Nun Excommunicated After Saving a Mother's Life With Abortion

[Zeno Swijtink]

Nun Excommunicated After Saving a Mother's Life With Abortion
Church Stands by Decision to Kick Out Sister Margaret McBride After She Authorized an Emergency Abortion to Save a Woman's Life
DAN HARRIS and CLAUDIA MORALES - ABC World News

Sister Margaret McBride was forced to make a decision between her faith and a woman's life last year, when a 27-year-old mother of four rushed into St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix only 11 weeks pregnant.


Sister Margaret McBride, a nun and administrator at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, has been reassigned and rebuked by the local bishop for agreeing that a severely ill woman needed an abortion to survive.

"I think [McBride] prayed and prayed and I'm sure that this weighed on her like a ton of bricks. This was not an easy decision for her," says her long-time friend Mary Jo Macdonald.

As a key member of the hospital's ethics board, McBride gathered with doctors in November of 2009 to discuss the young woman's fate.

The mother was suffering from pulmonary hypertension, an illness the doctors believed would likely kill her and, as a result, her unborn child, if she did not abort the pregnancy.

In the end, McBride chose to save the young woman's life by agreeing to authorize an emergency abortion, a decision that has now forced her out of a job and the Catholic Church.

Despite being described as "saintly," "courageous," and the "moral conscience" of the Catholic hospital, McBride was excommunicated from the Catholic Church by Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted for supporting the abortion.

"An unborn child is not a disease ... the end does not justify the means," Olmsted said in a statment issued to a the Arizona Republic newspaper this past May.

Hospital officials defended McBride's actions and released a statement saying, "In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy."

Although many medical ethicists say it was the right decision, the hospital confirmed McBride has been removed from her position as senior administrator and reassigned.

Critics are arguing McBride's punishment is a double standard. Many are pointing out that it has often taken years for priests who sexually abuse children to be even reprimanded, let alone excommunicated.

"It's very disturbing to me to see how the pedophiles cases have been handled and yet how fast the bishop came out and excommunicated Sister Margaret McBride," her friend saidd.

Many experts in canon law, the Catholic legal system, say McBride's decision is admissible.

"All the bishop focused on was the abortion, not on the other circumstances -- included that the mother was almost certainly going to die," canon lawyer Father Thomas Doyle.

But right now only the Phoenix Diocese ruling stands and she is no longer a member of the Catholic Church.

For a devout woman who spent years dedicated to her religion, serving the poor, the sick and the needy, McBride is paying the ultimate sacrifice for her decision to help another life; she is no longer allowed to receive the sacraments.

[LenInSebastopol]

No one on this board gives a rip about this issue.
Why post it?
It does reveal how nasty, unfair, mean spirited the Catholic Church is. Is that why it's posted?
Of course, she did violate the rule of assisting in the taking of a life, and it is not as if she did not already know, but possibly there is sympathy gained in the publishing/posting of this article? I mean the very organizations that supported the point of view in which she reveled in, and now violated, should understand her personal issues regarding this and give her back the former position? Do you realize how absurd that is?
How about the headline, "Nun Excommunicated for Killing Innocent Pre-Born Child"....but of course that would only make certain folks salivate, while most would recoil in appropriate horror; however it would sell more soap for the ink stands, but what is the reason for posting? as I gather you make no money from such.

[Valley Oak]

I'll express my concise opinion on this. Part of my view reflects somewhat what you have already said but...
I agree with the nun's actions and I disagree with the church's actions.
But what can you expect from the Catholic Church? And I agree with your observation that the nun 'reveled' in the church's policies all her life and now she suddenly becomes a heroin. But certainly not in the eyes of the church and MANY of its adherents. I wonder how many of the nuns who worked with her and knew her personally, support her or her actions. After all, if they are good, loyal nuns then they should ostracize her just the same as the church hierarchy has.

