Catholic Bishops Agree -- Reluctantly, Reluctantly! -- to Treat Rape Victims

Posted October 29, 2007 | 01:54 PM (EST)



stumbleupon :Catholic Bishops Agree -- Reluctantly, Reluctantly! -- to Treat Rape Victims   digg: Catholic Bishops Agree -- Reluctantly, Reluctantly! -- to Treat Rape Victims   reddit: Catholic Bishops Agree -- Reluctantly, Reluctantly! -- to Treat Rape Victims   del.icio.us: Catholic Bishops Agree -- Reluctantly, Reluctantly! -- to Treat Rape Victims

To the great dismay of Catholic bishops, Connecticut's lawmakers have mandated that all of the state's hospital emergency rooms, including Catholic-run hospitals, must make emergency contraception for pregnancy prevention available to every rape victim who comes through their doors.

The Connecticut Catholic bishops are not happy. They have agreed, according to the current issue of the National Catholic Register, to "reluctant compliance."

Reluctant? Every time this issue comes up -- an issue that, astonishingly, remains unresolved in many parts of the country -- we have to ask: How can these guys live with themselves? Their goal is to deprive a woman who has been raped -- forcibly penetrated by a man who gets off on violence and violation -- of the means to prevent a pregnancy, with the express aim of forcing her to carry the rapist's progeny to term.

And that is exactly what the Catholic churchmen have been doing. The Vatican publicly and vociferously denounced the UN's plan some years ago to send the "morning after" pill to women raped in the wars in Kosovo and Bosnia. Catholic bishops have been lobbying all over the country against these laws, claiming that EC is an abortifacient because it can impede implantation of a fertilized egg (as opposed to preventing fertilization).

Many Catholic hospitals put every raped woman who appears in their ERs through another ordeal, requiring her to take and wait for the results of a urine test to see if she's ovulating. If she isn't ovulating and EC is therefore useless to her, she can have it. If she is ovulating -- and is therefore in grave danger of becoming pregnant from the rape -- they refuse to give her EC.

Because this new law mandates the provision of EC, the urine test is down the toilet.

So the bishops have shifted position. There are several reasons for this. First, they make a ton of money in their hospitals. To refuse to comply, they'd have to close those institutions down, and you won't see them doing that.

Second, while they like you to think their theology is set in holy stone, it's actually quite fungible, when it's to their advantage. Despite their past claims that EC is immoral, evil, and all of the denunciations they like to hurl at things female (birth control, sterilization, in vitro fertilization, abortion), and despite a Vatican declaration that EC, whether interfering with implantation or fertilization, "is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion," they're singing a different tune.

Their new position holds that since you can't know when EC is interfering with implantation, and since that's probably not often the case, and since we're not talking about a high number of women who get pregnant from rape (several thousand women in the U.S., who cares?), then dispensing EC without the ovulation test is not "intrinsically evil."

"In permitting Catholic hospitals to comply with this law, neither our teaching nor our principles have changed," lied Bridgeport, CT Bishop William Lori, chair of the U.S. Bishops Committee of Doctrine (and, less illustriously, as I point out in Good Catholic Girls, a bishop who has kept an accused priest sex molester in ministry after including his victim in a $21 million settlement). "We have altered the prudential judgment we previously made."

The twisting of their theological "truths" to serve their own ends reveals the capricious nature of the decision-making process of this all-powerful, all-male hierarchy. Unfortunately, there is no indication that they are willing to allow the woman who has been raped or any other pregnant woman to make her own "prudential judgment."

Interestingly, Dan O'Brien, VP of ethics of St. Louis-based Ascension Health, which has 65 acute care hospitals including St. Vincent's Medical Center in Bridgeport, expressed great alarm that lawmakers would dare to make laws governing medical institutions. He obviously forgot that regulation of medical care and medical providers is one of the most important jobs of policymakers and lawmakers in their efforts to protect public health.

Connecticut's new law goes back to basics. It is a triumph of state over church. It insures that women who have been raped get the care they need when they enter a hospital, any hospital, if it serves the general public, employs the general public, and lives off public monies, as do Catholic institutions. America's Catholic hospitals are not little islands of religiosity, employing and serving only devout Catholics with private monies. They are full-fledged institutions that have established themselves firmly in the secular health care world.

