Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Personhood of Convenience: The Hypocrisy Behind Sanctity of Life
The Catholic Church is on record stating that life begins at conception That is the basis of their opposition to abortion in all circumstances. It’s the basis on which they argue that Obamacare violates their (and their followers) religious freedoms (which of course trump any rights or freedoms anyone else may have.)
Catholic healthcare providers and hospitals, being the good Catholic institutions that they are, raised similar objections on abortion (and birth control.)
Regardless of whether we agree with them or not, Catholic organizations have been consistently, “pro-life” and have consistently argued that life always begins at conception. Under that logic, a zygote or fetus should have all the rights that every other living person has under the constitution. As a result, conservatives continue to push the inclusion of a “personhood” amendment in various state constitutions, and Paul Ryan continues to push for a federal version.
Sometimes, actions tells us just how deep a religious conviction in the sanctity of life really is. It turns out that at least for one Catholic healthcare provider, that deeply held religious belief suddenly becomes less important when a few dollars are at stake.
This story began on New Years Day in 2006. Lori Stodghill was 31-years-old and seven months pregnant with twins. She went to St. Thomas More Hospital, suffering from nausea and shortness of breath. Her obstetrician, Dr. Pelham Staples, was on call that night – but never answered his pager. Stodghill’s main artery to the lungs was clogged, resulting in a heart attack. She died within an hour of arriving at the hospital, as did the twins – some time later. Stodghill’s husband, Jeremy filed a wrongful death suit on behalf of the couples then 2-year-old daughter, Elizabeth and himself. Their lawyers argued that Stodges should have made it to the hospital or at least ordered the emergency room to perform an emergency c-section.
According to the Colorado Independent, the lead defendant in the suit is Catholic Health Initiatives which owns Thomas More Hospital, along with 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Their mission statement is:
“…to nurture the healing ministry of the Church by bringing it new life, energy and viability in the 21st century. Fidelity to the Gospel urges us to emphasize human dignity and social justice as we move toward the creation of healthier communities.”
However, Catholic Health Initiative’s fidelity to the Gospel is a relationship of convenience, especially when money is involved, as evidenced by CHI’s legal response in the Stodghill case.
… the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.
So far, the courts have ruled in CHI’s favor. , Colorado’s Supreme Court is deciding whether it will consider the case.
Within the context of law, CHI’s lawyer made a sound argument – one that proponents of women’s reproductive rights have made since conservative “pro lifers” have pushed for personhood amendments.
The thing that smells in this case is the hypocrisy. On one hand, the “sanctity of life” matters when it comes to denying a woman access to reproductive health. The women’s life is secondary to that of a zygot or a fetus in the name of religious freedom. A woman’s dignity is secondary to that same religious freedom. But, when a few dollars are at stake, suddenly these deeply held religious beliefs don’t matter.
One might think that the gospel, and all those deeply held religious values really are only wallet deep.
Image from: wikia.com
Related Posts :
Since I last wrote about the personhood of convenience, the Catholic hospital that defended itself ...
Beginning in late January 2009, a phalanx of "patriots" initiated a campaign decrying tyrann ...
When Americans who are fortunate enough to have healthcare insurance require medical care, depending on the ...
Congressman Paul Ryan outed the Romney/Ryan position on abortion last night during the vice presidential ...
Guess what? Those nut jobs pushing Personhood amendments around the country got slapped down again today ...
12 Responses to Personhood of Convenience: The Hypocrisy Behind Sanctity of Life
Public Service Advertisements
Reynardine
Jan. 24th, 2013 at 4:23 am
If I understand your account correctly, the twins were delivered after her death, and then they died. If ever they took a breath, they became existing people, and therefore have a cause of action.
Outraged Catholic
Jan. 26th, 2013 at 5:09 am
You do NOT understand it correctly… The 7month old, viable fetuses died in their mother’s womb after their mother died…. They were left to die instead of being delivered via c-section following the mother’s death… The reason, the doctor was negligent. negligent. negligent.
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 24th, 2013 at 7:31 am
Why are surprised about the hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic church.This is the church that denies the sacraments to politicians who support women’s right of choice but if you support the death penalty,come on down.The last I check the church is against the death penalty just as strong as abortion.
But it always come down to the money.
DONT EFF WITH MY MONEY
Sandra
Jan. 24th, 2013 at 11:10 am
As a RC, I agree with your post. I`m still outraged that my Church would accept a serial adulterer,thrice married Newt Ginrich into the faith, yet they also preach against adultry and divorce. Money does talk even in Churches, and not just the Catholic Church.
This grieving man has every right to sue and he should win, it was negligence plain and simple and too often happens in hospitals with oncall doctors who ignore their pages/messages.