I'm an atheist so I could care less what the Catholic Church or any other church does as long as they don't interfere with other people's freedoms and lives. But the church does interfere with the public's lives and liberties, of course, and I won't give examples in order to avoid getting my post censored. We all know a few specific situations where the church's intolerance and bigotry is illustrated just as strongly as it is in this nun's case.

I strongly support a woman's right to choose an abortion freely and to have easy access to abortion, paid for by the state, without conditions other than calling a medical facility to make an appointment tomorrow morning for the procedure.

As far as the relationship between religion and abortion are concerned, well, I think the events speak for themselves.

No one on this board gives a rip about this issue.
Why post it?
It does reveal how nasty, unfair, mean spirited the Catholic Church is. Is that why it's posted?
Of course, she did violate the rule of assisting in the taking of a life, and it is not as if she did not already know, but possibly there is sympathy gained in the publishing/posting of this article? I mean the very organizations that supported the point of view in which she reveled in, and now violated, should understand her personal issues regarding this and give her back the former position? Do you realize how absurd that is?
How about the headline, "Nun Excommunicated for Killing Innocent Pre-Born Child"....but of course that would only make certain folks salivate, while most would recoil in appropriate horror; however it would sell more soap for the ink stands, but what is the reason for posting? as I gather you make no money from such.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Sister McBride had to choose, as a member of the hospital's ethics board, between the likely death of a woman plus her fetus and the certain death of the fetus, then 11-weeks old.

I was surprised that, apparently, canon law requires one to choose for the likely death of the mother plus the unborn fetus, rather then saving the mother and sacrificing the fetus.

Somebody on this list may be able to explain this. That is interesting to me about this case. But I am sure others can find other details that are interesting.

No one on this board gives a rip about this issue.
Why post it?
It does reveal how nasty, unfair, mean spirited the Catholic Church is. Is that why it's posted?
Of course, she did violate the rule of assisting in the taking of a life, and it is not as if she did not already know, but possibly there is sympathy gained in the publishing/posting of this article? I mean the very organizations that supported the point of view in which she reveled in, and now violated, should understand her personal issues regarding this and give her back the former position? Do you realize how absurd that is?
How about the headline, "Nun Excommunicated for Killing Innocent Pre-Born Child"....but of course that would only make certain folks salivate, while most would recoil in appropriate horror; however it would sell more soap for the ink stands, but what is the reason for posting? as I gather you make no money from such.

[LenInSebastopol]

I'll express my concise opinion on this. Part of my view reflects somewhat what you have already said but...I agree with the nun's actions and I disagree with the church's actions.

OK.
As you know, it is not a democracy. There is a right and wrong, and it's not up for how any individual may find differently.

But what can you expect from the Catholic Church?

I don't know. What did you expect?
I expected them to stand up for what they did.
We both agree, again.

And I agree with your observation that the nun 'reveled' in the church's policies all her life and now she suddenly becomes a heroin. But certainly not in the eyes of the church and MANY of its adherents. I wonder how many of the nuns who worked with her and knew her personally, support her or her actions. After all, if they are good, loyal nuns then they should ostracize her just the same as the church hierarchy has.

Do you expect her friends colleagues will stop talking with her? No, if anything they will gabble more like chickens in a hen house after a scare!
She's not "ostracized", she's excommunicated so I gather there was some bad experiences in those that think they're the same.

I'm an atheist so I could care less what the Catholic Church or any other church does as long as they don't interfere with other people's freedoms and lives. But the church does interfere with the public's lives and liberties, of course, and I won't give examples in order to avoid getting my post censored. We all know a few specific situations where the church's intolerance and bigotry is illustrated just as strongly as it is in this nun's case.

