Aiming to limit damages, Catholic hospital argues a fetus isn’t the same as a ‘person’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Full story here:
Aiming to limit damages, Catholic hospital argues a fetus isn’t the same as a ‘person ’
Excerpts from the article:
- Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, a faith-based health care provider, is arguing in a medical malpractice case that the loss of an unborn child does not equate to the death of a “person” for the purpose of calculating damage awards.
- In recent court filings, attorneys for CHI and MercyOne argue that “finding an unborn child to be a ‘person’ would lead to serious implications in other areas of the law.” They also argue the Andersons’ unborn child should not be considered a “patient” for purposes of calculating damages.
- “There is no statute or binding case law finding an unborn child to be a ‘patient’ under the law,” attorneys for the hospital have told the court, citing an Iowa Supreme Court ruling in a 1971 case that held “there can be no recovery (of damages) on behalf of, or for, a nonexistent person.”
Implications to other areas of law is likely one reason why no state has ever granted full personhood with rights to the unborn. For those who believe a fetus is a person, both the law and the church disagree with you. But this just shows what is really important to some religions, money!
Red Box Rules
Please: no personal or ad hom attacks, spamming, or advertisements. Let's try to keep things civil. It's just common sense.
Tags
Who is online
52 visitors
Is a fetus (unborn) a person? Clearly legally and apparently religiously not!
a theological slalom course of legal responsibility ...
the mackerel snapper church is making a number of power moves now, with a sympathetic SCOTUS and white house ...
That's not their argument when it comes to abortion
It's their argument when it comes to litigation and monetary damages. But they cannot make a rational or legal argument against abortion either.
Hypocrites
Exactly.
This sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it, too.
Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought they were entitled to it too.
Catholic church long ago dispensed with the original form of the cross to worship. Their new image is much more fitting.
I’m still perplexed why a cross is an appropriate symbol for the most revered individual on earth, consider it was his murder weapon. I’d be fucking pissed if some gang of thugs beat me to death with baseball bats - and then to honor me everyone wore a baseball bat pin.
"I would never want to be a member of a group whose dumbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood." --- George Carlin
Can you imagine if he had been hung by a rope?
I guess his dad wasn't real big on whole forgiveness thing ...
He was big on the whole smiting thing.
pedophilia, incest, slavery, and genocide, all for a 10% cut of the take ...
And if don't pay up, you get the plagues. Lol
world's oldest and most ineffective protection racket ...
I don't know about ineffective. After all, look at how many people buy into it. Racket is an understatement.
the conversion of guilt and fear into tax exempt profits, with the perpetrators and associated assets protected from prosecution and providing restitution for their scam ...
It's the ultimate scam with unlimited suckers.
the cult of transactional and wishful thinking ...
This is how Old Testament Jews saw things. Lower penalty for killing an unborn fetus than a newborn.
When it costs them money, they have a different definition of things.
Money talks and all that.
The law is not some sort of objective evidence that a fetus is not a person. Surely you must know that? The law can be made to say whatever we want it to and, so, is just a reflection of the values (or agenda) of the people or, at least, those with enough power to make laws.
And, claiming that the church disagrees with us (you know, the church?) is a little ridiculous, don't you think? You take an instance of one hospital trying to avoid losing in a lawsuit and turn that into "the church disagreeing" with us? Surely you see the problem with that?
The church doesn't have the integrity to hold to its beliefs when those beliefs endanger it financially?
Whoda thunk it?
Interesting. How do you define 'church'?
Well, I was replying to your comment, Drakk, so I guess we must first decide how YOU define "church".
And I was replying to Gordy's. Doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?
In any case, for Christians, the "Church" refers to the body of believers of which Christ is the head. It doesn't have denominational boundaries, which are a human invention due to our imperfectness.
Does that definition change what you were thinking of when you used the word 'church' in your statement?
You know what I think happened here?
You asked
and then realized belatedly that the church arguing out of both sides of its mouth, and the fact that some of us found it predictable that the church would do exactly that, were not quite the flex that you meant that comment to be. It illustrates the church's willingness to change its moral stance based on whether those morals put it in a position to control people, or in a position to lose money.
I don't think it's a surprise to anybody here that the church chose financial expediency over moral consistency.
But once the hypocrisy was pointed out, and defended by you, you want to deflect to semantics.
You go down that rabbit hole by yourself.
I find what you think happened here exceedingly odd. I made no mention of what my opinion of the lawsuit is or about how they are going about it, so I don't know how you got here.
My point is that to lay the blame or responsibility for what this hospital is doing on the church as a whole (all 2.38 billion of us who claim Christianity) is simply indefensible. How many Christians do you think are even aware that this lawsuit even exists? I'd be surprised if it were even 0.0001%. And how do you arrive at the conclusion that, even if all of them know about it, they approve of it?
You appear to be trying to make the tail (the lawsuit) wag the dog (the church).
Also, again...
Are you going to answer this question or should I just assume your position is that because this hospital is connected to the Catholics, the whole church is guilty by association in your eyes?
