I think so. It's been known for years and years and years the Catholic's stance on abortion and birth control and the like. It kind of goes back to physicians who don't believe in abortions can refuse to treat the patient. Would these providers be required to provide abortions as well?
I didn't know that parental consent could possibly be revoked. That's asking for a lot of trouble.

Carefully written and monitored exceptions perhaps, but the Church really ought to be careful about blackmailing a nation. If the Church's stance on abortion is so intractable, they could be setting themselves up for trouble on the death penalty and war.

The Church is anti-death penalty, and has opposed the war in Iraq, too. Pope John Paul II asked Bush not to go into Iraq in 2003.

If the bills don't require doctors in Catholic hospitals to perform abortion that they don't agree with, I'd say, why close the doors?

"Cancel out...parental notification rules."

How ridiculous. What other medical procedures should minors/children be able to consent to? Breast implants, perhaps?

I can see them over at HQ going... "Hmm, slow comment day. That joke HW told isn't really sparking much. Even the lesbian story is pretty empty. I know, let's do an abortion post!"

The Church says it is anti-death penalty and occasionally voices opposition to war - that's very different from denying the sacraments to politicians who support choice, or threatening to close hospitals.

To be equal in its stances, Catholics would have to state when questioned for jury duty that we oppose the death penalty and are not allowed to vote for it and Catholics would be eligible for conscientious objector status by virture of their religion and Catholic churches would offer sanctuary to war resisters. But we don't. So the 'oh we're so against abortion we have to close the hospitals' claim is a little weak.

Pop! How positively snarky - it looks good on you!

It's the b*tchy bunny again.

I think it is way more valid a complaint than the others listed. The catholic church is not in the business of war or death penalty. They are in the business of running hospitals and fear this bill would force them to perform something they are avidly and morally against. All of you that were against Bushes ruling that allows a physician/pharmacist to not perform abortions cannot be for the catholic church stance in this only because 1/3 of the hospitals will close. Take your stance and stick to it. I think that you should not be forced to do something that you are morally opposed to ie. the draft, abortions, death penalty etc. I don't think that the catholic church is blackmailing anyone and to say that they are is wrong. They are simply stating that if they open that door and make it so that providers cannot choose this, than they will have to close. They are simply letting people know the ramifications of their actions. You may love you separation or church and state, but how would you feel if the only hospital with 50 miles of you shuts down which would be the case in my town.

Why do they always have to make things so damn difficult. Jeez Louise.

The Catholic Church is a church that runs some hospitals; it has taken a serious stand against the death penalty except in cases of 'extreme gravity' - it just never threatens politicians over it; the Catholic Church has four elements that defines a 'just war' - it seldom presses politicians to meet that definition.

Perhaps I should have said 'legislative extortion' rather than blackmail.

So it's ok for the Catholic Church to be on a moral high horse regarding abortions?

But they think unmarried women having children is wrong while conveniently forgetting the male half involved in the process.

And they think being gay is the same as being a pedophile while forgetting gays like e.g. Raphael and Leonardo da Vinci created many of their greatest works for the Vatican. And they never kicked pedo priests out, they were allowed to go on working, sometimes even with children again, after public outrage had died down.

The Catholic Church instigated wars that killed millions and ravaged Europe and the Middle east for centuries, destroyed cities and caused famines.

And they harbor Holocaust deniers among their bishops.

It's high time for churches in general to come down from their ivory towers and wake up in the 21st century.

Stephley -
You are Catholic? Really? Are you pretending so you sound more authoratative? I cannot understand the reasoning behind your post.
You don't seem to follow Catholic beliefs and you seem to know very little about the Catholic religion.
Prior to what you stated, Catholics do oppose the death penalty and vote against it; we must, it is a part of our religion. In a jury, I could not condemn a man to death. We oppose war. We oppose abortion. We oppose all death at the hands of other human beings, it is for God to decide when people die. That is why it is so hard to be a Catholic voter today; Republicans seem to support the death penalty and started the Iraq War, but Democrats are going to legalize abortion.
Some people claim to be Catholic but support the death penalty for horrible crimes, or support abortion when the girl is raped, but according to the Catholic religion neither of those are reasons for the criminal or the unborn child to be killed. Catholics cannot support killing of people, and since Catholics believe that people possess souls at conception; abortion is considered murder.
Catholic hospitals are not blackmailing the government, they are simply stating facts. Catholics cannot in good faith perform, assist, or support abortions. It is simply against the Catholic religion. I don't know how to explain it in simpler terms than that. I am sure the doctors, nurses, directors, coordinators, janitors... everyone who works at the hospital won't want it to close, but it is a matter of keeping your livelihood in this life or being eternally damned in the next.
Strikes are probably the foremost action to be taken if Obama's abortion initiatives start to go forward as planned, I don't think the hospitals will close except as a last resort.
I can see people interpreting parts of their religion differently, but Catholic stances on death/murder/abortion are clear cut. I think it is ridiculous to call the hospitals' declaration "weak" when providing abortions is not something that Catholics, in good faith, can even debate.