Er, um. How may I say this with out inflammatory concerns. The public square is simply a place where all may express their issues. You may infer their derivation for a position is religious and it well could be, however that does not negate the public position of those that hold views contrary to what you think 'the greater good' may be. Your characterization of "interfering" with "public lives and liberty" may also be characterized in the pejorative, but it does no good, with the exception of you and your feelings, which are valid but add nothing but negativity to the public discussion. Your being an atheist, or any religious/non-religious bent has nothing to do with this does it? I find ironic that the cannon that addresses the issue of abortion is under Human Life & Liberty and your concerned using the same language.

I strongly support a woman's right to choose an abortion freely and to have easy access to abortion, paid for by the state, without conditions other than calling a medical facility to make an appointment tomorrow morning for the procedure.

Of course I can understand any male dismissing the issue as "a woman's right" and I can agree up to a point, but it is used mostly as a dismissive issue by us men. On a biological and all to often a social level, we males have got no horse in this race. And we convince women, again all so often, that there is a "right to their body" (usually as we use it in all kinds of ways for our own gratification as well) but I find in ironic that women usually bear the burden of preventing pregnancy. If we had to take pills that would mess with our hormones I wonder how easy that would roll off.

As far as the relationship between religion and abortion are concerned, well, I think the events speak for themselves.

Yeah, the single sentence Catholic Cannon 1398, regarding abortion is rather clear.
The obvious problem of the state killing potential tax payers, I find curious as that is not in the state's own interest but rather succumbing to a political move.
I mean 40 million more tax payers could help the mess we find ourselves in. On a moral level, think of killing 40 million folks.....we would call that.......

[LenInSebastopol]

Sister McBride had to choose, as a member of the hospital's ethics board, between the likely death of a woman plus her fetus and the certain death of the fetus, then 11-weeks old.
I was surprised that, apparently, canon law requires one to choose for the likely death of the mother plus the unborn fetus, rather then saving the mother and sacrificing the fetus. Somebody on this list may be able to explain this. That is interesting to me about this case. But I am sure others can find other details that are interesting.

I certainly cannot explain to anyone's satisfaction regarding how the church thinks such is the way. Probably has much to do with an afterlife, the suffering here on Earth by everyone involved no matter what the outcome and the sacrifice involved. Sacrifice is a bit different for the religious than the secular. And there's not the time nor inclination to go there. One may find it rather Darwinian, the church's position or outcome, but that's another matter.

[Valley Oak]

Lenin, you shouldn't be so mealymouthed. But I'll do the math for you:

1. You are Catholic.
2. You are against abortion.
3. You agree with having the poor nun excommunicated.

Simple. Just be honest and straightforward and stop beating around the bush. Have some pride in what you believe in. Don't be ashamed.

OK.
As you know, it is not a democracy. There is a right and wrong, and it's not up for how any individual may find differently.

I don't know. What did you expect?
I expected them to stand up for what they did.
We both agree, again.

Do you expect her friends colleagues will stop talking with her? No, if anything they will gabble more like chickens in a hen house after a scare!
She's not "ostracized", she's excommunicated so I gather there was some bad experiences in those that think they're the same.

Er, um. How may I say this with out inflammatory concerns. The public square is simply a place where all may express their issues. You may infer their derivation for a position is religious and it well could be, however that does not negate the public position of those that hold views contrary to what you think 'the greater good' may be. Your characterization of "interfering" with "public lives and liberty" may also be characterized in the pejorative, but it does no good, with the exception of you and your feelings, which are valid but add nothing but negativity to the public discussion. Your being an atheist, or any religious/non-religious bent has nothing to do with this does it? I find ironic that the cannon that addresses the issue of abortion is under Human Life & Liberty and your concerned using the same language.

Of course I can understand any male dismissing the issue as "a woman's right" and I can agree up to a point, but it is used mostly as a dismissive issue by us men. On a biological and all to often a social level, we males have got no horse in this race. And we convince women, again all so often, that there is a "right to their body" (usually as we use it in all kinds of ways for our own gratification as well) but I find in ironic that women usually bear the burden of preventing pregnancy. If we had to take pills that would mess with our hormones I wonder how easy that would roll off.

