AmericanPapist Comments
Perhaps I've missed it, but is there a clear explanation somewhere of how FOCA would require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions? What would happen if we kept the hospitals open but refused to do so?
While I'm sure bishops like Chaput wouldn't hesitate to shutdown the hospitals in Denver if forced to provide abortions. How many of our bishops really won't blink? As a whole, all they do is blink. They'd rather go out of their way to blink than to simply stand their ground rooted in the truth of the faith.
ummm.. if obama were a marxist (of course we all know he isn't), he'd want to render religion and the good that it does obsolete, in favor of the state
shutting down all catholic hospitals is a good thing, to a socialist interested in solidifying the power of the state
they'd blame the subsequent healthcare crisis on the catholic church, and generously come along and take over those hospitals, jack up taxes to pay for it and blame that on the church as well
like the cloward-piven strategy, but for healthcare?
Ken -
I was thinking the same thing. Would FOCA make it so that Catholic Hosptials couldnŽt remain open without performing abortions?
It seems to me like the better option would be to leave the hospitals open, without performing abortions, no matter what the laws are. This way, weŽd still be providing health care to the poor, but without murdering babies.
Perhaps some Bishops will have to go to jail over this issue... maybe itŽs about time for a drastic witness to the meaning of the Civilization of Love.
It's a very real danger. I've been somewhat negligent in reporting the constant pressures that Catholic hospitals have been under.
I attended a Catholic high school and a Catholic college that refused to accept government scholarships or other funds because they didn't want the strings that came along with them. Bishops need to divorce Catholic hospitals and charities from government funds. Problem is, they have become so secularized they are no longer Catholic, but managed by private boards.
"It seems to me like the better option would be to leave the hospitals open, without performing abortions, no matter what the laws are. This way, weŽd still be providing health care to the poor, but without murdering babies."
That's my thought as well, though I guess I'm not the one who would have to go to jail for taking such a stand.
Several years ago my home town (Austin, TX)
decided that it no longer wanted the trouble and
expense of running the city-owned hospital. The
other (Catholic) hospital here agreed to take over
the public hospital -- which was of course offering
"reproductive services". The solution that they
worked out was to have the city retain operation of
a single floor which is run independently of the
rest. Imagine -- the hospital's chapel is now
under the same roof as an abortion clinic! Under
FOCA, which I believe would deny conscience
exemptions to health care workers, even this
cynical "solution" would be obsolete.
As Clinton says-- part of FOCA is that it removes all conscience clause protection from doctors.
You're a doctor, you can be hired for the medical procedure.
Do doctors/hospitals need the power of the law to protect them from being forced to perform an abortion?
While you cannot force someone to do something, even for hire, it gets hincky with health care. And let's not forget, the State licenses doctors. Anyone refusing to perform abortions on demand could lose their license.
Welcome to the underground Church, which is the Church at Her most powerful.
"While I'm sure bishops like Chaput wouldn't hesitate to shutdown the hospitals in Denver if forced to provide abortions. How many of our bishops really won't blink? As a whole, all they do is blink. They'd rather go out of their way to blink than to simply stand their ground rooted in the truth of the faith."
Agreed. If the bishops won't even refuse communion to prominent pro-abortion Catholic politicians, why would they shut down hospitals that help so many people?
"Anyone refusing to perform abortions on demand could lose their license."
I thought one of the big problems abortion mills have is finding people to actually perform the murderous act. If states did actually go so far as to require all doctors to perform abortions, could it end up backfiring on them?
I thought one of the big problems abortion mills have is finding people to actually perform the murderous act. If states did actually go so far as to require all doctors to perform abortions, could it end up backfiring on them?
This isn't states-- this is the Feds.
But yes.
If this goes through, I forsee doctors becoming nearly extinct-- or a massive number of civil protest doctors.
The bishops must make clear that there will be sanctions for anyone cooperating with pro-abortion laws like FOCA.
What about insurance companies forced to pay for abortions? The Church will not be able to pay into such insurance. That will effectively leave clergy, religious, and all Church employess without health insurance.
If Obama pushes this he truly reveals himself as Anti-Christ.
Thomas has provided in another post a link to Fight FOCA.
At that site you will find links to both the Senate and House versions of FOCA (which have no substantive differences, at least as far as I can tell).
You will also find a link to the names of the Reps and Senators who are sponsors (sadly, my Catholic Congressman is a co-sponsor, as is one of my Senators).
