Catholic hospital denies pregnant Michigan woman’s request to have her tubes tied

A pregnant Michigan woman told her hospital that she would like to have her tubes tied after she delivered her third child because of a tumor in her brain. However, according to the Washington Post, her Catholic hospital has refused to perform the procedure citing religious laws against reproductive sterilization. Jessica Mann is 33. Her doctor suggested that due to the risk from an inoperable tumor in her brain, she should take pains to prevent future pregnancies after the birth of this baby, who is due next month. Mann decided to have a tubal ligation while under anesthesia during the upcoming birth. Her hospital, however — Genesys Regional Medical Center — has refused to allow the procedure to take place on its premises.“I was surprised and upset,” said Mann. “And there was anger at the fact that they can disregard medical issues for their religious beliefs.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contacted the hospital on Mann’s behalf saying that her medical condition warrants the procedure in spite of the hospital’s religious objections. The University of Illinois’ Robin Wilson explained to the Post that religious institutions like Catholic hospitals have “iron-clad” legal protections against being forced to perform abortions, vasectomies or tubal ligations. There are other, more limited protections in place against other procedures they deem to be morally objectionable, but they are obliged to provide care in emergency situations.
Catholic hospitals are taking up a growing portion of the U.S. market share as provider networks grow and absorb other hospitals. According to a study by the ACLU and public advocacy group MergerWatch, the number of Catholic hospitals increased by 16 percent even as the overall number of hospitals in the country declined.“By 2011, the report found, 10 percent of all acute-care hospitals were Catholic-sponsored or -affiliated, representing about 1 in 9 hospital beds in the country,” wrote the Post‘s Sandhya Somashekhar.

The ACLU said that Mann’s case is not covered under current statutes and argued that these types of faith-based restrictions inordinately impact the type of care available to women. “These ethical and religious directives single out women and care that women need,” said ACLU staff attorney Brigitte Amiri. Mann was diagnosed ten years ago with two benign brain tumors called pilocytic astrocytomas. These types of tumors can ultimately grow large enough to cause blindness, paralysis and other neurological impairments. Mann had one tumor removed and continues to monitor the other for signs of growth or sudden changes. Because of the tumor, Mann has to be fully sedated for delivery. After her second child, her doctor recommended that the next baby be her last.

“You know, it’s never easy to hear that. But I have accepted it,” said Mann. “I talked it over with my husband. We want me to be around. That’s the biggest thing.” The family is trying to find a new hospital and attending physician for the birth, which Mann admits is stressful at this late point in her pregnancy. Genesys administrators suggested that she have the baby now and a second procedure for the tubal ligation at another hospital. Mann countered that the very reason she is having her tubes tied is because another full sedation is the exact medical circumstance her doctor has warned her against.“The feeling of the unknown is stressful and disheartening,” said Mann. “But I have the support of my husband and my doctor, so I can’t let it affect me too much.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/catholic-hospital-denies-pregnant-michigan-womans-request-to-have-her-tubes-tied/

Can't she go somewhere else if they refuse?

I don't agree with them refusing her, but rather than keep battling, considering she's pregnant and ill (poor soul), then surely it's easier to go to a different hospital?

How far away is the next hospital Eddie?
The point is they have no right to make such a decision based on religious beliefs, its absurd. If people take the methodology that backs the right of religious people can impose beliefs, this means they back all who do so.
I mean would any of these Catholics at this hospital seriously back the right in the belief system of ISIS to rape and enslave girls?
No and rightly so, but they then try to impose their beliefs.

Its time we stop pandering to religious beliefs that effect the well being and equality of others. Religious beliefs should be personal beliefs. Sure we can accomadate things that do not effect other people, like a sikh wearing a turban for example, but when those beliefs are imposed on others we have to draw the line.

By saying she could go someone else is allwoing this hospital to continue to impose their beliefs which is wrong.

Religious rights is all the rage in conservative legal circles, used to perpetuate discriminatory practices.

