gotsnowgotslush
skates like Eck
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Posts
- 25,720
Means’s intense pain and distress wasn’t quite pathological enough to warrant a procedure to terminate the pregnancy, just like the Irish woman who died in 2012 because doctors decided her life wasn’t quite “endangered” enough to merit an abortion.
No, you can’t sue bishops for setting up hospital rules that might injure or kill women, because Religious Freedom.
http://wonkette.com/590056/miscarry...spital-but-at-least-she-didnt-get-an-abortion
Tuesday, a federal district judge in Michigan dismissed a woman’s lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and three chairs or former chairs of the Catholic hospital chain that owns Mercy Health Partners’ hospital in Muskegon, Michigan. In 2010, Tamesha Means was only 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke and she went to Mercy — one of only two hospitals in Muskegon County, which are both owned by the same Catholic company, Trinity Health.
We’ll let the ACLU tell you how that went:
Based on the bishops’ religious directives, the hospital sent her home twice even though Tamesha was in excruciating pain; there was virtually no chance that her pregnancy could survive, and continuing the pregnancy posed significant risks to her health.
Because of its Catholic affiliation and binding directives, the hospital told Tamesha that there was nothing it could do and did not tell Tamesha that terminating her pregnancy was an option and the safest course for her condition.
When Tamesha returned to the hospital a third time in extreme distress and with an infection, the hospital once again prepared to send her home. While staff prepared her discharge paperwork, she began to deliver. Only then did the hospital begin tending to Tamesha’s miscarriage.
The severely premature baby she delivered died after a few hours. With the help of the ACLU, Means sued, seeking damages and a ruling that the Bishops’ directives — the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” — were negligent, since they precluded her from receiving potentially life-saving care, including an abortion. Even though, one more time, she was miscarrying and there was virtually no chance the fetus could be saved. The ACLU sought not only compensation for Means, “but also to prevent other women in her situation from suffering similar harm in the future,” as the legal complaint put it.
Judge Robert Holmes Bell dismissed the suit without a hearing on the evidence, as explained by the Muskegon Chronicle:
On Tuesday, June 30, U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell dismissed the lawsuit without a hearing on the evidence. He based his opinion on written briefs submitted by both sides.
Bell cited two basic reasons for the dismissal:
Michigan federal courts have no jurisdiction over the bishops' conference for policy directives issued by the Washington, D.C.-based organization.
It's improper for courts to interfere in religious doctrinal decisions, which Bell concluded was behind the anti-abortion policy directives. Considering the Muskegon woman's negligence claim would "impermissibly intrude upon ecclesiastical matters," the judge wrote in his opinion.
Bell noted that Means still had recourse in the courts to sue doctors or hospitals for medical malpractice if she received inadequate medical care – but not, the judge concluded, to sue a religious organization or officials for their religious doctrine.
"It is not up to the Court to mandate the larger structural and policy reform to Catholic hospitals that Plaintiff seeks; that issue is left to the Church and its tribunals," Bell wrote.
http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2015/07/judge_dismisses_muskegon_woman.html
MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga.-- Brittany Cartrett recently learned some bad news from her doctor about her pregnancy. She miscarried around five or six weeks along.
"So we made the decision to not do a D&C and to get a medicine. So he said I'm going to give you this medicine, you'll take it, and it will help you to pass naturally so that you don't have to go the more invasive route", said Brittany Cartrett.
The doctor's office called the Milledgeville Walmart to fill the prescription but they were told no and they were not given a reason.
"So we found another place to fill it but I still had to go up there to get another prescription so when I went up there she asked if I had any questions about this prescription I said no I don't but I do have a question about the other one. And she looks at my name and she says oh, well...I couldn't think of a valid reason why you would need this prescription", Cartrett said.
The drug in question is Misoprostol, which can also used to induce abortions.
WGXA's Chace Abrose spoke off camera to Wal-Mart pharmacist Sandip Patel who said he was aware of the situation and also said that pharmacists have the ability to turn down prescriptions at their own discretion.
Mercer University Law Professor Zac Buck verified that the ability to turn down prescriptions based on personal beliefs has been a law in Georgia for about 15 years.
WGXA also contacted Brian Nick at Walmart's corporate office who stated, "Our pharmacists fill prescriptions on a case by case basis every day in our stores throughout the country and we encourage them to exercise their professional judgment in doing so".
Cartrett said, "It's very frustrating because who is the pharmacist to make that decision. I understand that they go to school for a very long time for that job. They do a residency just like a doctor does, but I'm not going to see that pharmacist, I'm going to see a doctor and if its because of that due to the conscience clause I think its called, then what other decisions are they making based on our health and our needs by not giving a prescription to someone who may or may not need it".
Cartrett told WGXA since posting her story on social media she's had several people message her who were in similar situations, one of whom had to go to five different pharmacies before she could get her medication.
Mercer professor Zac Buck said some states like Wisconsin have an addendum to the law that georgia does not have which encourages pharmacies to have pharmacists on call that will fill prescriptions when others at the same facility refuse.
http://www.wgxa.tv/news/local/Mille...iption-for-Miscarriage-Patient-299421801.html
If a doctor is under threat from the law, and a pharmacist can stand between a doctor and his patient, and a hospital refuses to step in and help a woman who is having a miscarriage, where does a woman turn to, for medical help ?
