Nun excommunicated for allowing abortion to save the life of a mother

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Makes sense. Otherwise they would be forced to violate their beliefs, which would go against the Constitution.

Yeah it's a weird balance though because they do receive federal money which means they could probably be forced, however they provide like... 1/3 of healthcare so you wouldn't really want them to close.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yeah it's a weird balance though because they do receive federal money which means they could probably be forced, however they provide like... 1/3 of healthcare so you wouldn't really want them to close.

They can't be forced, they just wouldn't be eligible to receive the federal money. And I don't know if that is the case or not.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

They can't be forced, they just wouldn't be eligible to receive the federal money. And I don't know if that is the case or not.

Right but it's essentially forced. Federal money includes, iirc reimbursements for medicare among other things. You would seriously struggle to keep a hospital running without it.

I'm quoting the 1/3 off of a site, but either way I know in the cities around here there are 2-3 hospitals and usually one is Catholic.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Right but it's essentially forced. Federal money includes, iirc reimbursements for medicare among other things. You would seriously struggle to keep a hospital running without it.

I'm quoting the 1/3 off of a site, but either way I know in the cities around here there are 2-3 hospitals and usually one is Catholic.

Medicare, Medicaid, and often times federal grants. You'd have to have a lot of private donors with deep deep pockets to keep running, I believe.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

Medicare, Medicaid, and often times federal grants. You'd have to have a lot of private donors with deep deep pockets to keep running, I believe.

Medicaid goes through the state, the state gets reimbursed. Not sure if that gets affected the same way. But either way I can't imagine a hospital used to receiving that money surviving the loss of it.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Makes sense. Otherwise they would be forced to violate their beliefs, which would go against the Constitution.

No, not unconstitutional. The Constitution only prevents the government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion, not private hospitals (or schools).

Whether Congress could condition receipt of federal money on certain things is a different issue, unrelated to the First Amendment.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, not unconstitutional. The Constitution only prevents the government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion, not private hospitals (or schools).

Whether Congress could condition receipt of federal money on certain things is a different issue, unrelated to the First Amendment.

And by forcing lets say Catholics to perform abortions, which are against their religious beliefs, how is that not a violation?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

And by forcing lets say Catholics to perform abortions, which are against their religious beliefs, how is that not a violation?

We won't pay your hospital unless it provides abortions =/= Do this abortion now or else.

At least, they aren't the same as far as the Courts have determined when it comes to federal funding. You're free to practice your religion, but if you want money, do it 'our' way.

However, as of now, Catholic hospitals have that exemption. Dunno about other religious orgs.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

We won't pay your hospital unless it provides abortions =/= Do this abortion now or else.

At least, they aren't the same as far as the Courts have determined when it comes to federal funding. You're free to practice your religion, but if you want money, do it 'our' way.

However, as of now, Catholic hospitals have that exemption. Dunno about other religious orgs.

I know and never said it did. I even said that they can't force them to perform, but could withhold the federal money.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

And by forcing lets say Catholics to perform abortions, which are against their religious beliefs, how is that not a violation?

Are you suggesting that the government would be forcing Catholics to perform abortions or would withhold federal/state money? Remember the "Hyde Amendment" and the abortion hang-ups in the health care debate -- I really don't think that's a Medicare/Medicaid issue anywhere.

The Constitution only says what the federal government and state governments can and cannot do. It is irrelevant in interactions between individuals and private institutions like hospitals, schools, businesses, etc. While someone forced to act against their religious beliefs by a private institution might have a cause of action for violation of civil rights, the Constitution doesn't enter into it.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Are you suggesting that the government would be forcing Catholics to perform abortions or would withhold federal/state money? Remember the "Hyde Amendment" and the abortion hang-ups in the health care debate -- I really don't think that's a Medicare/Medicaid issue anywhere.

The Constitution only says what the federal government and state governments can and cannot do. It is irrelevant in interactions between individuals and private institutions like hospitals, schools, businesses, etc. While someone forced to act against their religious beliefs by a private institution might have a cause of action for violation of civil rights, the Constitution doesn't enter into it.

Hospitals aren't allowed to refuse emergency care to patients. What if said emergency care required terminating a pregnancy like the case here?