But, this one is a double-edged sword. I look forward to the day when some County Clerk will refuse to register Republicans because God told her conservatives are too old to vote. Lol.

Cuchulain wrote:How far away is the next hospital Eddie?
The point is they have no right to make such a decision based on religious beliefs, its absurd. If people take the methodology that backs the right of religious people can impose beliefs, this means they back all who do so.
I mean would any of these Catholics at this hospital seriously back the right in the belief system of ISIS to rape and enslave girls?
No and rightly so, but they then try to impose their beliefs.

Its time we stop pandering to religious beliefs that effect the well being and equality of others. Religious beliefs should be personal beliefs. Sure we can accomadate things that do not effect other people, like a sikh wearing a turban for example, but when those beliefs are imposed on others we have to draw the line.

By saying she could go someone else is allwoing this hospital to continue to impose their beliefs which is wrong.

Oh I quite agree! I was just thinking of her, being pregnant and ill, and not needing the stress of it all.

the state should just repossess the hospital

the USA has a problem of no state owned hospitals
Just take them off the religious institutions if they are anti-secular

For goodness sake, just get it done somewhere else. She knew she was ill ten years ago FFS.

veya_victaous wrote:the state should just repossess the hospital

the USA has a problem of no state owned hospitals
Just take them off the religious institutions if they are anti-secular

That's an innovative argument for socialized medicine.

If the can't treat everyone because of religious reasons then the hospital should lose it's IRS tax-free exemption which is funded by the US tax payers.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/382377821

Irn Bru wrote:If the can't treat everyone because of religious reasons then the hospital should lose it's IRS tax-free exemption which is funded by the US tax payers.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/382377821

Indeed

Irn Bru wrote:If the can't treat everyone because of religious reasons then the hospital should lose it's IRS tax-free exemption which is funded by the US tax payers.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/382377821

By what authority?  First, you assume that someone wants to oppose them.  Republicans have both houses of Congress, and a president has no authority to remove or withhold §501(c)(3) status from a qualified charitable organization.  Every action has to have a law; you can't be arbitrary.  It won't frame the issue; it will be kicked back in the face for having no authority.

Second, they are asserting a religious claim.  You'll just double down on claims they are being discriminated against, giving them more claims.  See how fast they go to court on that First Amendment claim.

But...someone has to test the issue.  Probably when they get sued for a malpractice claim, secondary to a pregnancy, and they assert the religious defense.

Raggamuffin wrote:For goodness sake, just get it done somewhere else. She knew she was ill ten years ago FFS.

exactly

Cuchulain wrote:How far away is the next hospital Eddie?
The point is they have no right to make such a decision based on religious beliefs, its absurd. If people take the methodology that backs the right of religious people can impose beliefs, this means they back all who do so.
I mean would any of these Catholics at this hospital seriously back the right in the belief system of ISIS to rape and enslave girls?
No and rightly so, but they then try to impose their beliefs.

Its time we stop pandering to religious beliefs that effect the well being and equality of others. Religious beliefs should be personal beliefs. Sure we can accomadate things that do not effect other people, like a sikh wearing a turban for example, but when those beliefs are imposed on others we have to draw the line.

By saying she could go someone else is allwoing this hospital to continue to impose their beliefs which is wrong.

But you said the medical profession know best and they have the last say , you remember when you said this and that you would force vaccinations on everyone for their own good .

Has this couple considered contraception at all?

Raggamuffin wrote:Has this couple considered contraception at all?

Hahaha...of a different sort.  Obviously, tied tubes is verboten.

But another brother owns the drug store where they would otherwise sell condoms.  Looks like the Catholics have the whole place tied-off.  Opppss...poor choice of words.

Cuchulain wrote:How far away is the next hospital Eddie?
The point is they have no right to make such a decision based on religious beliefs, its absurd. If people take the methodology that backs the right of religious people can impose beliefs, this means they back all who do so.
I mean would any of these Catholics at this hospital seriously back the right in the belief system of ISIS to rape and enslave girls?
No and rightly so, but they then try to impose their beliefs.

