Women have DIED because their Catholic hospital wouldn't perform certain services (just to clue you in here, it's not just about abortion).

So fuck the religious assholes who think they can dictate medical treatment options to others based on their interpretation of an old book written by superstitious and ignorant people.

I have stated my opinion.

"Absolutely yes and if someone doesn't think so, they don't belong on this site"

Cite? Is there someone on this site who thinks like that? No cite, means you are lying.

"Women have DIED because their Catholic hospital wouldn't perform certain services"

I have never heard of this, so it didn't happen. Liar.

"So fuck the religious assholes who think they can dictate medical treatment options to others based on their interpretation of an old book written by superstitious and ignorant people"

Do you think calling them assholes will endear them to your cause? What proof do you have these are assholes? Do you have any proof like a cite or something that this old book was was written by superstitious and ignorant people? No proof means you are a liar.

Am I close? What do I win?

the goalposts would be moved to say that "well by WOMEN according to my understanding that means hundreds and you have only provided 7 examples so you still haven't proven your statement."

Given the proven and documented history of this dishonest behavior, I have accordingly scaled back my willingness to put forth any significant effort in responding.

That is correct. Numerous times you have accused me of behavior with no proof. And that pattern continues, or continued as of yesterday.

even though we have the right of freedom from religion. The government can restrict religion.

But healthcare is not like a menu at a Chinese restaurant.

No substitutions.

must offer every service? All must be Level 1 trauma centers?

Not providing abortion on purpose for religious reasons.

And if end of life services and doctor assisted suicide is an option, would that also be mandated at all hospitals?

in equipment, accreditation of physicians.

And if there is unique requirements that are not bullshit made up by local governments (funny how the right loves government when they can use it to discriminate and harm) that result in a given facility unable to provide the service, that is one thing.

Basically he's trying to say that since not every human being in the world has access to a level 1 trauma center hospital, women who can't get the reproductive care they want (or that will save their lives) at a Catholic-run hospital should just STFU and deal with it. In the name of protecting religious beliefs, of course.

This kind of argument has a name - it's called the fallacy of relative privation (or the "not as bad as" fallacy):

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/155/Relative-Privation
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

If we are to be consistent, than all services should be equally available to all people.

If government allows healthcare providers to choose which services they will offer, this situation will continue.

are two different things.

And I'm also aware of what you're doing.

Now have your precious last word.

I think they should have to provide birth control.

Everyone has an opinion on abortion but if you are in the medical field you should be prepared to deal with medical reality and abortion is at times a necessary medical procedure.

even if that abortion will result in the death of a fetus?

I would agree.

As to birth control, that can also be medically necessary for women. In other cases it is elective. A better argument, in my view, would be to require that insurance cover birth control.

Personally I think they should be required to preform elective abortions and have to provide birth control.

it should be required for Christian hospitals.

Numbers 5:11-31

just saying

Among GOP politicians.

Everyone has their own opinions on what is a medically necessary abortion. Can a woman get an abortion if she has a pregnancy that might kill her in the future, but isn't killing her right now? Can she get an abortion if it's determined that the pregnancy is damaging her health, but probably won't kill her outright? Some believe a woman has to be literally dying before an abortion should be considered medically necessary.

all other OBGYN services, including treatment of miscarriages (which is essentially abortion) and doesn't provide abortion solely based on religious grounds, then yes.

All licensed OB/GYN divisions and clinics should.

Glad we pulled ourselves out that moral quandary. Time for lunch.

IF the hospital provides OB/GYN services, then YES, they should be required. Because abortion, sterility treatments, etc. are all OB/GYN services.

I said licensed OB/GYN divisions and clinics should be required to provide contraceptive care and abortions.

Fuck me, it's so hard knowing we still have to fight this.
IF they have women's health services, how messed up is that?

I mean, if somewhere is providing health services for human beings (men and women), it should provide ALL reproductive care options for women.

Sorry for any confusion. We are definitely on the same side of this issue!

So upsetting to hear about these constant attacks on women.

Demanding the ability to discriminate against women and deny them access to medical care they need - all in the name of putting religious privilege at the top of the pyramid of rights.

I know a pediatric hematologist in the Upper Peninsula who serves three counties. Some of his patients drive up to three hours to get to his office.

That argument will be an uphill fight in the current climate where religious objection is presumed to overrule the rights of others.

far better, in my opinion, would be to state that no hospital can be owned or operated by a religious institution or order. But that would require that the state take responsibility, or private corporations. I prefer a state run system, like the VA.