Their responsibilities are to all of us, not just the men in the mitres.

Comments for this post are now closed

 
 

Comments
31
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
- MEB See Profile I'm a Fan of MEB permalink

Gross over-simplifications of what is clearly an incredibly complex issue. Your post is severely lacking in presentation of fact and understanding of the issues. You must have not followed the news on this too closely.

65 Catholic hospitals in Bridgeport, CT? Wow!!! Only one example of inaccuracies. If you're going to bash, bash with more care to detail.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 AM on 10/30/2007
- TJS See Profile I'm a Fan of TJS permalink

Read the post. It clearly states that "St. Louis-based Ascension Health...has 65 acute care hospitals INCLUDING St. Vincent's Medical Center in Bridgeport." Nowhere does Ms. Bonavoglia claim that there are 65 Catholic hospitals in Bridgeport.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 AM on 10/30/2007
- farseer See Profile I'm a Fan of farseer permalink

I am not roman catholic, but I absolutely agree with their right not to dispense drugs that conflict with their moral teachings. NB: _There is nothing to stop the women from obtaining the drug from a drugstore or from a women's shelter or other outlet._

Morally, the situation is identical to forcing a hospital administered by a religious that is opposed to abortion, to perform abortions. That is both wrong, and illogical. Consider: the fact that a private non-profit group performs a useful service to society, does not mean that they should be forced to offer other services.

For example, if a charitable group ran free health clinics for poor children, why should they also be forced to also the elderly as well? Must a group providing meals for the elderly, also service the unemployed? Or, if someone runs a shelter for cats, must they also be required to take care of abandoned dogs as well? It makes no sense.

What private, religious hospitals choose to do is to the good. Don't force them to offer other services. REALLY, what this is about is forcing people who are against abortions to perform abortions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 PM on 10/29/2007
- coolmaiden See Profile I'm a Fan of coolmaiden permalink

No, this is about the Catholic Church's agenda interfering with primary care. When a patient comes to the emergency department, that emergency department is required by law to treat them to their fullest capability regardless of race, gender, age, or ability to pay, or they must transfer them as soon as possible to an emergency department than can. Providing emergency contraception is now considered by the healthcare community to be a standard of care for post-sexual assault victims. And it is now the law in Connecticut. So if a Catholic hospital, anywhere in the country, decides that it cannot provide EC to a rape victim, then they are not providing emergency care as mandated by federal law. Paying for transportation to another hospital just so a patient can get EC is just a ridiculous waste of money.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 AM on 10/30/2007
- farseer See Profile I'm a Fan of farseer permalink

"No, this is about the Catholic Church's agenda interfering with primary care."

No one who provides emergency care, or other care, is "interfering" with anything. The services they offer are of benefit to the public. A similar situation is that there are some hospitals that do not have a burn unit, or a cardiac care facility, or a kidney transplant unit. Patients needing these services are transferred to other hospitals. Is it correct to say that the hospitals that do not offer these services are "interfering" with the care of those who desire them? Of course not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 AM on 10/30/2007
- farseer See Profile I'm a Fan of farseer permalink

You are saying that the law now says this. I don't contest that. Yes, that is what the law now says. The issue is whether it should say that. There is such a thing as bad laws. The law should not obligate any person or any organization, to provide what is morally repugnant to them. In Oregon, the law allows people to take their own lives using drugs prescribed by a physician. No physician is obligated to participate in prescribing such drugs. If one's own physician refuses to prescribe them, the person has to find another physician who will prescribe them. If the law is changed to say that "primary care" includes the "right" to obtain drugs for this purpose, and that all physicians and hospitals are obligated to provide such care even against their will, this would be similar to the law in Connecticut. It would be wrong.
Read this shocking page:
http://www.pregnantpause.org/euth/nethhist.htm
At the above link, you read about active euthanasia of not only the terminally ill, but also of the disabled being practiced widely in another country. I don't believe that any physician, however, is obligated to participate in it. Pass a law like Connecticut's, and define such active euthanasia as "primary care," and they will be obligated. If it is not wrong to force doctors and hospitals to violate their conscience in the one situation (pregnancy caused by rape) then how can anyone say it would be wrong to force them to violate their conscience in other situations?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:25 AM on 10/30/2007
- RumiSouth See Profile I'm a Fan of RumiSouth permalink

This is more than a triumph of state over church. It's a triumph of science over magical thinking. It belongs in the same Hall of Fame as the Kansas school board decision to not teach intelligent design.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:20 PM on 10/29/2007
- claytongrayum See Profile I'm a Fan of claytongrayum permalink

Maybe their God told them to Rape... he tells Bush to be at war- God is on OUR side- ... thats how crazy people work.