Yeah, the single sentence Catholic Cannon 1398, regarding abortion is rather clear.
The obvious problem of the state killing potential tax payers, I find curious as that is not in the state's own interest but rather succumbing to a political move.
I mean 40 million more tax payers could help the mess we find ourselves in. On a moral level, think of killing 40 million folks.....we would call that.......

[Zeno Swijtink]

Now YOU have completely lost ME!! Bravo!

I certainly cannot explain to anyone's satisfaction regarding how the church thinks such is the way. Probably has much to do with an afterlife, the suffering here on Earth by everyone involved no matter what the outcome and the sacrifice involved. Sacrifice is a bit different for the religious than the secular. And there's not the time nor inclination to go there. One may find it rather Darwinian, the church's position or outcome, but that's another matter.

[LenInSebastopol]

Lenin, you shouldn't be so mealymouthed. But I'll do the math for you:
1. You are Catholic.
2. You are against abortion.
3. You agree with having the poor nun excommunicated.
Simple. Just be honest and straightforward and stop beating around the bush. Have some pride in what you believe in. Don't be ashamed.

1. No
2. Yes
3. Don't care.
Being honest, straightforward & simple while not 'beating around' anything. She's not 'another poor nun' but a person who violated her rule and now receives the consequences of her freely chosen actions. And that is newsworthy because.......?
Oh, and the pride thingy is just foolishness, but there is no shame in the game, is there? I didn't think so either.

[LenInSebastopol]

Now YOU have completely lost ME!! Bravo!

Thank you, Professor!

[Valley Oak]

So in your opinion, the nun has no merit in saving the mother's life?

What would have you done in the nun's place?

Care to answer these questions or are they too tough?

1. No
2. Yes
3. Don't care.
Being honest, straightforward & simple while not 'beating around' anything. She's not 'another poor nun' but a person who violated her rule and now receives the consequences of her freely chosen actions. And that is newsworthy because.......?
Oh, and the pride thingy is just foolishness, but there is no shame in the game, is there? I didn't think so either.

[LenInSebastopol]

If I were in the nun's place I would have done a different thing. She made a promise, a vow, a pledge, gave her word to her God and to Life itself....and then she reneged, tore it up, went against everything she had dedicated her life towards. What good is it? or what good came from it? It was a sorrowful event no matter what the choice and outcome, and now she has betrayed and lost everything for which she lived.
Yes, the questions are too tough, but the answers are even tougher in which to live.
As for my opinion it is not important nor have any meaning here. What good is it or what may one derive from an opinion?
As for 'merit'....I've no idea to what you refer. That is the most interesting question you ask.....do I give merit, how does one earn merit, what the heck is merit; that question sounds like folks have some interaction with each other based on 'merit'. If one seeks approval in others eyes, then one works in vain. Especially in a religious community.

So in your opinion, the nun has no merit in saving the mother's life?
What would have you done in the nun's place?
Care to answer these questions or are they too tough?

[podfish]

far be it from me to put words in Len's mouth, but the Catholic (and other religious traditions) have it that the "afterlife" is essentially the 'real' life you will have. The temporal world and its sufferings pale in significance - so ethics based on limiting suffering and avoiding death are by no means the highest ones.

Now YOU have completely lost ME!! Bravo!

[LenInSebastopol]

far be it from me to put words in Len's mouth, but the Catholic (and other religious traditions) have it that the "afterlife" is essentially the 'real' life you will have. The temporal world and its sufferings pale in significance - so ethics based on limiting suffering and avoiding death are by no means the highest ones.

Thanks PF, you hit a home run!
It was probably my poor writing skills and my lack of time for elucidation that stumped the prof. They are used to reading long tomes of detailed minutia, but I think you put it succinctly and with an excellent amount of accuracy.
For a second I thought the prof wanted the long reasoning behind the church's law, and I wasn't about to do that. Still am'nt (should be a word!). The Darwin reference stands on its own.

