Speakeasy forum: Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person

legal manuevering.

It's not unheard of if you sue and lose the other side winning reimbursement cost in defending the case.

Never be surprise at a legal argument. They have nothing do with logic, reason, morals, or convictions. Whatever works, it's the lawyers job to win for his client, whatever it takes that is barely legal.

which bothers the most. Was CIH involved in the counter suit? Or was it just the doctor and his lawyer? If CIH, what happened to turning the other cheek?

If I were the Bishops. I'd issue a statement clearly defining the difference between state law under which a case had to be answered, and a statement of what the Catholic church believed in contrary to those state laws. I'd apologize for the situation that developed from it and set up a college fund for the daughter.

Other websites the main issues was there was supose to be a full time obstetrician at the hospital but there was none. It did not say why they where not there, sick or what.

One can go with out oxygen for 5-8 minutes with out brain damage, more if the body is cold, chest compressions and forced air is what should have been done until a emergency consultation with the head pyhsicians and family done, then go from there. It is not much different then keeping a body alive for organ transplant.


Every one should questions there doctors in an emergency, they like to act like they know it all but do not. If you think sometching is off question it right there do not wait, ask for a 2nd option if warranted.

in 'my' day it was always referred to as the PICU (pronounced pickyou) for Prenatal Intensive Care Unit. Add that to YOUR knowledge base since you could have found it easily, the same way I just did in order to recheck my information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pediatric_intensive_care_unit

It's getting really tiresome with you always trying to 'correct' me, Rob........

It is OK for a Catholic school to protest in a court case that religious morality forbids it from funding employee health insurance plans that cover birth control because a sperm and an egg have the potential to become a person.

Next...

It is OK for a Catholic hospital to then throw their religious morality away to win a court case by claiming that a fetus is not a person until it is born.

So much for consistency in religious morality. Hopefully though, this will become a precedent used in future court cases where the church wants to claim that a sperm and an egg are people before conception even occurs.

I foresee pharmacists who want to withhold the morning after pill from their customers, damning the lawyers who came up with this strategy and the church which stood aside and let the lawyers win at any cost.

The actual words would be helpful but the title is misleading, Grim. It does not appear that the lawyers argued that the unborn weren't humans but that they cited state law to that effect. Do we know if the plaintiff and his lawyers were arguing for their human rights? I'd also wonder what would happen should the court agree that they are human and allow some reward. That would smack right in the face of the state law and probably bring more controversy than what the media is already trying to make out of it. The other thing not stated is how the wrongful death suit on behalf of the mother was resolved. If it was rejected, the rest of this is moot. It would have needed to be determined that the hospital was somehow negligent and had caused her death or that some accepted procedure was not done that would have saved her life. Again...no details offered in that article. It appears to be simply a jab at the Catholic Church. The church wasn't involved and this organization isn't an extension of it. If anything, it would appear that the hospital's lawyer's pointed out a case that caused legal difficulties in the event of fetal death even if errors occurred.

and I doubt I could explain it to you satisfactorily but here's a little to get you started. Basically, the Catholic Church hierarchy exists partially as a protection entity. It's to protect the original scriptures, apostolic writings and teachings from being altered, misused, abused, improperly translated, etc., etc. The church does not establish various orders of clergy, laity or organizations which claim to adhere to Catholic Church principles. The church hierarchy will "police" those organizations that spring up claiming to be "Catholic", however. Many organizations will go to the higher church to request approval to do work under the banner of following certain principles. They main advantage in gaining church approval is in fundraising ability. If the Catholic Church finds an organization to be faulty in it's work or principles, it will not support their efforts to remain in existence as being "Catholic". The Catholic church is known for many ministries including those to the sick. "Catholic" hospitals spread throughout Europe and the US during the same time the church was growing. These were not built by Rome. They were built largely by orders of sisters and nuns who were self sustaining and had won approval of the church higher ups to serve in their specific ministry.

As for the organization noted in the article, I looked them up and read their history. They followed a similar path. They were not church established but would fall under the same "policing" of the Catholic church by claiming to be formed from and to follow Catholic teaching. That's, in a nutshell, how such organizations happen.

Did the "Catholic hospital argue (sic) that a fetus is not a person"?

Until that statement can be validated, there's no sense in arguing or speculating any further.

Give me your answer to my question, please.

The (sic) means a noted spelling or grammar mistake. I'm suggestion there is a missing "s" in the word "argue". The title appears to be a front end truncating of the article's title so I won't entirely fault the person who presented it.

I've no argument as to the hospital's desire to associate itself with Catholic Church principles and adhere to them.

Will you answer my question now? Is the OP statement absolutely correct? Did the lawyers argue, based on CHI (Catholic) principles that the unborn were not humans.

Did the lawyers argue, based on CHI (Catholic) principles that the unborn were not humans.


In its defense, counsel for the hospital said that under Colorado law, a fetus is not a person


They argued under Colorado law....So when the Catholic Hospitals don't want to perform abortions, they use Catholic principles. And when a fetus dies in their care...they use Colorado law.

As Toni would say....How Convenient.

.....is a separate argument. This thread is about the fact that the hospital is arguing that the fetuses were not human beings, so this Catholic hospital is hiding behind a law that it supposedly disagrees with, because it's in their financial interest.

How very holy of them.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22453170/ca-ntilde-city-man-suing-catholic-hospital-reacts

Because of continuing litigation, there will be some things with some people that cannot be discussed. You'll see here that, according to the link, the argument was that state law could not allow the judgement for the plaintiff. The judge or jury couldn't have done so even if not a word was said. That bishops are reviewing the case is SOP. They won't have heard the arguments and may not have access to the transcripts. All they'd be able to look into is whether or not the lawyers claimed to represent the church in any remark about humanness or lack of it on the part of the unborn. It may well have been...and this is just speculation...that such a statement could be made simply to indicate that it was the state's own law that shut the door on the plaintiff.

In reality, it could be good for the Catholic Church if later proceedings reverse the decision and say the fetuses were indeed human beings. Wouldn't that just kill ya?

.....the premise for their opposition to the birth control portions of the ACA?