Maybe there should be a movement where religous people keep their beliefs silent- its personal and keep it personal

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:02 PM on 10/29/2007
- TWOSHORT See Profile I'm a Fan of TWOSHORT permalink

Excuse me but didn't people get feed by jesus!Turned water into wine for a wedding?Told a crowd or mob who was stoning a wicked woman,He without sin cast the first stone!Cured the sick and made the blind see?Helped free a people from bondage!Many story of helping those at the bottom.So if story's had to be written about this time in history,what would be said of our leadership in the house of the lord?Follower's or Fake's just taking the poor's money.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 10/29/2007
- TJS See Profile I'm a Fan of TJS permalink

Since young alter boys can't get pregant by molesting priests, the chuch doesn't see the need for emergency contraception.

Regarding Bridgeport Bishop William Lori, Bishop Lori is a veritable saint compared to his predecessor, Bishop Edward Egan, who covered up for numerous perverted priests when he was Bishop of Bridgeport. Slick Eddie Egan's reward for protecting these molesters was promotion to Archbishop of New York.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 10/29/2007
- Carlee See Profile I'm a Fan of Carlee permalink

aren't these medications now available over the counter? if so what is the big deal where a woman gets them? if the er doesn't give the meds can't they just go to the pharmacy and get it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:12 PM on 10/29/2007
- MsLiz See Profile I'm a Fan of MsLiz permalink

Just one more thing to do after getting raped. Stop off on the way home, never mind that you haven't had a shower, and may have cuts, bruises, and torn clothing. Oh be sure to have cash or credit card handy -- if your rapist took them, tough. Only a big deal to the victim.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:02 PM on 10/29/2007
- Cautious See Profile I'm a Fan of Cautious permalink

I actually think that women are allowed to wash up after the evidence is gathered. I'd be appalled if they weren't. Actually, the clothing is taken as evidence, isn't it?

Anyway, the medication (and the shower, and the treatment of injuries) should be given at the hospital.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:22 AM on 10/30/2007
- coolmaiden See Profile I'm a Fan of coolmaiden permalink

But they are in a HOSPITAL for crying out loud! If you can't be treated at a hospital, what's the point of going?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:00 PM on 10/29/2007
- BrooklynC See Profile I'm a Fan of BrooklynC permalink

I have never understood why a pregnancy begun with rape qualifies as equally worth preserving as a good loving romp. What is it? That both are part of God's design? Does that make a rapist an agent of God? These people are turning every rape into a gang rape, and the Church gets sloppy seconds.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:56 PM on 10/29/2007
- scottaa See Profile I'm a Fan of scottaa permalink

Very classy. Would you feel comfortable telling a child who was the result of rape he is any less of a person or less entitled to a dignified life than a child born of willing adults?

Whether the policy of the Catholics is wrong or not, it is their hospital, so I would think they should have the right not do something that goes against their morality, whether you agree with it or not.

The people who don't agree with this policy are always free to start another hospital, or offer that service to rape victims, or whoever they want, in their own way.

Or they could choose the path of the rapist, i.e. use the threat of brute force to coerce someone into doing something they don't want to do. It's not quite analogous, as the law does offer them a choice:

"To refuse to comply, they'd have to close those institutions down, and you won't see them doing that."

So the choice to people providing inarguable goodness in their medical services for years is:

"You either do exactly as we say, even if it violates your convictions, or you don't do good it at all."

Nice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:36 PM on 10/29/2007
- Tellmethetruth See Profile I'm a Fan of Tellmethetruth permalink

Well there is a theological point to be made - can something good come from something evil? All theologians would say no, evil cannot create good. So how does one explain how a non-violent God can cause life to come from an act of violence?