A tragedy that could have been avoided.
Carol Moss
Jan. 24th, 2013 at 7:50 am
It’s really sad when reproductive rights don’t include the right to reproduce.
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 24th, 2013 at 7:57 am
W…T…F are you talking about?Who doesn’t have the right to reproduce? A fetus? A egg? Will be considered a killer when my little fellas prematurely ejaculate?Why am I even bothering with you?
Paws
Jan. 24th, 2013 at 12:27 pm
And what of the woman that this article is about? Did she not have a right to live? Did her husband not have a right to say, on her behalf if she could not communicate, whether or not she should have lifesaving treatment – including termination of pregnancy?
In other words Carol, you can reproduce all you want – as can anyone else. What you cannot do is tell ME or anyone else that we MUST reproduce – especially when our own lives are at stake.
It’s about CHOICE, Carol. MY choice, not your choice.
Paul
Jan. 24th, 2013 at 8:04 pm
When did the Constitution get changed to say that we all have equal rights under the law, unless we belong to a church? My guess is that some facts have been conveniently left out to make the story more controversial. Assuming they are at fault, a settlement offer was made and it was rejected. Now which scenario is easier to believe? Is the church a bunch of cruel heartless hypocrites that have no empathy for the woman’s family? Or is the lawyer for the plaintiff a greedy bastard that sees an opportunity to win a huge sum because he can take advantage of the church’s doctrine to win over the jury in a case that would most likely dismissed if the event had occurred in a non Christian hospital, according to laws already on the books. I could be wrong here but presumably the hospital has insurance to cover such incidents. If that’s the case, since the insurance company is making the payout, they are the ones calling the shots, not the church. The church is legally obligated to defend their case according to state law. Which brings me to the next point. Presumably these laws were debated in state government. Progressive liberals put forward the argument that a fetus is not a human obviously because it threatens their pro abortion position. Conservatives no doubt spoke out against that argument because it isn’t true to their moral values which are influenced by their faith. The progressive liberals won the argument yet they have the gall to call the church hypocrites for not following laws that the liberals put on the books? It’s dishonest, it’s deceitful, and it’s discriminatory to hold the church to a higher standard than your own. Progressives have argued for years that religion should have no role in government, meaning they think they don’t need religion to decide what is moral and just under the law. You are so blinded by your hatred for conservatives that you don’t even recognize your own hypocrisy.
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 24th, 2013 at 8:17 pm
In other words the church now calling the fetus not a life is immaterial? After arguing for centurys that the fetus is a person? It now changes its mind and you blame liberals?
You shoald also know that liberals are not necessarily pro-abortion as much as they are pro choice. That is much closer to the constitution then the religion view of the conservatives.
Gregg L. DesElms
Jan. 25th, 2013 at 7:52 pm
I’m a lifelong Democrat, and a progressive Christian, and so I agree that pro-lifers are wrong, and pro-choicers are right and all that kinda’ stuff. I make that point because what I next write might seem in at least partial opposition thereto.
I think this story oversimplifies things. Yes, there is categorical hypocrisy, and yes, such is grossly unfair and can result in harm. However, it is very common for entities with certain philosophical/religious positions/convictions to nevertheless avail themselves of all that the law permits them, even if same flies in the face of said positions/convictions, at least when they’re backed into the corner of being a defendant in a civil suit, and must so do in order to win.
Certainly no decent lawyer would take the case and represent the hospital were it unwilling to allow him/her to fully leverage the law to defend his/her client; and there is not one single thing wrong with that. I would expect nothing less from either the lawyer or the hospital — or anyone else, for that matter — regardless of philosophical conviction.
Trust me, the owners of this very website, just like the owners of pretty much any other entity, if backed into a defendant’s corner by its having been sued for something would not hesitate — at least not if its lawyer was good — to use something in law which may seem to be opposite of its obvious point of view and philosophical espousals in order to prevail in the case.
It is the nature of things; and the way it should be in a society which both values and lives the separation of church and state.
Yes, the hostpital’s hypocracy is both interesting and worthy of note and reporting; but it’s not quite as simple as this story and its headline suggest.
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 25th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
I hardly think that comparing the owners of a website trying to get out of a lawsuit and the cult of Catholicism denying everything they have stood on for a very long time to get out of a lawsuit works for me well. Does not compute.
hogarth
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 10:03 am
The last sentence of paragraph 5 reads: “Their lawyers argued that Stodges should have made it to the hospital or at least ordered the emergency room to perform an emergency c-section.”
Who are the Stodges?
If you mean the Stodghills, your first sentence in the same paragraph states that they were already at the hospital. Why would they need to have “made it” there?
Can you clarify this?