Raphael and da Vinci were gay? Who knew?

Manoukia - premarital sex is considered as wrong for men as it is for women.
Catholics don't think being gay is the same as being a pedophile. There is nothing criminally wrong with being gay, it is just seen as a choice. It is one of the areas I disagree with in my religion, so I can't defend the belief, but Catholics are not persecuting gay people.
Pedophiles are allowed to go back to work? Where do you get this information? That is not just against the religion, it is against U.S. laws.
The Catholic church has had corrupt officials and was in wars in the past. When was the last time? Hundreds, thousands of years ago?
And one crazed Bishop speaks out about the holocaust and you take it to be the entire religion's views?
It's time to stop believing everything you read and start thinking independently.

Back onto the topic of abortion. If the law forces hospitals to offer abortions, which is clearly against the church's beliefs, I don't see why they would keep their doors open. Why should the government be able to infringe itself upon the beliefs of a religion?

They shouldn't be forced to provide abortions. There are a lot of times where you're forced to go to a specialist because the regular hospital can't take care of you as well so as long as there are specialized clinics for abortions Catholic hospitals can have an exception. I'd be okay with that

How dumb to make Catholic hospitals perform abortions. I sure hope they don't have to close. They provide a great service to communities.

Sr. Lilegwene - you're clearly giving your interpretation of the rules as well. But as a lifelong Catholic, entirely educated in Catholic schools by nuns, I stand by everything I said.

Lilegwene, I take it indeed, as you say, to be the entire religion's view. The pope reinstated the "crazed" Holocaust denier, the pope says being gay is a choice, the pope is, according to a dogma, infallible.

Last time I looked, he was a human being sadly out of touch with reality.

The Catholic church still employs corrupt officials, e.g. in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and probably everywhere else they work. They get their hands dirty investing money in companies that profit from arms deals and lost money on Wall Street trying to get more. Isn't greed a sin?

So yeah, they are perfect and are in a perfect position to lecture others.

The last war in Europe the Catholic church was actively involved in was WW II, although they continued to co-operate with the fascist regime in Spain, and they're still often to be found on the wrong side of conflicts in Africa.

Catholic hospitals should be exempt from performing abortions I am sure there are plenty of other places you can go get one. Lilgwene I have one question do you use contraception if you do you're going against the church doctrine. I am a Catholic but I don't do everything the church says I must do but that doesn't make you a better Catholic than any of us. None of us are perfect except maybe the pope

I'm Catholic, comes from traditional Catholic family and went through Catholic schools, and the hospital I go to based on my provider is a Catholic one.
While I understand that they disagree with/against abortions, but why close down the hospitals that can provide other services beside that?
Again, unless FOCA says that Catholic-based hospitals must provide abortion service, I don't see why closing down hospitals to be effective, denying other people who need their services outside abortion is worse. I'd have assumed that when someone wants to have an abortion, they usually don't go to a Catholic-based hospital. There should be other places to do so, and if they've not been providing this service in the past, I'm sure that those who need abortion have gone to other places beside these hospitals.

My take on this. Abortions shouldn't be a legal issue at all, it a matter of personal choice and those who want it should seek hospitals or clinics who actually provide it. As far as I'm concerned the only law that should be is a ban on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, which make sense as a fetus can be actually viable outside of the womb at that time. I also dont think any sane person would knowingly go to a Catholic hospital and request an abortion especially knowing their stance on it.

Agreed Myst, I don't have a problem a hypothetical exception for Catholic hospitals.

And I want to back up Lilegwene, she is completely right. The Church's stance is there is no such thing as a cafeteria catholic. period. And being raised and educated by catholics I respect if people still want to consider themselves catholic on those grounds. I personally cannot call myself catholic anymore because I disagree on so many of these issues.

