“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.
“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.”
Yeah, I have to agree it's basically assuredly not true, even when accounting for:
Wars, genocides, and individual people killed over religion.
Suicides linked to religious abuse by institutions and by zealots.
Religion stifling the advancement of medicine such as in the case of stem cell research.
The brand of "god's will" bullshit that leads to preventable deaths in lieu of treatment.
Undoubtedly religion is hugely harmful, and I'm its biggest detractor that I personally know, but we live in an era where heart disease and cancer exist. Even saying religion causes a plurality of deaths would be wrong; "more than all others combined" is bullshit on a level that I can't believe it got so many upvotes.
We can say that religion results in a fuckload of unnecessary deaths without lying.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
supreme court gonna allow this deadly nonsense and turn hospitals into religious death panels. Let the doctors decide things not a bunch of bean counters