Catholic Church Cracks Down!

Sorry, I am bad at communicating (heh). I was trying to go for a "holy shit, how senile does a priest have to be that they actually took his responsibilities away?" kind of thing.

Hey! Guess what! The Catholic Church protected child molesters.

To be fair to Cardinal Mahony, his memos were full of compassion and understanding. For the child rapists.

It's like they are actually worshiping The Church instead of God.

In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people

But legally the unborn aren't people - so unless you're arguing that only pro-life people should be legally responsible if they harm a fetus, I don't really see a problem.

It's more of the spectacle of the hospital burying the hypocrisy needle when it becomes convenient, than a problem.

No one is disputing the law. What I, personally, object to is the willful disregard for integrity in terms of how they are adhering to their own views. It's a person to the protesters outside, but not when we're in a courtroom?

If you want to argue that they are hiding behind a legal definition, I won't argue with you. But when it is directly the opposite of your stated views, that is shameful.

He knew that when he made the post. Obviously the logical inconsistency here isn't with pro-abortion or anti-abortion people per se, but rather within an institution that adopts legal stances which contradict its moral stances. Especially when those moral stances are a key axis of conservative/traditional Catholic political advocacy, as seen most recently in the bullshit furor over Obamacare "violating" religious rights. But again, he knew that before he started digging his rhetorical punji pit.

I seriously doubt the malpractice insurer for the hospital has strong and publically stated religious beliefs (but feel free to cite if I'm wrong).

Apples and oranges - that was a political push to clarify a law just being enacted, and if they'd lost they'd be on the hook to provide those services anyway. The issue of "are the unborn people" is long resolved, and the progressive side won - this legal position is just a natural consequence of that - in my eyes this is just a case of society making its proverbial bed and lying in it.

*yawns, stretches*

Actually legally they are in most states, if you murder a pregnant woman you can get an additional charge for killing the unborn child.

In that state they explicitly are not.

You're conveniently sidestepping the fact that the legal issue isn't what is bothering people here. The rest of us aren't as willing to handwave the other sides position as "just political."

You didn't even read the article right?
In any event what you're pointing out now is that the Church will stick to their priciples and fight the United States government tooth and nail but not an insurance company.

You mean the one where they quote a thrid party law firm, yes. Unless you're somehow suggesting that a network of 70+ hospitals would NOT have malpractice insurance up the wazoo, you're just making noise here.

You used the same rhetorical technique twice on one page.

If opponent does not make absurd and irrelevant assertion, empty dismissal.

Espadero v. Feld 649 F.Supp 1480 decided in 1986 interprets the Colorado wrongful death statute in a manner so as not to reward tortfeasors for inflicting greater injuries and with the goal of protecting life. The wrongful death claim of a decedent survives and passes to family members in certain circumstances and it would be anathema to an orderly society to allow a tortfeasor who inflicts injury great enough to kill a viable fetus in the womb to pay less than an individual who inflicts a lesser injury that nevertheless results in the death of the fetus but only after a delivery.


http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...1931.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

Their own lawyers. Representing them. Who have represented them in the past. In this type of issue. On the opposite side.

I crossed out the part of your post that's dumb and pointless. You're welcome.

Boomberg self-insures, as does Johns Hopkins. Do you know nothing about this field and yet you're pontificating about it? Funny.

Did he run off just like brett? The odds of him being a brettpuppet are now 90%

There's no way he's Brett. For one thing, he uses commas.

I think one of the first things he posted was "If I'm conservative, will I get banned here?" or something like that. He's not a brett puppet, although they do tend to agree on a lot of things.

And yet twice now in this case judges have accepted the "it's not a person" defense.... They probably don't have access to google.

Outside of an explicitly delineated liberal subset, Catholic institutions as a whole had no problem blurring the distinction between their insurance and their moral values with respect to Obamacare and women's health.

It was a political push to characterize the law itself as discriminatory against people and organizations that are pro-life or otherwise against various women's health aspects for "religious" reasons. Thus, that same logic continues to apply to them as a body of organizations linked by the one true church when they try to work their way out of their responsibilities with legal maneuvers that are clearly incompatible with their attested moral stances, regardless of what you think of the case per se.

But again, you knew that when you posted your initial salvo, agog with wide-eyed wonder at just what on earth people were finding noteworthy about this case.

Everyone new is old.

Aesop Rock, 9-5er's Anthem. Great track.