That's wrong. There's a way to peacefully coexist, and denying women medical care has no place in it.

to certain things, but a hospital should not be run by religious orders.

If a doctor tells patients in advance that he/she will not perform certain services, the patient will know and can choose another doctor.

Another argument for a national health service to provide care.

If and only if there is an easily accessible alternative. I understand the RCC is on something of a buying spree of hospitals and the US public system is in bad shape and with Trumpocare only going to get worse.

If this is the case then the RCC better provide safe, accessible abortion/reproductive medicine or get out of the hospital game as far as I am concerned. As they say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can't provide the care that people need, sell up to someone who can.

Getting that national healthcare is the problem.

Let me ask you something:

If the Church decides it would rather abandon millions of sick people than allow a few doctors to perform a few abortions on their premises, what does that say about the Church?

Generally, morally, yes they should.

Legally, finding a statutory mechanism to bind them without running afoul of religious protections -

1) Any hospital which receive government funding should be required to provide abortions

2) The ability and willingness to provide abortions should be a requirement of licensing for any/all ob-gyn/maternity services

3) Any hospital which is a sanctioned or de-facto monopoly should be required to be willing and able to provide any/all generally-practiced ob-gyn/maternity services

Thus, in order for any hospital to opt-out of such services they must

1) Accept no government funding
2) Opt-out of ob-gyn/maternity market AND
3) there must be a readily accessible alternative in the same market.

I could see some religious organizations shutting the hospitals.

What does that say about these religious organizations?

What kind of "Church" abandons people to die because they aren't allowed to adulterate the medical care provided at their facilities according to the whims of their deity?

based on how they interpret their beliefs.

What other answer would anyone expect them to say?

And I would accept that response as valid.

...are just "making decisions based on how they interpret their beliefs."

Whether it was the decision to drop 2 nuclear devices, or Stalin's decision to kill off his opponents, or many other examples of people making decisions that have fatal consequences.

And given that there are many hospitals, and not all of them Catholic, we are back at the question of whether all procedures should be required to be available at all hospitals.

But we've already addressed your question about required procedures. It is unfortunate you are no longer able to participate in that thread, but as you noted, decisions have consequences.

If that's how they want to be they shouldn't be running hospitals in the first place. Churches like that shouldn't be involved in anything involving science like hospitals, education, counseling, etc.

even when it involves all those icky doodle lady bits.

IOW, if a woman presents with an ectopic pregnancy, surgery should be immediate. They shouldn't send her home to wait for it to rupture, endangering her life the way Catholic hospitals do. If a fetus is dead, it needs to be removed instead of sending a woman home with a dead baby inside her to wait for her to die of sepsis.

These policies are both insane and deadly. With Catholic hospitals the only option in some areas, the rules on patient care need to be tightened. If they can't cope with treating women's health issues in a timely and caring fashion, the church needs to get out of the business completely.

But that is not reality in 2017 America.

The hospital only provides the facilities, equipment, and the ancillary staff. Not all hospitals offer OBGYN services, or other specialty services for that matter. Notably, the hospital is likely not accredited for those services and would lack the equipment and trained staff to safely do those procedures in house, whicj would place patients at risk. Even so, there must also be a qualified doctor who had hospital privileges and was available at the time.

Hospitals must abide by Federal and state regulations and they can't just decide to open, say, a cardiac care unit, or start seeing OBGYN patients until they have met the minimum criteria to assure patients can be cared for properly. Even if a patient arrived in the ER the hospital would try to transport them to a hospital that was accredited to perform the procedures that patient needed.

Since abortions don't require the use of a hospital, this seems more like a question in search of an argument.

And if a hospital is privately owned, what should the law be?

It also applies to skilled nursing facilities, surgical centers, home health agencies, labs and others. Accreditation is a comprehensive review process to ensure a facility has the ability to meet the highest standard of quality care. It has to be repeated every few years to make sure the facility is in compliance with laws, patients’ rights, even their financial records are reviewed, but patient care, staffing, and safety protocols are key. The accreditation is usually required for state licensure and certification which is needed by insurance companies.

Now, if some rural doctor added a few hospital beds to his spare rooms, the state would never know if he called that a hospital. There are probably small privately owned hospitals that fly under the radar and do a cash and carry business that could let them avoid accreditation and licensing, at least until something went wrong.

The question, it seems to me, should be why all hospitals are not state run. That would avoid the question of religious hospitals denying certain services and the only question would be how to fund these hospitals.