Abortion question?

Question

When abortion is legal, do you think that faith/church-based hospitals should be required to perform abortions and/or give morning after pills, or do you think they should be allowed to have the freedom to not do so?

Answer 1

I think that they should so long as my tax dollars are funding them. With George Bush's Faith Based Initiatives, they ARE getting my tax dollars.

Therefore, since they are also tax-exempt, they should have to either follow the laws OR give up their tax exempt status and stop taking my tax dollars.

Sound fair? Does to me.

Answer 2

Personally speaking, I believe a faith based hospital should have the option of not providing an abortion unless the woman's life is threatened if the pregnancy continues. However, I don't think that particular hospital should be able to refuse to recommend another treatment facility.

Legally speaking what a faith based hospital is legally required to do, I don't know. But, I don't believe abortions are performed at hospitals, unless the woman's life is in danger. I believe abortions are provided at specialized clinics. And, I don't think there are faith based abortion clinics. I could be wrong on both accounts. But saying what I think I know. ^_^

Answer 3

Well, theoretically they should be allowed to refuse performing procedures or dispensing drugs that conflict with their beliefs. Unfortunately, theology and dogma are in fundamental conflict with poltical realities. If a religiously-based healthcare system wants to participate in the private insurance system (and therefore remain economically viable), they must subscribe to a certain amount of compromising of their religious teaching. There are two truths on this matter: 1) religious institutions (especially the Roman Catholic Church) run a lot of hospitals and related healthcare systems; 2) these institutions cannot survive without "customers" from employer-funded health insurance programs, which are then regulated by state govt.

If I were the Catholic Church, I would call the states' bluffs, and close all of their hospitals altogether, and limit the affiliated medical groups' practices only to confirmed members of the faith, until the laws were changed to allow their facilities and practioners who work in their facilities to opt out of medical practices with which the Church disagreed, and allow their insurance plans to also disallow certain procedures. If that were to happen, a lot of healthcare capacity would come off the market and premiums would skyrocket. There would be an outcry by employers to fix the problem, and then state legislators would be confronted with having to reconcile high healthcare costs with the right of religious institutions to NOT provide certain healthcare services that are contrary to the church's belief.

Of couse, the above will never happen, because there's a huge economic cost involved.

It's just very depressing that both religious instituitions and the government have both compromised core principles, and we've probaby come too far to fix it.

Answer 4

Its not a church! Its a hospital. I assume they accept insurance payments, including Medicare and Medic aide, you know the gov't stuff.

Are the Dr's being paid whatever the patient can donate or by the church with $ that has been donated to it. Or do the Dr's bill at their rate and the church actually contributes nothing toward the Dr's services, or lab work or drugs etc, etc.

If you have your own private little practice that's one thing, but don't throw the term
"Church/Faith based" around like they're providing for the homeless or are voluntarily
dedicated to traveling to the poorest, most undeveloped villages in Ethiopia to vaccinate the children.

If it was a Jewish Hospital could they refuse to treat Germans? You don't get to pick patients based on your morals.;

Answer 5

freedom to not do so, as long as they aren't going to try to scare their followers into believing that getting treatment elsewhere is a sin.
But then again, they should also not fill out those little papers for government funding.

But in reality, I think things like abortion, is up to the service provider anyway unless it is an emergency procedure.

But, if they are so religious, why don't they just close their hospital, and pray for God to heal their sick? Why is science evil unless it is in the srvice of a religious organization?

Answer 6

Hospitals and medical practitioners who are religiously and philosophically opposed to abortion should be able to refuse to take any part in them. The whole basis of the argument about this issue is 'freedom of choice' so it is hypocritical in the extreme to expect others to give up their freedom of choice because their ideas and beliefs happen to be opposed to someone else's.

Answer 7

Other than part of an emergency, I don't think that a faith-based medical organization can be forced to give someone an abortion.

Answer 8

No, they have their own belief system, they should not have to perform abortions or give the morning after pill. It is their establishment and they have the right to choose which kinds of treatments will not be performed at their institution. However, they should make it known to the patient/potential patient if possible!

Answer 9

Jen,
I don't believe that they should be required to do so (I am a proponent of a woman's right to choose, however.) Woman have the option of not seeking medical attention at these particular hospitals.
However, I do NOT agree that a so-called "Christian" pharmacist should be able to deny a woman birth-control or morning-after pills. If you're "faith" is that strong that you couldn't do so, you're in the wrong business. Religion has no place in pharmaceuticals.

Answer 10

Yes, they have the absolute right and freedom to say no. Just as much as people have the right to choose to have an abortion or not, the same freedoms should be given to those who do not believe in abortions.