Its time we stop pandering to religious beliefs that effect the well being and equality of others. Religious beliefs should be personal beliefs. Sure we can accomadate things that do not effect other people, like a sikh wearing a turban for example, but when those beliefs are imposed on others we have to draw the line.

By saying she could go someone else is allwoing this hospital to continue to impose their beliefs which is wrong.

what about Christian doctors wanting to wear a cross or crucifix are you going to allow them their religious freedom too or just other religions .

Vicar Of Dibley wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:How far away is the next hospital Eddie?
The point is they have no right to make such a decision based on religious beliefs, its absurd. If people take the methodology that backs the right of religious people can impose beliefs, this means they back all who do so.
I mean would any of these Catholics at this hospital seriously back the right in the belief system of ISIS to rape and enslave girls?
No and rightly so, but they then try to impose their beliefs.

Its time we stop pandering to religious beliefs that effect the well being and equality of others. Religious beliefs should be personal beliefs. Sure we can accomadate things that do not effect other people, like a sikh wearing a turban for example, but when those beliefs are imposed on others we have to draw the line.

By saying she could go someone else is allwoing this hospital to continue to impose their beliefs which is wrong.

what about Christian doctors wanting to wear a cross or crucifix are you going to allow them their religious freedom too or just other religions .

Nothing wrong with a person wearing a symbol of their faith to work. I just don't see why people think they can use their convictions to make exceptions on the job.

Remember the story of the Muslim bus driver in the UK who wanted to pull over and pray while on the job? That was ridiculous.

If you're not willing to provide the services you're supposed to provide to any law-abiding citizen who offers money for them, it's best simply to find another line of work. And it is a true slippery-slope problem -- what if someone who follows the Christian Identity teachings decided they didn't have to serve any non-white?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

Following on from that Ben, there was also a story about catholic nurses who refused to participate or assist doctors with abortions.

Isn't it part of their job fgs?

eddie wrote:Following on from that Ben, there was also a story about catholic nurses who refused to participate or assist doctors with abortions.

Isn't it part of their job fgs?

I agree, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. I'd find a different type of nursing to get into if that was me -- I doubt you're called to assist with an abortion when your speciality is elder care ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Following on from that Ben, there was also a story about catholic nurses who refused to participate or assist doctors with abortions.

Isn't it part of their job fgs?

I agree, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. I'd find a different type of nursing to get into if that was me -- I doubt you're called to assist with an abortion when your speciality is elder care ...

Well exactly.

"I want to be a funeral director but I want nothing to do with dead bodies!"

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Following on from that Ben, there was also a story about catholic nurses who refused to participate or assist doctors with abortions.

Isn't it part of their job fgs?

I agree, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. I'd find a different type of nursing to get into if that was me -- I doubt you're called to assist with an abortion when your speciality is elder care ...

My friend is a GP and also a Christian he refers his patients to his colleague if they want to have an abortion , i think the same should be done in this case if the surgeon couldn't perform the operation then he should have found another who would .

Ben as for the moslem bus driver well i think he is wrong stopping the bus and inconveniencing every one's journey , wearing a cross or turban isn't doing anything to anyone else and stopping a bus to pray is well out of order when people are trying to get to work or to appointments .

Vicar Of Dibley wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Following on from that Ben, there was also a story about catholic nurses who refused to participate or assist doctors with abortions.

Isn't it part of their job fgs?

I agree, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. I'd find a different type of nursing to get into if that was me -- I doubt you're called to assist with an abortion when your speciality is elder care ...

My friend is a GP and also a Christian he refers his patients to his colleague if they want to have an abortion , i think the same should be done in this case if the surgeon couldn't perform the operation then he should have found another who would .

Ben as for the moslem bus driver well i think he is wrong stopping the bus and inconveniencing every one's journey , wearing a cross or turban isn't doing anything to anyone else and stopping a bus to pray is well out of order when people are trying to get to work or to appointments .