No, you can’t sue bishops for setting up hospital rules that might injure or kill women, because Religious Freedom.
http://wonkette.com/590056/miscarry...spital-but-at-least-she-didnt-get-an-abortion
Tuesday, a federal district judge in Michigan dismissed a woman’s lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and three chairs or former chairs of the Catholic hospital chain that owns Mercy Health Partners’ hospital in Muskegon, Michigan. In 2010, Tamesha Means was only 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke and she went to Mercy — one of only two hospitals in Muskegon County, which are both owned by the same Catholic company, Trinity Health.
We’ll let the ACLU tell you how that went:
Based on the bishops’ religious directives, the hospital sent her home twice even though Tamesha was in excruciating pain; there was virtually no chance that her pregnancy could survive, and continuing the pregnancy posed significant risks to her health.
Because of its Catholic affiliation and binding directives, the hospital told Tamesha that there was nothing it could do and did not tell Tamesha that terminating her pregnancy was an option and the safest course for her condition.
When Tamesha returned to the hospital a third time in extreme distress and with an infection, the hospital once again prepared to send her home. While staff prepared her discharge paperwork, she began to deliver. Only then did the hospital begin tending to Tamesha’s miscarriage.
The severely premature baby she delivered died after a few hours. With the help of the ACLU, Means sued, seeking damages and a ruling that the Bishops’ directives — the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” — were negligent, since they precluded her from receiving potentially life-saving care, including an abortion. Even though, one more time, she was miscarrying and there was virtually no chance the fetus could be saved. The ACLU sought not only compensation for Means, “but also to prevent other women in her situation from suffering similar harm in the future,” as the legal complaint put it.
Judge Robert Holmes Bell dismissed the suit without a hearing on the evidence, as explained by the Muskegon Chronicle:
On Tuesday, June 30, U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell dismissed the lawsuit without a hearing on the evidence. He based his opinion on written briefs submitted by both sides.
Bell cited two basic reasons for the dismissal:
Michigan federal courts have no jurisdiction over the bishops' conference for policy directives issued by the Washington, D.C.-based organization.
It's improper for courts to interfere in religious doctrinal decisions, which Bell concluded was behind the anti-abortion policy directives. Considering the Muskegon woman's negligence claim would "impermissibly intrude upon ecclesiastical matters," the judge wrote in his opinion.
Bell noted that Means still had recourse in the courts to sue doctors or hospitals for medical malpractice if she received inadequate medical care – but not, the judge concluded, to sue a religious organization or officials for their religious doctrine.
"It is not up to the Court to mandate the larger structural and policy reform to Catholic hospitals that Plaintiff seeks; that issue is left to the Church and its tribunals," Bell wrote.
http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2015/07/judge_dismisses_muskegon_woman.html
MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga.-- Brittany Cartrett recently learned some bad news from her doctor about her pregnancy. She miscarried around five or six weeks along.
"So we made the decision to not do a D&C and to get a medicine. So he said I'm going to give you this medicine, you'll take it, and it will help you to pass naturally so that you don't have to go the more invasive route", said Brittany Cartrett.
The doctor's office called the Milledgeville Walmart to fill the prescription but they were told no and they were not given a reason.
"So we found another place to fill it but I still had to go up there to get another prescription so when I went up there she asked if I had any questions about this prescription I said no I don't but I do have a question about the other one. And she looks at my name and she says oh, well...I couldn't think of a valid reason why you would need this prescription", Cartrett said.
The drug in question is Misoprostol, which can also used to induce abortions.
WGXA's Chace Abrose spoke off camera to Wal-Mart pharmacist Sandip Patel who said he was aware of the situation and also said that pharmacists have the ability to turn down prescriptions at their own discretion.
Mercer University Law Professor Zac Buck verified that the ability to turn down prescriptions based on personal beliefs has been a law in Georgia for about 15 years.
WGXA also contacted Brian Nick at Walmart's corporate office who stated, "Our pharmacists fill prescriptions on a case by case basis every day in our stores throughout the country and we encourage them to exercise their professional judgment in doing so".
Cartrett said, "It's very frustrating because who is the pharmacist to make that decision. I understand that they go to school for a very long time for that job. They do a residency just like a doctor does, but I'm not going to see that pharmacist, I'm going to see a doctor and if its because of that due to the conscience clause I think its called, then what other decisions are they making based on our health and our needs by not giving a prescription to someone who may or may not need it".
Cartrett told WGXA since posting her story on social media she's had several people message her who were in similar situations, one of whom had to go to five different pharmacies before she could get her medication.
Mercer professor Zac Buck said some states like Wisconsin have an addendum to the law that georgia does not have which encourages pharmacies to have pharmacists on call that will fill prescriptions when others at the same facility refuse.
http://www.wgxa.tv/news/local/Mille...iption-for-Miscarriage-Patient-299421801.html
If a doctor is under threat from the law, and a pharmacist can stand between a doctor and his patient, and a hospital refuses to step in and help a woman who is having a miscarriage, where does a woman turn to, for medical help ?