My thoughts...

1.) This is what some leaders in the Catholic Church say the bill will do. That doesn't mean that the bill will actually do. It is one perspectives interpretation.

2.) In one of the sources listed, it says that a similar policy was enacted in Maryland (I think that is the state), and none of the Catholic hospitals have had to close.

3.) If they would refer patients to other medical facilities, there wouldn't be an issue.

4.) The bill would most likely be redrafted and clarified, especially since it is a bit vague.

5.) My biggest issue with Catholic hospitals isn't that they won't provide abortions, rather I think it is tragic that they will not give rape victims the morning after pill, even when there is a great possibility that sperm and egg have not met yet. When you are a victim of trauma, you don't always get to chose the hospital you go to. To limit choices of women in such a situation is really, really uncaring in my opinion.

Yes, they should

If a Catholic Hospital doesn't receive government funding, then it should have every right to not perform abortions, even if FOCA states that they have to. The freedom of choice is for the mother to have the abortion, and the freedom of choice should also be for the doctor to not be forced to perform said abortion.

Good points, Jill.

And pop, I like the b!tchy bunny. He (or she) should stick around.

"The Church's stance is there is no such thing as a cafeteria catholic."
A good position for leadership that doesn't want to deal with valid differences of opinion on matters that are not set in stone - but if that were true, the Catholic Church in the U.S. would be far smaller and the Church would have far less political power.

It sounds to me like the hospitals don't have to close, they just can't receive federal funding. It makes sense, if you're going to play by your own rules, then you have to support yourself.

Just one question to the Pro-lifers: how many of you (them) have adopted children or plan to adopt children?

I was raised Catholic, and I don't agree with everything that every Catholic thinks. Just like people who are Baptist aren't all going around and protesting funerals of troops and gays. But I digress.

This article is interesting. I just want to know what the actual bill says before I can formulate an opinion. I hope the Catholic church will ask for that information as well, before they do something drastic that could affect our cities as well as our nation's health status (according to WHO and NIH). Don't need anymore bad press out this way.

Ok, so I'm obviously getting off topic, meaning I need sleep. Night.

If the Catholic Hospitals stop taking Federal money then they as a private institution may do as they wish. You want public Federal funding? Then you follow the law of the land - which says that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy by a physician if that women so desires (within certain limitations). It doesn't day that an institution (aside from a court) can intervene or impose their will or morals on this offends their morals.

One cannot act high and mighty when you've got your hands in the government's piggy bank taking out money.

As far as a Doctor refusing to perform a medical procedure because they disagree with it morally - ah no these physicians who find it morally objection for a woman to exercise her rights and her own conscious should recuse themselves from practicing medicine altogether because there will always be moral and ethical conflicts between what the doctor believes is right, what the patients desires and believe is right and what the law of the land says is acceptable. These doctors should refer their patients to doctors who will put the patients needs first always.

Completely, off topic a new atheist/free-thinker billboard has gone up here in SF on Van Ness at Broadway. It says "Imagine no god" as if it was a stain glass window in a church. Comedically it's across the street from the defunct Catholic Church St Brigette's which is now a gym for AAU students. Bought to we citizens of SF by The Freedom From Religion Foundation.

I'm with hope2be, I don't understand why they'd be FORCED to close their doors - it's called Freedom of Choice Act, not Obligation to Abort Act... ??!?

"Raphael and da Vinci were gay? Who knew?"

Pop that's what I thought. But a guy here at work says that Raphael had a mistress and provided for her in his will. Who knows?

By the way pop I love the bunny.

I think hospitals and physicians that will not perform an abortion should be required to refer the patient to a place that will.

'5.) My biggest issue with Catholic hospitals isn't that they won't provide abortions, rather I think it is tragic that they will not give rape victims the morning after pill, even when there is a great possibility that sperm and egg have not met yet. When you are a victim of trauma, you don't always get to chose the hospital you go to. To limit choices of women in such a situation is really, really uncaring in my opinion. '
I also think every hospital should be required to give the morning after pill in cases of trama. jill is right. You can't always choose what hospital you go to. A lot of people can understand someone getting an abortion because of rape or incest, it seems to me the morning after pill should be just as accepted. It's my understanding that the morning after pill won't terminate a pregnancy, just drastically reduce the chances of getting pregnant. (Someone correct me if I am wrong here.)

pop - I adore b*tchy bunny. He/she is a keeper!