What is the non-violent response to violence? Is the pregnancy, blessing or curse, life or death? Why doesn't a God of love only create when there is sufficient human love to maintain the creature being created? Why does the God of love create where there is no love?

Is a woman who goes for the morning after pill after being raped defending her life? Is this act of "violence" an act of self-defense for a woman to prevent pregnancy from violent sexual assualt?

I don't think this is so morally cut and dry.

Why are male rapist allowed to "parent" any child? Shouldn't that be a crime?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 AM on 10/30/2007
- bknott See Profile I'm a Fan of bknott permalink

It's sad, and depressing, that women still have to fight constantly for these rights. I wish men could get knocked up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:40 PM on 10/29/2007
- desertdweller See Profile I'm a Fan of desertdweller permalink

What's ironic is that many of these "holy men" were probably victims of rape themselves back in seminary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:28 PM on 10/29/2007
- alsm9 See Profile I'm a Fan of alsm9 permalink

"How can they live with themselves?" I'm not sure. But what shocks me is how Catholic women can stay silent. No progress will ever be made for women's rights within ANY religion if the women within do not stand up for equality. Catholic women sit by compliant and complacent and little will change for women if they do not take a stand. It can't be done by women outside the faith and it certainly will never be done by men.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 10/29/2007
- TheQuestion See Profile I'm a Fan of TheQuestion permalink

If you don't agree with them they kick you out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:59 PM on 10/29/2007
- zizyphus See Profile I'm a Fan of zizyphus permalink

Indoctrination into the culture of the Catholic Church begins when they are helpless children, it is brainwashing. It is so hard to reprogram them after that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 10/29/2007
- mrman See Profile I'm a Fan of mrman permalink

Nothing has changed this world more than a woman's ability to control when and if she bears children. Show me abject poverty and I'll show you women who have little or no access to birth control and abortion. As long as men (and their religion) have control over women...women will remain second class citizens. It's time for the educated women to teach the uneducated. Women must not wait for men to free them of social bondage. It will never happen. Religion has always been used to oppress women. Worldwide!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:11 PM on 10/29/2007
- TheQuestion See Profile I'm a Fan of TheQuestion permalink

Don't forget the hit on overpopulation these policies have. Now that is immoral.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:01 PM on 10/29/2007
- quadman See Profile I'm a Fan of quadman permalink

That's quite a large brush you are painting with mrman. Maybe you could use it to help paint the Golden Gate. I am sure that they would be impressed with the blanket coverage your brush gives.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:21 PM on 10/29/2007
- DenverCurmudgeon See Profile I'm a Fan of DenverCurmudgeon permalink

The Catholic Church's ongoing campaigns to impose its dogma on the general public must be brought to an end. Removing their exemption from taxes is where to start.

If catholic church and the mormons and the evangelical protesants paid taxes on the capital that they use to fund their commercial enterprises at the very least it would level the venture capital playing field and perhaps even pay down the national debt.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 10/29/2007
- bobsmith See Profile I'm a Fan of bobsmith permalink

"In permitting Catholic hospitals to comply with this law, neither our teaching nor our principles have changed..."

-------

What an incredibly arrogant (and dishonest) comment. Every time I hear one of these characters use the term "teaching", I cringe. They never "learn"... they "teach".

Almost 40 years ago I was in the seminary, so I knew the guys who went on to become Catholic clergy. Most of the guys who proceeded to ordination were consummate lightweights. Few had ever dated. Most had, shall we say, "issues" with women. Most were remarkably immature. And there wasn't a critical thinker in the bunch.

Yet many Catholics (although fewer every day) take these jokers quite seriously. If they knew what I knew, they wouldn't.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 PM on 10/29/2007
- darcy See Profile I'm a Fan of darcy permalink

bobsmith, good for you for coming to your senses and getting out of the seminary. The Catholic Church is a plague throughout the world, preying on the poor and gullible to hang on to a power base.

I wish Italy would kick that corrupt, disgusting Vatican City right out of the country.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 10/29/2007
- commonsenselives See Profile I'm a Fan of commonsenselives permalink

FYI,

Vatican city is a country seperate from Italy all together. The Italian government has no power to make them leave.

Just though I'd let you know.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:21 PM on 10/29/2007
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in