In the context of this article "The Church" is The Roman Catholic Church. You do not speak for them for the collective "Church" inclusive of all the thousands of Christian denominations any more than any other self proclaiming Christian. Which Christian sect do your opinions represent?
Do you even understand what's being discussed or even what position the participants hold? I'm not speaking for anyone. Get back to me when you understand what's going on.
How you define "The Church" is on point.
The law is what applies and is objectively determined in the Constitution and also supported by federal law. The unborn are not legal persons. The federal government and all states agree on that.
Not at all. A religious based organization is proclaiming a fetus is not a person. Of course its an attempt to limit damages.
In the context of the discussion, "church" is a religious organization or an organization based on religious tenets and influence.
So, if Trump and his Republicans pass a law that states the unborn are people, are the unborn now magically people then? I mean, it isn't as if anything about them has changed. If all it takes is a law to state who's a person and who isn't, why, we can just pass a law that states anyone in a coma for x amount of time is no longer a person, right? I mean, laws are as easy as words on a piece of paper, right?
No, it didn't, unless you've got evidence they did so.
So, all 2.38 billion of us, then. Actually, you've just included all religions. You've passed judgement on about 76% of the world. Nice.
Some states have tried to pass fetal personhood laws, and failed. Only Alabama has come closest to it. But Trump does not have the power (despite what he might think otherwise) to change the Constitution regarding personhood. Neither is there any way to establish unborn personhood without infringing in the personhood, rights, and autonomy of the pregnant woman.
The hospital in question did try to argue a fetus is not a person. Did you read the article?
No, I passed judgement on the particular religious denomination involved. You haven't heard me pass serious judgement on religion. It would be like a vicious roast, but less comedy and more seriousness. But I digress.
... fake xtians don't count.
gee, how come only 144K are going to make the final cut? not a percentage that promotes much optimism ...
When it comes to applying the law and constitution, yes. When it comes to reality, of course not. It's no different than how some people believe in Vishnu or Allah, or any other version of God/gods doesn't magically make them real. But just saying that in some countries could get you killed so the laws based on those beliefs can be very real and very binding.
He called them members of a "church" by definition, he didn't "pass judgement". With that said I can confidently say that not a single one of those churches and not a single one of those 2.38 billion you mention can prove their God exists which is why there are so many different brands.
But what this all comes down to is that no one should give a fuck what ANY religion believes is or isn't a person other than the adherents to said religion. If they want to believe a sperm is a person, by all means, believe away and make those naughty Catholic School girls pray for forgiveness for cannibalism. The rest of us shouldn't give a fuck because those adherents SHOULD KEEP THEIR UNPROVEN RELIGIOUS FANTASIES OUT OF GOVERNMENT.
You shouldn't refer to things in the Bible unless you know what they mean. Not a good look for you when you try something like this and it doesn't mean what you think it odes.
The Constitution doesn't address personhood. I don't know why you keep saying it does. Perhaps if you reference the part that you think does?
Not actually what they did. What they did is that, under the provisions of the law, the law doesn't treat a fetus as a person. Recognizing that the law does not do so vs saying that they are arguing as fact that fetuses are not persons are two different things entirely.
Really? Here's what you said...
You were not addressing any denomination here. You were, in fact, addressing individuals who believe a fetus is a person. That is an all-inclusive statement which includes any individual, regardless of what religion or denomination they belong to. The only criteria you set was belief that a fetus is a person.
You did the same thing with your later clarification...
You don't even narrow it down to Christianity. Your statement includes anyone of any religion that believes a fetus is a person.
Therefore, based on what you said, your point remains that because these lawyers are using what the law allows concerning who's a person and who isn't, that somehow this means the church is arguing fetuses aren't people.
Put another way, you're claiming that, however many lawyers this hospital is employing in this case, it somehow means that they set policy and beliefs for the entire religious community, worldwide. That is how inclusive your statements are.
This is of course, ridiculous. To say that the church, as a whole is trying to do anything simply because of a couple of lawyers and a hospital is hyperbolic and dishonest at best.
Which was my point. The law is simply words on paper that determines how something is treated. Creating a law that any man who identifies as a woman and has the force of law doesn't make that man a woman in fact. Just in law.
What the lawyers in the lawsuit are saying is that if the law doesn't treat fetuses as people then, logically, they can't be treated as such in a malpractice suit without violating the law.
The rest of your post is irrelevant to the subject.
oops, wrong version of the end times? maybe you can narrow it down ...
The 14th Amendment:
Section 1
A ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Then there's federal law.
1 US Code, s 8:
The religion in question of the article is Catholicism. The hospital as an institution following Catholic doctrine, especially in regards to abortion, is clearly trying to argue a fetus is not a person for litigation purposes. Simple legal fact establishes the unborn are not persons regardless. So anyone claiming or arguing differently is wrong in that regard.
Identifies the rights of a person. It doesn't define what constitutes a person. Stop saying that it does because it doesn't.