Agreed, it's all about reasonable vs. unreasonable accommodation.

eddie wrote:Following on from that Ben, there was also a story about catholic nurses who refused to participate or assist doctors with abortions.

Isn't it part of their job fgs?

I don't see a problem with that, especially if the nurse sees it as a lifestyle abortion, which is technically against the law here. Some doctors won't agree to abortions either, although they have to refer the patient to another doctor I think. The landlords of several properties in Harley Street banned abortion clinics. There's no point making anyone do something they're uncomfortable with.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Following on from that Ben, there was also a story about catholic nurses who refused to participate or assist doctors with abortions.

Isn't it part of their job fgs?

I don't see a problem with that, especially if the nurse sees it as a lifestyle abortion, which is technically against the law here. Some doctors won't agree to abortions either, although they have to refer the patient to another doctor I think. The landlords of several properties in Harley Street banned abortion clinics. There's no point making anyone do something they're uncomfortable with.

I agree 100%

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't see a problem with that, especially if the nurse sees it as a lifestyle abortion, which is technically against the law here. Some doctors won't agree to abortions either, although they have to refer the patient to another doctor I think. The landlords of several properties in Harley Street banned abortion clinics. There's no point making anyone do something they're uncomfortable with.

I agree 100%

Really? I didn't expect anyone to agree.

Raggamuffin wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

I agree 100%

Really? I didn't expect anyone to agree.

Why?

Abortion is something that should never be taken lightly.
If I was a doctor or nurse I would avoid it too.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Really? I didn't expect anyone to agree.

Why?

Abortion is something that should never be taken lightly.
If I was a doctor or nurse I would avoid it too.

I expected howls of protest because of the religious element and/or because of the woman's "right to choose" type of argument. That's usually what happens here.

There are so many different aspects to being a nurse, so I don't think that refusing to assist in an abortion should be grounds for someone not to be a nurse. They can just get someone else to assist. I have no issues at all with doctors refusing either or landlords refusing to allow abortions on their property.

True

Reasonable accommodation is a term derived from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It has to do with religion, which is one of the protected categories of Title VII, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace.  More recently, the term has been used in the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

This situation pits the reasonable accommodation provision of these laws against other rights guaranteed by the Constitution and international laws.  Where we have seen this come up is in the area of male circumcision.  Does a one parent of a child, who for religions reasons insists on circumcision of his infant son, have a religious right over an objecting other parent.  Against the child?

In the case of Nebus vs Hironimus  Chase Hironimus, a healthy 4.5 year old boy from Florida, USA, this issue came up in context of a contested divorce:

circwatch wrote:Nurses for the Rights of the Child supports the genital autonomy rights of Chase Hironimus, a healthy 4.5 year old boy from Florida, USA. Chase’s human rights are in jeopardy following a bitter family court dispute surrounding a parenting agreement which was drawn up after Chase was born. This parenting agreement included the option for a medically unnecessary circumcision desired by the father. The circumcision was not performed during Chase’s infancy. Later, his mother Heather researched circumcision and became aware that it was not medically recommended and that it had risks generally and specifically with regard to her son, who had reacted adversely to anesthetic in the past and who develops keloids. Heather was imprisoned until she agreed to sign a circumcision consent form, which she did while bound in handcuffs and crying. Nurses for the Rights of the Child condemns the actions of Florida Judge Jeffrey Gillen on this matter and notes that this forced consent was done under duress, which is unacceptable and contrary to the principles of informed consent.

The situation has been complicated because of health care workers (doctors and nurses) who assert a religious right not to become involved in such procedures.  By the rules of the American Academy of Pediactrics: “Performing an action that violates one’s conscience undermines one’s sense of integrity and self-respect and produces guilt, remorse, or shame. Integrity is valuable, and harms associated with the loss of self-respect should be avoided.”

The question is, does this rise to the level of a religious right.  Or, alternatively, can one stand in the position of guardian on behalf of the child, who has a constitutional right to his body?