"I know what you're thinking, 'cause right now I'm thinking the same thing. Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here: Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill? "

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Bishops To 'Review' Catholic Hospital Unborn Position

The Colorado Bishops have promised to review Catholic Health Initiatives and the hospital that made the claim that 7 month unborn twins should not constitute persons in their defense against a wrongful death suit. (see full story here)

The Catholic bishops of Colorado learned recently of the deaths of Lori Stodghill and her two unborn children, which took place at St. Thomas More Hospital in CaƱon City, Colo. in 2006. We wish to extend our solidarity and sympathy to Lori’s husband Jeremy, and her daughter, Elizabeth. Please be assured of our ongoing prayers.

From the moment of conception, human beings are endowed with dignity and with fundamental rights, the most foundational of which is life.

Catholics and Catholic institutions have the duty to protect and foster human life, and to witness to the dignity of the human person—particularly to the dignity of the unborn. No Catholic institution may legitimately work to undermine fundamental human dignity.

Catholic Health Initiatives is a Catholic institution which provides health care services in 14 states, providing care to thousands of people annually. Catholic Health Initiatives has been accused by some of undermining the Catholic position on human life in the course of litigation. Today, representatives of Catholic Health Initiatives assured us of their intention to observe the moral and ethical obligations of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic bishops of Colorado are not able to comment on ongoing legal disputes. However, we will undertake a full review of this litigation, and of the policies and practices of Catholic Health Initiatives to ensure fidelity and faithful witness to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I hope the Colorado Bishops give them the hell they deserve

*subhead*Under scrutiny*subhead*

Your Ad Here

5 comments:

Margaret said...

I've seen some suggestions online (I'm not a lawyer so I have no clue how accurate this is) that the hospital would have no say whatsoever in how its defense is mounted, since it's entirely run (and more importantly, PAID FOR) by their liability insurer.

Mary De Voe said...

It would hardly do for the legal staff to build their case on non-existent realities. Posted earlier on this case: The unborn are persons created equal as “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The newly begotten human being is created in sovereign personhood and endowed with unalienable rights to Life by God, and are our posterity. The unborn fetus is not a citizen as citizenship is all that the state can grant, that and a tax bill. For the state laws to argue that the unborn fetus has no sovereign personhood would be to say that the state bestows and regulates sovereign personhood, which it does not. The state is a servant of the sovereign person. The state does not write the laws of nature and nature's God, but must obey them.

KCKim said...

Margaret -- insurance pays the defense team lawyers, but how to run the case is in the hands of the lawyers, who work for the client -- so the hospital, through its management, can dictate whether a certain defense will be run. In the event the legal team ignores the stated intentions of the hospital, then the hospital management could still speak out, both in court and to the press. If the hospital and the legal team both cave in to the insurance company merely indicates that they are wimps.

Kim Poletto said...

KCKim: Wrong! If CHI told it's lawyers not to assert all of the available affirmative defenses the insurance company could pull coverage. The CHI cannot dicate whether cerain defenses will be asserted. In fact, the attorneys, in this case would be under an ethcial duty to withdraw from the case if CHI took that position. The hospital managment could speal out in the press but its position on this issue, is irrelavant in a court of law.

It is not the case of either the CHI or the lawyers "caving in" to the insurance company. I wish people would get a clue before they start running off at the mouth.

Sand Mama said...

This seems like a place where courageous Catholics MUST draw a line in the ever-sifting sand. The hospital (as a Catholic institution) is obligated to uphold that which it knows to be true. If it's defense must be based on an un-truth, that these children had no person-hood, even if this is best defense by law, the institution is still obligated to reject it, regardless of the consequences.

Post a Comment