[Bryan]

When we have emergency rooms controlled by Catholic church dogma, I do care. Emergency services are paid mostly by our own insurance dollars - or by government medicare and other health dollars. So its critical to save people's lives with that money - and not have religious 'leaders' like this Phoenix priest act like they KNOW how to treat the sick woman. Its horrible to have an abortion - but that when it is medically necessary, people like this nun should not have to worry about losing their JOBS by doing this procedure.

[LenInSebastopol]

When we have emergency rooms controlled by Catholic church dogma, I do care. Emergency services are paid mostly by our own insurance dollars - or by government medicare and other health dollars. So its critical to save people's lives with that money - and not have religious 'leaders' like this Phoenix priest act like they KNOW how to treat the sick woman. Its horrible to have an abortion - but that when it is medically necessary, people like this nun should not have to worry about losing their JOBS by doing this procedure.

You speak as if none care, or do you wish it to be just Catholics that don't?
It is not the caring issue that is at hand although the article is dressed that way. And! of course everyone cares!
You then make a leap that if is about the insurance money; if that is it then to save a ton of it, let them both perish. To be truly utilitarian and consider the money, then that is the best way in every measure of the word.
That nun was paid in her job to make decisions based on her employers criteria and violated it. If you are hired to someone, gave them the rule book and they violated a real serious rule, I suppose you would keep them on, eh?
What could also be bothersome is that gov't dollars will eventually control what medical procedures go on in all hospitals that have such ethics. Yes, many here don't agree with those set of ethics, and that is respected, but it won't be too long when your principles will be violated by an individual going against hospital polices where you may be receiving treatment.

[Zeno Swijtink]

That nun was paid in her job to make decisions based on her employers criteria and violated it. If you are hired to someone, gave them the rule book and they violated a real serious rule, I suppose you would keep them on, eh?

You seem to live in a simple moral universe. A universe where you take the "rule book," - either your own or that of an employer you have yourself hired by - and apply it straightforwardly to the case at hand. The rule book always identifies the one thing that you are obliged to do while all the other possibilities are contrary to duty.

This is a universe where a genuine moral dilemma is not possible since the rule book always tells you what you need to do.

Bill Moyers Journal . Archive . Martha Nussbaum (1990) | PBS

I think for many people moral dilemmas frequently do arise, situations where no matter what you do you regret not having been able to go the other way. Situations where every decision is burdened by regret.

This nun choose for better or worse to save the mother, rather then see the likelihood of both mother and fetus die.

For her this situation was not just a case where she sold her labor to a capitalist and agreed to act according to the rule book of owner of capital.

She conceived of this work as being part of a community of Christian care, where the ultimate conversation we have about the way we lived our live is when we meet our Maker.

[LenInSebastopol]

Thanks for the cite. She is right: Tragedy come when one IS trying to live well. And those situations are what bring us to being human. People do try to live 'the good life' which is not simply pleasure, but the moral life. That is what the nun swore towards and betrayed. It was eaiser on her to 'give in'.
I suppose it may be characterized by you to be a 'simple moral universe, but in attempting to live a moral life, the professor is right: it is not. All around to people live to their own satisfaction and ignore the difficult moral life.
Martha Neusbaum winds up agreeing me, as I see it.
I gather you don't.
When we do make moral decisions we may live with regret, as I am sure the nun has, and would have no matter what alternative choices she could have made as a free will agent, and what makes us adult human beings are those difficult choices.
The choice of language was poor on my part, as I see your twist of it is ruinous to clarification. What we have a duty to do is not in a rule book handed to us by a "capitalist" employer, but rather what is written beyond that.
In re-reading your retort, it seems to me we really agree and simply have a different set of bases from which we launch our outlook.

You seem to live in a simple moral universe. A universe where you take the "rule book," - either your own or that of an employer you have yourself hired by - and apply it straightforwardly to the case at hand. The rule book always identifies the one thing that you are obliged to do while all the other possibilities are contrary to duty. This is a universe where a genuine moral dilemma is not possible since the rule book always tells you what you need to do.

