Good News for Women of Connecticut: EC Available at Catholic Hospitals

On Friday, the Hartford Courant reported that all women who arrive at any emergency room in Connecticut will have access to Plan B emergency contraception (EC).

Catholic bishops in Connecticut had argued that dispensing EC or any birth control in their four hospitals was inconsistent with their religious beliefs.  This is a recurring problem with health care provided by the Catholic Church. In our blog, Planned Parenthood recently covered a similar situation in Florida where the Catholic Church was reluctant to offer birth control at a health care center at Ave Maria University.

In Connecticut, Catholic bishops only backpedaled from their anti-contraception position when forced to by law. When pressed with defying Connecticut state law or providing EC to survivors of sexual assault, they decided, "To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act." Whew! It’s good that that’s been cleared up. Nevertheless, this move by the bishops is still a victory for the women of Connecticut and will hopefully inspire hospitals in other states to adopt similar positions.

•  Seems we are making

  significant steps for women's health care in this country.

  This is good news and I hope it continues.

  by kml on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:32:20 PM PDT

•  My view is this

  A Catholic Hospital shouldn't be required to provide elective abortions or birth control prescriptions to women who ask for it in a non-emergency setting: i.e., a woman asking for her monthly supply of the Pill or a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy for elective reasons.

  However, if a woman comes in as a rape victim or has a pregnancy that is nonviable that is threatening her health, they should be required to provide care. They should be required to provide the morning after-pill in cases of rape or incest.

  by oceanstar17 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:52:50 PM PDT

  •  Not to mention to save lives

    Some women will maybe die if they get pregnant.  Their doctor told them so.  It's obviously a great idea if they don't get pregnant, and, hey, one way to stop that is to take birth control pills.  What a concept.

    I can't think of one single woman here in America that shouldn't be able to get a birth control prescription written for her by the appropriate medical specialist.  Can anyone else?

    by gooderservice on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:08:13 PM PDT

    •  It's a Catholic hospital

      It has a right to its beliefs--up to a point. I agree that they should provide emergency abortions and contraception. But I don't think they should be required to provide elective abortions or non-emergency birth control. However, if they refuse to do that, they should be required to refer the patient to a hospital that will.

      by oceanstar17 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:18:10 PM PDT

      •  I understand

        what you're saying, but I don't understand what makes a Catholic hospital any different than any other hospital.  I don't see where one particular religion out of, say, fifty religions can decide what's right for me, a citizen in the free and open (well, used to be) society of the United States.

        If a Catholic hospital receives federal funds, they have no right to tell U.S. citizens to comply with their beliefs.  I just don't see it.  A Catholic hospital also has to comply with federal and state health care regulations.  They're not special.  

        Especially when medical care is not a privilege; it's a right.  (Well, for millions nowadays it has become a privilege, but hopefully that is only temporary and the right will be restored sometime after January 20, 2009.)

        by gooderservice on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:43:41 PM PDT

        •  You don't have to go to a Catholic Hospital for

          non-emergency, elective procedures. It's not like they are the only hospital out there. It's their own religious beliefs. While I agree that they should be required to perform emergency abortions and provide the morning-after pill to victims of rape, sexual abuse, incest, and child molestation, I don't agree that they should be required to provide elective abortions and regular birth control.

          by oceanstar17 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:55:46 PM PDT

          •  In some places...

            ...they are the only hospital in the area. And if it's a matter of insurance, you might not have a choice even if they aren't.

            But if neither of those is an issue, then I agree -- if there are readily available, easily accessed other places for elective procedures, they shouldn't be required to provide them.

            by wiscmass on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:23:36 PM PDT

            •  Well

              I do think that, if they will not provide those services, they need to have some sort of reciprocal relationship with another hospital that will honor such patients. Part of the deal would be a stipulation that, if they will not provide elective abortions or birth control, they must have a contract with another hospital to provide such services.

              by oceanstar17 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:43:57 PM PDT

              •  ANd what if that other hospital

                is two horus away?

                More improtant, where does their right to freedom of religion go too far when comapred to someone's right to LIVE?