Thanks for the av compliments. I forgot about this one Thanks for the reminder!

It's my understanding that the morning after pill won't terminate a pregnancy, just drastically reduce the chances of getting pregnant. (Someone correct me if I am wrong here.)

strangel, depends on what you consider a pregnancy. If you think a fertilized egg that hasn't yet implanted in the uterus is a pregnancy (like the Catholic Church does) then the morning after pill and straight up birth control pills can terminate a pregnancy. If you don't think its a pregnancy until the embryo has implanted (and is therefore actually viable) then neither the morning after pill or birth control pills will terminate that embryo.

I hate to tell you this pop, but I'm making a rabbit recipe next weekend with the bf!

lol mydiadem. That's ok. I'm rooting for the Cards this weekend so I think we're even

NOOOO! Go Steelers!

I dont think any physician should be forced to perform an abortion if they dont believe in it. Regardless of religion. But people are right- if you accept Federal funding then the line between church and state has already been blurred and it becomes a tricky issue.
My real concern is with allowing underage young women to have surgical procedures done without parental notification. Sure, some girls couldnt go to their parents for whatever reason and that infringes on their freedom to choose but thats the exception rather than the rule. I just think that putting this into practice is just a bad idea.

How many hospitals are able to survive without government funding? I can agree that in principle, if a hospital does not want to perform abortions then it shouldn't accept government funding. I just don't know if those hospitals could remain open without the funding.

One of my big problems with the bill is the removal of parental notification. If I'm responsible for my kid until they are 18, then I should have the right to know what medical procedures are being done on my kid.

Losing 1/3 of the hospitals in our nation...yeah, that's going to be great for the economy.

I don't think there should be an exception made. No hospital will be forced to provide abortions, emergency contraception, or what-have-you; they just won't receive federal funding. Play by your own rules if you want, but do it with your own money.

Jude- that would entail not seeing any medicare or medicaid patients

I just don't understand this at all, maybe we should start going to local hospitals to perform the death penalty. We will tell them that since it isn't against the law, they have to perform the procedure. Let's see how that one goes over with all of you.

Manoukia - The pope is infallible? HA! You clearly don't know about the Catholic Church. He's infallible with regards to dogma, not anything old thing he says or does. He isn't perfect, he's human. Further, the Catholic Church encouraged bishops and priests to create baptism certificates for Jews so the Jews could escape persecution. Think before you type.

As for this issue, I think the idea that someone would be legally obligated to perform anything they're morally opposed to is despicable. As for the morning after pill, that's as easy to get as candy, so why force *one* particular type of establishment to sell it?

From the National Catholic Reporter, in November, 2008:

"Here’s the reality: FOCA has as much chance of passage as the 0-10 Detroit Lions have of winning the next Super Bowl.
It’s a matter of basic civics. The legislation, which never got a hearing in the last Congress, would be subject to hearings in both the Senate and House, and then have to be approved by the House Judiciary Committee, the full House, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate (with a 60-vote margin to overcome the inevitable filibuster). And then the respective versions would have to be reconciled in a conference committee and sent back to both chambers for final passage.

The notion that a bill this controversial could jump each of these hurdles is fanciful. Basic rule of legislation: It’s much easier to stop something then to pass it.

Further, the House already has a strong coalition of both Republicans and Democrats who either oppose abortion rights or do not want to see them expanded. And even if the bill were to make it to the Senate floor (which it won’t), it’s hardly a 60-vote lock. First rule of lawmaking: Know how to count. The pro-FOCA forces simply don’t have the votes.

But didn’t Barack Obama pledge during the campaign that FOCA’s passage would be his top priority? And doesn’t that change the legislative calculus?

Indeed, in July 2007 candidate Obama pandered to the pro-choice lobby. In response to a question from the Planned Parenthood audience he declared that to protect abortion rights “the first thing I’d do as president” is sign FOCA. But that doesn’t change the fact -- back to Civics 101 -- that President Obama won’t have the opportunity to sign FOCA.

Still, Obama’s victory does change the equation: It actually makes it less likely that FOCA will receive genuine congressional consideration. If John McCain had won, FOCA would have been a much livelier issue because the Arizona senator was perceived as a threat to Roe. “With Roe v. Wade [in place] there is no practical need for the legislation, there is no crisis,” a Senate aide intimately familiar with the bill told me last week. “And Roe v. Wade is going nowhere soon,” he said."