Bill Moyers Journal . Archive . Martha Nussbaum (1990) | PBS

I think for many people moral dilemmas frequently do arise, situations where no matter what you do you regret not having been able to go the other way. Situations where every decision is burdened by regret. This nun choose for better or worse to save the mother, rather then see the likelihood of both mother and fetus die.
For her this situation was not just a case where she sold her labor to a capitalist and agreed to act according to the rule book of owner of capital. She conceived of this work as being part of a community of Christian care, where the ultimate conversation we have about the way we lived our live is when we meet our Maker.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Thanks for the cite. She is right: Tragedy come when one IS trying to live well. And those situations are what bring us to being human. People do try to live 'the good life' which is not simply pleasure, but the moral life. That is what the nun swore towards and betrayed. It was eaiser on her to 'give in'.

If you reread the article you see that the nun struggled to make a decision. She did not "give in." For her to give in would have been to resign from the hospital's ethics committee. She faced her dilemma and made her decision.

According to another expert in canon law cited in the article her decision is admissible and not counter to Catholic Law.

In a dilemma there are a number of possible decisions, all admissible, all painful.

BTW, our conversation seems to belie that no one on this board gives a rip about this issue.

[Valley Oak]

I completely disagree with you.

That said, the nun clearly did the right thing and I would have done exactly the same in her place.

Furthermore, it took great courage for the nun to risk everything, including excommunication, by standing up to the church hierarchy, and other small minded, religious fanatics who are against abortion.

Women have a legal and moral right to have an abortion whether you and your ilk like it or not. Most Americans, such as myself, support and defend this fundamental right against people like you and the Catholic Church.

If I were in the nun's place I would have done a different thing. She made a promise, a vow, a pledge, gave her word to her God and to Life itself....and then she reneged, tore it up, went against everything she had dedicated her life towards. What good is it? or what good came from it? It was a sorrowful event no matter what the choice and outcome, and now she has betrayed and lost everything for which she lived.
Yes, the questions are too tough, but the answers are even tougher in which to live.
As for my opinion it is not important nor have any meaning here. What good is it or what may one derive from an opinion?
As for 'merit'....I've no idea to what you refer. That is the most interesting question you ask.....do I give merit, how does one earn merit, what the heck is merit; that question sounds like folks have some interaction with each other based on 'merit'. If one seeks approval in others eyes, then one works in vain. Especially in a religious community.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I completely disagree with you.

That said, the nun clearly did the right thing and I would have done exactly the same in her place.

The nun and you see things differently.

For you there is apparently no dilemma, no moral struggle.

The nun struggled with this decision, according to the article, not because she needed to overcome a fear to stand up "to the church hierarchy, and other small minded, religious fanatics who are against abortion," but because she is herself against abortion, that's why she struggled.

She had to choose between two bads.

So, although she came to the same decision you would have made, in an important sense you and she would not have done exactly the same thing.

For you a snap. For her a wrenching dilemma.

[LenInSebastopol]

If you reread the article you see that the nun struggled to make a decision. She did not "give in." For her to give in would have been to resign from the hospital's ethics committee. She faced her dilemma and made her decision.

I am now sure she struggled with her decision, knowing right from wrong and choosing against the position she knew to be counter to the teachings she had supported up until that time.

According to another expert in canon law cited in the article her decision is admissible and not counter to Catholic Law. In a dilemma there are a number of possible decisions, all admissible, all painful.

As with all law, the various interpretations may go on ad nauseam, however in the main her bishop made the decision and you can trust it will be held on appeal. I believe that church is clear on the issue. She's not the first and unless new material is introduced for new reasoning, she will remain in that state. I know there are Jesuit lawyers always dancing on a pin head.

BTW, our conversation seems to belie that no one on this board gives a rip about this issue.

