Catholic hospital: dead unborn twins in malpractice case not persons

[Cave Johnson]

Awkward.

One thing you have to give the lads in The Clan Of The Red Beanie. They certainly know how to thrive in what many of their pet politicians call Our Litigious Society. Confronted by the civil law, the boys in the Clan don't reach for Scripture. They don't pray in seclusion for the imminent arrival of the Holy Spirit. They whip out their BlackBerries — and thank the Lord that's all they whip out — and dial up their lawyers, and then they do what the lawyers tell them, regardless of whatever Vatican-based palaver they dish out to the rest of us.

There's a real gem of a case going on in Colorado right now, where a Catholic hospital is alleged to have contributed to the death of a pregnant woman, and of the twins she was carrying, and in defense of its right not to be socked with the mother of all malpractice judgments, Holy Mother Church has discovered its inner Kate Michelman.

But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health's lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect "unborn persons," and
Catholic Health's lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments.

Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights. As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court "should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,' as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person' under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses."

Fetuses are precious giftpersons from the baby Jesus unless that principle happens to cost us a buck. Matthew 21: 12-13, beeyotches.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/#ixzz2IvQqmpSj

[listopencil]

If I were one of the Catholics, I would spin it that the church is trying to demonstrate the inequity of the law. Or go **** an altar boy. Either way, I guess.

[blaise]

I don't see the big deal. They shouldn't mount a legal defense that's available to them?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by blaise

I don't see the big deal. They shouldn't mount a legal defense that's available to them?

This. The law is the law, whatever it is, even if the Catholic Church disagrees with that law. In court they argue over what the law IS, while outside of court they argue what the law SHOULD BE.

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by blaise

I don't see the big deal. They shouldn't mount a legal defense that's available to them?

Definitely not arguing that. But given the Church's stance on life, it might be distasteful to jurors (assuming the dismissal of the unborn kids count/case gets into evidence).

Pyrrhic victory, that sort of thing.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by blaise

I don't see the big deal. They shouldn't mount a legal defense that's available to them?

Is it not "against their fatih" to even make such an argument?

Seeing how it is "against their faith" to follow a law requiring that birth control be available for optional use under the insurance plans they offer, it seems rather unbelievable that there is no problem with trying to avail themselves of a law that says a fetus is not a person.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Is it not "against their fatih" to even make such an argument?

Seeing how it is "against their faith" to follow a law requiring that birth control be available for optional use under the insurance plans they offer, it seems rather unbelievable that there is no problem with trying to avail themselves of a law that says a fetus is not a person.

I don't disagree with you, but its really kind of irrelevant what they think. I agree with Amorix's earlier post

[blaise]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Is it not "against their fatih" to even make such an argument?

Seeing how it is "against their faith" to follow a law requiring that birth control be available for optional use under the insurance plans they offer, it seems rather unbelievable that there is no problem with trying to avail themselves of a law that says a fetus is not a person.

They're breaking a law regarding birth control?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by blaise

They're breaking a law regarding birth control?

Who said that?

[blaise]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Who said that?

Then what's your point?

[WilliamInnerCircle]

St. Thomas More Hospital, a not-for-profit 55-bed acute care facility, is the cornerstone of health care services for Fremont County and surrounding communities.

55 beds? Not sure I'd be dellivering twins in a place that may not have all the medical resources of a larger facility.

[WilliamInnerCircle]

Originally Posted by WilliamInnerCircle

55 beds? Not sure I'd be dellivering twins in a place that may not have all the medical resources of a larger facility.

Lori Stodghill was 31-years old, seven-months pregnant with twin boys and feeling sick when she arrived at St. Thomas More hospital in Cañon City on New Year’s Day 2006. She was vomiting and short of breath and she passed out as she was being wheeled into an examination room. Medical staff tried to resuscitate her but, as became clear only later, a main artery feeding her lungs was clogged and the clog led to a massive heart attack.

Dr. Pelham Staples, who also happened to be the obstetrician on call for emergencies that night, never answered a page. His patient died at the hospital less than an hour after she arrived and her twins died in her womb.

Now I understand why she was there.

[BigChiefTablet]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

This. The law is the law, whatever it is, even if the Catholic Church disagrees with that law. In court they argue over what the law IS, while outside of court they argue what the law SHOULD BE.

While technically and legally you are correct, shouldn't the "church" try to do what's right according to God's law, even if they are not required to do so under the laws of man?

[blaise]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

While technically and legally you are correct, shouldn't the "church" try to do what's right according to God's law, even if they are not required to do so under the laws of man?

I don't think God's law mentions civil suits in US court.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

If I were one of the Catholics, I would spin it that the church is trying to demonstrate the inequity of the law. Or go **** an altar boy. Either way, I guess.

It was only 2% of priests that molested boys, btw.