As for the federal law, that is meaningless in determining whether or not a fetus is a person. It only stipulates how fetuses are treated legally. Federal law may someday say animals are people, as many misguided people want. That doesn't mean they would be people in fact.
Read it again. It says they argue that the law doesn't recognize a fetus as a person, not that they, the defendants, do not. Big difference, even if you refuse to admit it.
Except that isn't what you addressed. You addressed "...those who believe a fetus is a person, both the law and the church disagree with you." That is, anyone who thinks a fetus is a person, not simply the Catholic church. And, the statement is simply wrong because pointing out that the law doesn't recognize fetuses as persons doesn't mean that the church (of any denomination) therefore doesn't see fetuses as people. They are being sued according to a legal code, not a religious one. Therefore, citing the fact that the law doesn't recognize fetuses as people is simply litigating within the framework of the law that allows the suit in the first place. What would you expect; be prosecuted according to law but defend according to religious beliefs?
Iowa state law does argue that a fetus is a person. There is a law that states - it a felony to “cause the death” of an “unborn person" and GOP lawmakers there are pushing to charge women with homicide if they cause an abortion.
It establishes a person is a born individual. So personhood does not apply to the unborn. Neither the Federal government or the states recognize personhood of the unborn.
If the hospital uses the law of non-personhood of the unborn as a legal defense, then they are accepting of the fact the unborn are not persons, even if it is for litigation mitigation.
A church or individual can view a fetus as a person. But that doesn't make them correct nor affirms fetal personhood. They are simply wrong in that view.
Fetal Homicide laws are absurd. But they do not establish any recognition of fetal personhood or rights. A woman may still have an abortion without due process, despite certain states attempts to criminalize it.
alabama is trying to make it illegal for a woman to travel out of state for an abortion. it's high time to put thumpers in their place, again ...
They are the height of absurdity.
The hospital legal team is still going to get it's proverbial ass handed to it. State law (wrongly, imo) directly conflicts with their legal argument.
No, it doesn't and if you want to play this game, it actually identifies the unborn as persons. Here's the relevant portion of the Constitution you cited.
It literally identifies a fetus as a person. How? By the verb "born" Who's doing the action denoted by the verb? A person. Further, to argue that this means what you say it does, one necessarily has to read that anyone not a citizen of the United States is not a person either, since you must therefore apply the exact same reasoning that you do for a fetus to an non-naturalized human shaped thing (since your argument necessarily means they aren't people before being naturalized).
I can't wait to see how you try to gaslight this.
The Catholic Church should probably not be running hospitals. The problem is that Catholic hospitals are some of the best hospitals in the country and our hospital system would collapse without them.
Odd how that doesn't sound like a problem.
There's a point we can agree on.
The reason the Catholic Church should not be running hospitals is because they are inherently involved in a conflict of religion vs ethics on the abortion issue.
Again, I agree. There are other conflicts but they all stem from the same arguments.
They would be put in charge of all hospitals if they could objectively prove any sort of healing power from praying to their specific deity. Otherwise yeah, they probably shouldn't be running hospitals.
You mean prayer is not an evidence based medical practice? 😉
Thats ridiculous. I have been a patient in Catholic hospitals and they do not try and heal by prayer.
Hating religion for the sake of hating religion is a waste of time.
ridiculous
What is? Prayer is not evidence based practice. Simple fact. At best, it's an emotional placebo.
Yes, relying on religious institutions to run our hospitals would be ridiculous.
I never said they did. I merely pointed out that if they did, then it would make a lot more sense to have the Catholic Church running a hospital. Since they don't, why should anyone care what name is on the side of the building. Did the Lakers play better when the arena was called the 'Staples Center' or are they better now that it's called 'Crypto.Com Arena'? Is there any evidence that a hospital run by the Catholic Church has better health outcomes than one that is not? If not, and the only difference is that they claim religious exemptions in order NOT to help women in need of a pregnancy terminations, then why would anyone want them running any hospitals anywhere?
I do not hate religion just to hate religion. To me religion is just another human vestigial body part. I don't hate my coccyx; I just have no need for it. And it does get rather frustrating when a lot of good people, scientists, researchers, doctors, surgeons, all working in the field of medicine to improve human health and recovery outcomes get blocked by unnecessary religious doctrine demanding the health procedures being used in their hospitals conform to their religious doctrines. Could you imagine a hospital run by Jehovah's Witnesses that refuse to transfuse blood or use any blood derived treatments? Now that would be ridiculous.
So why are any religions in the business of operating hospitals? Like I said, if any of them could prove they could heal through prayer, then that would make sense, and it would also prove they might be praying to some entity that does exist and is quantifiable. Since that does not seem to be the case, then there is simply no reason to mix religion and health care. Perhaps they should shift into the mortuary business, that seems to be a better fit for them.
This is like any argument hypocrites make, but if Iowa's abortion law contains a unborn person or fetal personhood language then this hospital is toast legally.
The litigation process should be interesting.