Anyway, here is (are?) the "guts" of the bill:
(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
The law appears on its face only to apply to government action.
My guess is that the Bishops are concerned that the Obama Administration would conclude that any health care provider who refuses to perform abortions could not receive government funds because that would constitute "discrimination" against a woman's exercise of her right to kill her baby.
As President, Obama will have to decide whether he wants to be responsible for shutting down the Catholic health care system, or whether he'd rather incur the anger of the vitriolic pro-aborts who control his party.
I doubt it would be mandatory for hospitals to abort, but if they were required to do so, shutting down would be the honest way out. It would bring the issue to a head.
It might force a majority of Christians, who are a majority of the country, out of the US. If 40% (say) of America fled in protest of FOCA, to avoid supporting abortion with their money, and the USA then contained only the most liberal 40% (say) and the poorest or most rooted third (say) of the more conservative people, then it would become an extremely left-wing country, and the birthrate might drop by half in a few years or less. Taxes would rise, business would slow, and defense would diminish quickly. America would have a population of less than half what it has now very soon after the exodus began. That half would have little interest in military service; the military would wither. The economy would grind to a stop. A majority of the citizens would demand the government provide for them, but the government couldn't collect money no one was generating. America would collapse.
Whatever country we fled to would pick up and become the new America.
Brassband-- I believe there have already been conscience clauses attacked and struck down as discrimination. (usually in relation to the abortion pill)
if foca becomes law, i say keep the hospitals open, but refuse to follow foca. the greater good would be to continue to help the sick, especially the poor.
since when were Christians afraid of repercussions from the state for giving glory and honor to God??? be not afraid!
...oh, yeah, and i'm sure obama and the democrats would just love the electorate seeing their bishops being taken behind bars. about as much as they hate being in power?
I work as a labor & delivery nurse at Stanford Hospital. They have respected my right to not take part in any abortions or sterilizations. I hope and pray that FOCA will not change this, otherwise I will be looking for another job. There are a few of us nurses who don't have anything to do with abortions and we stand our ground and haven't had a problem. I have taken more flack for not doing sterilizations.
The proposed FOCA legislation would DEFINITELY threaten the consciences and decisions of doctors, nurses, etc. who personally oppose and would attempt to opt out of providing abortions.
The Wisconsin legislature ignored a proposed revision to last year's emergency contraception bill that would allow an opt-out of institutions and individuals if tests determine pregnancy prior to administration of the abortificient drugs!
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/...n/
08012504.html
Because they did not include this clause, Bishops Morlino and Listecki removed their prior neutral stance to the bill.
This individual bill threatens how many doctors in Wisconsin who either have to march to the drum of the legislature or face an end to their career.
This all taking place over a bill JUST about emergency contraception. We better be aware that FOCA would certainly do the same on a more extreme level.
But if the Bishops DO respond and close down certain clinics/Catholic hospitals, there are havens like this one:
http://ourladyofhopeclinic.org/
The late Cardinal O' Connor would be proud. In NYC taxpayers pay for abortions, contraception, etc. for 'the health' of women.
To answer a poster up higher, doctors here are required in med. school re: abortion. Note also the change in the hippocratic oath.
Time to scrub the state, let the winnowing begin.
Sanger and the state infiltrated the churches to start this, time to purge and get back to the way.
Pray. The gospel must be preached.
What FOCA will do is cut off Medicaid & Medicare funding to any hospital that refuses to perform abortions. Without Medicare/Medicaid money, Catholic hospitals will have no choice but to shut down. It may also force insurance companies to pay for abortions and it would eliminate all state restrictions (i.e, parental consent, waiting periods).
In other words, there will be fewer restrictions on abortion than on voting. And unlike abortion, voting is actually mentioned in the Constitution.
I hope my "pro-life Catholic" siblings who voted for 0bama are happy.
I'm a little late to the discussion but for those who wonder if hospitals will be forced to perform abortions: the Caholic hospital in my home town used to have an obstetric unit but becuase they would not allow sterilizations to be done, they were forced, in the 1970's, to stop delivering babies. Insurance companies objected to their stand as did some Drs. In the end, the good sisters had to make a choice. I hope our current bishops have as much courage. The important thing is that they close the facilities and not sell them. Let the buildings sit empty, as an open rebuke.
Terentia,
I believe that Abp. Chaput has the intestinal fortitude to close the hospitals rather than sell them. I don't think the bishops in Connecticut have those guts though. This is quite an embarrassing Catholic state.
Commenting by HaloScan