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                by irishwitch on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:11:52 PM PDT

                •  Re-read what I said

                  I said that they should be required to provide emergency abortions and contraceptions when the woman's life is in danger or she has been a victim of rape, sexual violence, incest, or child molestation. But I also don't think that a Catholic Hospital should be required to provide elective abortions or non-emergency birth control as long as they have a reciprocal relationship with another hospital who will serve those patients within a reasonable distance.

                  by oceanstar17 on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:28:12 PM PDT

                  •  It isn't a hopital that provides birth control.

                    A doctor prescribe sit and you fill it a pharmacy.   You CANNOT ofrce religiosu people to provide elective abortions agaisnt their faith. Youc an't.  I didlike their stance, but crossing that line is too dangerous.

                    WHat needs to happen is for INURANCE PLANS to NOT contract with religiosu hospitals .  THEY are the prtoblem, rather than the hospital.

                    No way I'd check my witchy self into a Catholci or a Baptist hospital. SOon as they saw my pentacle, I knwo what my stay owuld be like.

                    by irishwitch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:09:16 PM PDT

                    •  Well

                      I think that your issues are more with the insurance company than religious hospitals themselves. I would require health insurance companies to provide alternate hospitals and not force their policyholders to go to Catholic hospitals.

                      by oceanstar17 on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 04:29:14 PM PDT

                      •  WHich is precisely what I think needs to be

                        done--insurance companies may choose a non-profit because of lower rates.  But the first amendment, like it or not, does protect the rights of religious hospitals  not to be forced to do things that violate their faith.

                        I wouldn't go to a Catholic hospital expecting to get an abortion or birth control--the party line is pretty clear. Ditto an SBC hospital for the same reason.

                        Unfortunately rape victims don't often get a choice--the police take them to the closest hospital, usually.

                        What gets ME is when individual doctors who don't work for a religious hospital decide not to be up front with potential patients on what they will and will not do. Like the doctor who refused to see child with a painful ear infection because her mother had a tattoo and didn't meet his dress code.  I think that when you make n appointment,t he damned staff should be FORCED to tell you what they won't treat and who they won't treat,s o you can opt out BEFORE it's too late.

                        by irishwitch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:01:50 PM PDT

                        •  Again

                          I think that I've said several times that I think that religious hospitals should be required to provide emergency abortions for women who have nonviable pregnancies or whose lives are threated. I've also stated that those same hospitals should be required to provide emergency contraception to women who have suffered rape, sexual abuse, child molestation, sexual violence, sexual assault, and incest. In those cases those hospitals should be required to provide the emergency abortion or birth control the woman needs.

                          I also agree with you that doctors should be up-front as to what types of care they can--and can't/won't--provide. As for the doctor refusing to see a patient over tattoos and dress codes that's just wrong. I don't agree with that.

                          by oceanstar17 on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:14:55 PM PDT

                          •  Well, your beelifs conflict with every court

                            decision on the subject.  I believe that NOW<if the woman comes in with a miscarriage, Catholic hospitals will do a D&C. They cannot abort for non-viable pregnancy or to save the woman's life (well,t hey do permit surgery to end an ectopic).</p>

                            But, basically, you cannot force someone to do something against his religious beliefs. I wouldn't wna tto--except for EC for rape victims--because the kind of treatment youg et will be substandard. Most peopel cannot separate their beelifs from their actions. I knwo of too many cases after ROe where nurses (msotly LPNs) were awful to women who came in to end second trimester pregnancies that were non-vaible, lfie-threatenign or merely  horribly defective.

                            by irishwitch on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 09:54:24 AM PDT

    •  Presumably there are pharmacies that

      dispense routine medications like BC.  Normally hospitals only dispense in case of an emergency. There might be an exception in a rural area, but I don't think that is real.  Recently Wal-Mart had to rescind their policy of EC since it was shown that there were no independent pharmacies in the area. If the chain pharmacy won't provide contraception, hospitals have been called on to step in.  However, the pharmacies should have their license yanked if they play these games.

      by hairspray on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:27:22 PM PDT

      •  The problem arises

        when you are in a rural area where the ONLY hospital covered by your health plan may be Catholic. And what if the only doctors practice at that hospital and refuse to prescribe birth control because the hospital rules forbid it?  I had a friend to whom this happened.