Obviously and thankfully wrong. What is also surprising is that it is from males!

[Bryan]

@Lenin - your lack of credibilty is showing.
First YOU stated no one on this board gave a 'rip' about this issue.
That's false.
Then you later state, "of course, everyone cares." What is your problem?

Next, I am stating a fact - we are all paying this hospital through its emergency room. That is a fact. We all have contracts with our insurance companies and under state law to require hospitals to provide necessary medical treatments to save lives. If the hospital has a policy that fires people who decide to save a life (by causing an abortion), that hospital has failed to follow state law. This is NOT a private hospital that can do what it wants since it takes no money from the public. If it has an emergency room, it is required to save lives at any and all means necessary. And WE the general public are providing the funds to that hospital to stay open.
The hospital decided to open its doors and create its policies, which clearly conflict with state law.

If the hospital then fires staff members for following required state law, I propose that hospital no longer is entitled to the business coming through the emergency room and should lose that license to practice medicine because of its actions in this case.
It has nothing to do about saving money - @Lenin you seem to misread most replies - it has everything to do with who REALLY is paying for this hospital to be open. Our insurance companies. They should also be pulling the plug on the hospital's contract for failing to ensure proper medical care. When the hospital fires someone, that creates an environment where medical decisions can not be made by the proper people.

The idea that the hospital is Catholic is inherently absurd - it may be owned by the church but it must follow state laws. Or maybe it can just close its doors instead since it doesn't want to follow all of the state laws but still wants the public's money.

You speak as if none care, or do you wish it to be just Catholics that don't?
It is not the caring issue that is at hand although the article is dressed that way. And! of course everyone cares!
You then make a leap that if is about the insurance money; if that is it then to save a ton of it, let them both perish. To be truly utilitarian and consider the money, then that is the best way in every measure of the word.
That nun was paid in her job to make decisions based on her employers criteria and violated it. If you are hired to someone, gave them the rule book and they violated a real serious rule, I suppose you would keep them on, eh?
What could also be bothersome is that gov't dollars will eventually control what medical procedures go on in all hospitals that have such ethics. Yes, many here don't agree with those set of ethics, and that is respected, but it won't be too long when your principles will be violated by an individual going against hospital polices where you may be receiving treatment.

[LenInSebastopol]

I completely disagree with you. That said, the nun clearly did the right thing and I would have done exactly the same in her place.

Well, OK, we disagree.
And you would have done the same thing.
You're losing me.

Furthermore, it took great courage for the nun to risk everything, including excommunication, by standing up to the church hierarchy, and other small minded, religious fanatics who are against abortion.

You make two points in the above; yes, it took courage in one view and you see that clearly, but cowardice in another since the decision to go against her teachings and what she held forth is more acceptable to a greater majority of people in her surroundings. IMO it would have taken greater courage to allow both to die if medical intervention failed. I gather you do not see it that way.

Women have a legal and moral right to have an abortion whether you and your ilk like it or not. Most Americans, such as myself, support and defend this fundamental right against people like you and the Catholic Church.

Women do have the legal right to have an abortion, obviously, and I doubt if I would change that law if I could.
They do not have a moral right to do so. Furthermore the state does not have any "right" to pay for killing potential tax payers and citizens. That is completely contrary to the states own interests. The state is simply responding to a small political group for appeasement in so doing.
I suppose if one were to cut off their arm because they wanted to, or to kill a baby a month after birth, some argue it is their right. It is not.
Most Americans do not find abortion to be 'acceptable', but want it legal. Of course, as a liberal, I would desire proper education for boys and girls (as well as men and women) and there would be far fewer abortions with the goal of approaching zero.
It is clear that your characterization of 'fanatic' and 'your ilk' holds some ideation for you however it does nothing for your ideas but simply obscures your reasoning. Can't you just discuss without being so dramatic? I really do understand passion quite well, but chill, dude.

