WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
What??? we're not supposed to want Federal Funding of Horspitals?????? but we are supposed to want Federal Funding of our Health Care????? Do I have this understood correctly??????
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I suppose they can't be forced to sell but what a drain on their coffers it would be to own massive, empty buildings.Well the main point was that (and I never knew this) we are talking about one third of all hospitals. Add to that the fact that (according to the article) they would not sell the closed hospitals for the same religious reasons they would not operate them under the new law.
Like I mentioned in the OP I don't think either is likely but both are pretty big political bombs each side can drop on the other. I don't think this issue will ever go away sad as it is.
Add to all that the multitude of promises Obama would have a hard time keeping anyway, even if the economy were not in freefall. Ugly stuff. And believe it or not, I want Obama to do well, for the good of the country.
I suppose they can't be forced to sell but what a drain on their coffers it would be to own massive, empty buildings.
It also isn't the fault of Americans that Catholics have different moral views than everyone else. Why should we, as a people, allow a religion, any religion, the freedom to ignore our laws?
What??? we're not supposed to want Federal Funding of Horspitals?????? but we are supposed to want Federal Funding of our Health Care????? Do I have this understood correctly??????
Of course losing hospitals such as Loyola would be a detrimental to wide areas of people, but I would assume the bishops would do just as they said.
Most Catholic hospitals serve the under-served neighborhoods in large cities. They were built for just that purpose, most over 75-100 years ago.
the point is we have a law in place that allows Catholic Churches to elect not to perform abortions.. I guess according to the article, they make up about 1/3 of the hospitals in the US.. So,,, anybody who wishes to have an abortion can choose another hospital. Right.. Aren't we liberals preaching "free choice" "pro choice" "choice" all the time??? So, we can all agree to letting everybody, even Catholics "choose" right?? Right!
I don't know if it's normal for Salon (or that writer anyway) to be allarmist about stuff like that or not but I wonder how many hospitals would make the threat and how many would actually close? They really are in a good possition to push back though. I mean, how much more leagal does abortion need to be?
I don't mean to turn this into an "abortion" thread so if it goes that way I hope we can stick to the merits (or lack thereof) of FOCA or religious liberty or federal funding etc. (stuff that's semi "on topic")
One would think. Let some other provider do their own dirty work.
If the law would require the hospitals to perform abortions, I think the bishops would close the hospitals.
Remember that thread about the priest, Catholics voting for Obama and communion? What the bishops response was regarding that priest, was that as long as the person's reason for voting for Obama was NOT to support abortion, they didn't do anything wrong, thus could receive communion. The church has always been in favor of life, regarding abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia. No one is forced to joining the church or going to its schools or hospitals.
Many of the schools and hospitals are in the poorest neighborhoods of metro areas. To close them would not be in the interests of the communities.
no, I'm serious,, the people who favor abortion call themselves "pro choice" I'm asking if the Catholics shouldn't have a "choice".. why can't someone choose not to do abortions? Doctors certainly can,, and nurses can choose not to participate..
Take a look at who starts all these abortion threads. It ain't the board liberals.
Agreed.
From most libera;'s viewpoint, the debate is not about abortion, ya' know.
It's about whether or not we're going to willingly give the government the right to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies.
There is no bigger problem in the world than governments thinking they have the right to tell people that the government has the right to tell people what to do with their own bodies.
If you don't own something that fundamental, then you are basically a slave.
Oh no doubt they do good work and I would hate to see them go away. I believe there position is so strong (and Obama's agenda so full) that we will not see FOCA again soon and not again at all in it's current form.
Two real quick thoughts. One is I just want to affirm it's not just Catholics who feel this strongly about being pro-life. Two, funny enough, Catholics voted for the Democrats in 4 of the last 5 elections so it was not a huge Obama swing. IMHO Kerry lost the Catholic vote in his numbnuts campaign kinda way. Put simply, Catholics will vote for you (reluclantly) if your pro-choice, but they wont vote for you if you say "I'm one of you, oh and also I'm pro-choice".
I swear, the longer the thread the fewer people read the OP!
The pile of manure is your post. Try reading the article, huh? Obviously someone wants to try. Or is that too hard for you to figure out?
I bet you didn't even read it. You just went on the blind partisan hack attack. Thanks for validating a point a made in another thread about people not wanting to think ....
you missed my point, separation of Church & State goes both ways....the State can regulate medical standards within a Catholic hospital, but they can not tell a Catholic hospital what procedures they may or may not perform especially one it is morally opposed to.....1st Amendment....