine, you are not allowed to have a hospital. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientologists don’t have hospitals either.
if your religion prohibits you from the practice of medicine, you are not allowed to have a hospital.
That should be obvious, but to the religious it’s apparently not.
Freedom of religion is an overused term, to allow special treatment for religion.
Religions should have no more rights than ideology, because they are nothing more.
They should have no more protection against discrimination than ideology, because they are nothing more.
That means a harmful religion can be banned, and it is NOT discrimination but civilization.
We have freedom of thought, but religion should not have priority or privileges over other types of thought.Religion is like your dick: keep it to yourself in public, only share it with the consent of others, and you’re solely responsible for any consequences arising from its use.
And you especially keep it away from children.
Nearly all our hospitals are run by church folk, so their beliefs are applied to all patients. Certain elective or life saving procedures alike have seen this story in some form.
One of the worse parts is that they may soon have the only delivery ward in their area.
Let me guess, thanks to Steward?
I think to call yourself a hospital the law should require them to adhere to medical science, not a religious belief. If they want to be religion first, and medical second, then they should be a private clinic that is labeled as such so people know they are not going to get the full hospital medical care one would expect from an institution calling itself a hospital.
We should have a law that keeps religious organizations from receiving Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. That would stop this shit real quick.
At least they had compassionate nurses…
Painted into a corner, the Nusslocks were forced to drive to a nearby facility that was not bound by religious restriction — but not before a nurse at Providence handed them a bucket and some towels “in case something happens in the car.”
Our healthcare system is so efficient that after a hospital refuses to provide care thanks to religious nutjobs, the at-risk patient has to take a bucket and a towel and drive themselves to another hospital instead of being taken by an ambulance with actual medical personnel. Maybe they were just 10 grand short of being able to afford it.
Holy fuck.
“Oh, you said abortion. I thought you said a bucket. My bad.”