[LenInSebastopol]

@Lenin - your lack of credibilty is showing. First YOU stated no one on this board gave a 'rip' about this issue. That's false.Then you later state, "of course, everyone cares." What is your problem?/

You made it clear; the problem is my poor writing skills.
Also I really did think none on this board cared about a nun being excommunicated, further thinking that abortion is a done deal around Wacco-Ville. My bad! However it appears abortion IS a done deal in that none have assisted in my position, but then I realize it is Wacco-ville.

Next, I am stating a fact - we are all paying this hospital through its emergency room. That is a fact. We all have contracts with our insurance companies and under state law to require hospitals to provide necessary medical treatments to save lives. If the hospital has a policy that fires people who decide to save a life (by causing an abortion), that hospital has failed to follow state law. This is NOT a private hospital that can do what it wants since it takes no money from the public. If it has an emergency room, it is required to save lives at any and all means necessary. And WE the general public are providing the funds to that hospital to stay open. The hospital decided to open its doors and create its policies, which clearly conflict with state law.

Well, you bested me here. I am not familiar with state laws of Arizona, nor anywhere else, nor contractual laws involving such. I once knew a couple of hospital administrators, and they had continuous headaches.....does that count?
Your point, if I understand it, is not clear to me.
If the above means that a hospital can not fire an employee for following the state law, as oppose to the hospital's policies, when there is a conflict, then all hospitals work for the gov't, and policy that conflicts with gov't regulations is, and should be, illegal. Wait, I am getting lost in your point.
She was an ethicist, she made a decision, she was not a medical person taking money from the gov't with a mandate to follow the law, ergo she violated hospital policy and was fired. How can you make it more difficult than that?
I understand with Obama Care coming any hospital that is named St. Joseph and does take federal monies, then it may well be the case that all medical individuals must assist in the performance of abortions, and soon to be 'mercy killings'. I hear some say 'no' while others indicate the opposite. I am confident that within 20 years it will be in front of the Supremes.

If the hospital then fires staff members for following required state law, I propose that hospital no longer is entitled to the business coming through the emergency room and should lose that license to practice medicine because of its actions in this case.

I don't believe the hospital was closed by the gov't for failing to follow state laws. If that is the case I would like to know about that. While your reasoning is sound, the width of your argument is to far to hold merit. Unless the hospital was closed due to this issue. Then I concede. But I think not.

It has nothing to do about saving money - @Lenin you seem to misread most replies - it has everything to do with who REALLY is paying for this hospital to be open. Our insurance companies. They should also be pulling the plug on the hospital's contract for failing to ensure proper medical care. When the hospital fires someone, that creates an environment where medical decisions can not be made by the proper people.

And who are 'the proper people'? Those in the know claim many should study such issues to be 'the proper people' and in such matters there need be many voices and not just one.
Or do you want 'the proper people' to be only those that agree with a single POV? Adolph, Uncle Joe and Mao wanted the same thing, don't 'cha know.
Bryan, it you that introduced the notion of insurance, who pays, etc. That is a very American approach to so many problems, and while it is a bit valid in many things, it should have not much to do with the moral issue here. That was all my point in that reply.
But I see a contradiction in the above, as you state 'it has nothing to do about saving money' and then 'it's about who really is paying'.....as you believe someone is paying and you do care about it, let them both die. Much cheaper, no?

The idea that the hospital is Catholic is inherently absurd - it may be owned by the church but it must follow state laws. Or maybe it can just close its doors instead since it doesn't want to follow all of the state laws but still wants the public's money.

The irony makes me laugh. You don't know who founded the first "hospitals", do you?
I was wrong, again, about 'who gives a rip', as it is clear to me now that around here several do, but only to close religious institutions, be they schools, churches, hospitals, etc. What a waste!

[wildheartpatch]

you guys are hilarious!

[LenInSebastopol]

Wow. Somebody's awake! and read through all this drivel?
If this is what makes you laugh..........

you guys are hilarious!