        Moreover, I think religious exemptions have gone far enough and need to be reined in. How about a Christian doctor refusing to see a new patient--a kid with a serious ear infection--because her Mom had tattoos and didn't meet his dress code?  Read this for a classic example of why enough is enough.

        by irishwitch on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:10:47 PM PDT

        •  You are correct. The rural areas have a heavy

          burden when it comes to providing comprehensive care to all comers. I do not care for the Catholic Hospital codes and realize that for a while they were buying up a lot of non profits. Quite a monopoly wouldn't you say.

          by hairspray on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:36:25 PM PDT

          •  Not necessarily a monopoly for the reason you

            snarkily imply.  For-profit companies like Humana and Kaiser (which claims to be non-profit but is only partially so--in one division of several) don't waste money building hospitals in  areas that aren't heavily populated and won't maximize profits.  Religious groups WILL because their goal isn't money, but service.  

            ANd,frankly, I really don't care what you feel about the  Catholic codes. The first amendment allows them  to avoid services thatc onflcit with their beelifs.   That's the law. I  don'tlike the wattitude toward birthc ontrol and abortion either whichis why I left.  I strongly wonder, hwoever, whether the EC laws will pass the SCOTUS test--and it WILL come to that. WIht 5 cnservative Catholcis on the panel, I am betting it won't, even though I wish it would.

            If it DOES pass the test, what will happen is that religiosu hospitls will simply clsoe ERs. WHich is also bad.

            by irishwitch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:36:01 AM PDT

  •  A big "or" you left out:

    if the hospital is the only place within a reasonable distance, emergency or not.  These hospitals get fat subsidies through tax exemption, so they gotta play ball with the feds, IMHO.

    by burrow owl on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:34:56 PM PDT

    •  Again

      I fully agree that a Catholic hospital should provide emergency abortions for situations where the mother's life is in danger and emergency contraception for victims of rape, sexual violence, assault, child molestation, and incest. But I also don't think they should be required to provide elective, non-emergency abortions or elective birth control as long as they have a relationship with a nearby hospital or medical facility that will.

      by oceanstar17 on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:31:07 PM PDT

•  Medicine is medicine; religion is religion

  A hospital is a hospital to medically treat people.  A hospital has no right to religiously make judgments on what they will or won't do.

  We have tons of Catholic hospitals in our area... well, not tons, but we have many.  I haven't taken a poll, but the majority of healthcare workers I see in these hospitals have varying religious beliefs, even some atheists.  Why must they adhere to someone else's beliefs?  

  When there is only one hospital within a certain mile radius, all people should be able to count on any type of health care they need.  

  Once you start prescribing and administering health care based on one's personal religious belief is the very day our society becomes weakened and on its way to destruction.

  By the way, several of my friends need to take birth control pills to manage their excessive bleeding.  What are they supposed to do now, go out of their way and inquire, "Please tell me if you're religious so I can know whether I can get birth control pills to control my bleeding?"  

  I pray for the day that religion doesn't rule my health care choices.

  by gooderservice on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:04:01 PM PDT

  •  It's an interesting glitch of history

    Hospitals have historically had religious missions.  The notion of the hospital as a secular institution neutrally doling out health care is of recent vintage.  So I guess we could say that our society has always been "weakened and on its way to destruction."

    Re: rights: they have the rights we allow them.  The hook here is that they get a tax exemption, so the state has some leverage over them.  Absent that, I'd be more sympathetic to the notion that they have a right to operate according to the dictates of their faith.

    by burrow owl on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:39:30 PM PDT

•  Now Lieberman can stop

  dispensing advice for the women to walk over to the next hospital that will help them.

  This is a great day for women.  YEA!

  by gooderservice on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 06:04:59 PM PDT

•  Between this and the Aurora clinic...

  ...finally getting its occupancy permit, it's been a good day for reproductive rights.

  by wiscmass on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:21:14 PM PDT

•  Well it's about time

  that a catholic hospital base it's decision on SCIENTIFIC data. The data on e.c. (and the fact that it does NOT cause abortions) is well proven, but yet the anti-choicers just ignore it.

  by natalie902 on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:06:52 PM PDT

•  Jesuitical hair splitting that would

  give Aquinas gray hairs...but thank Goddess for it. ANYTHIG that gives rape victims some control over their lives is good.

  by irishwitch on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:05:52 PM PDT