A Catholic hospital in Cañon City, Colo., is facing intense scrutiny for arguing that fetuses aren’t people in the midst of defending itself against a malpractice claim, according to The Colorado Independent. Naturally, this opinion is pointedly bizarre considering the Catholic Church’s intense pro-life stance — one that argues that life begins at the moment of conception. The legal battle between the family of Lori Stodghill, a woman who died at the hospital back in 2006, and Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI), an organization that owns St. Thomas More hospital, led to what can only be described as a curious and troubling defense.
The 31-year-old woman was pregnant with twins on New Year’s Day in 2006 when she sought urgent medical assistance. When she arrived at the hospital, Stodghill was vomiting and short of breath, sustaining a clogged artery and a massive heart attack. While medical practitioners attempted to resuscitate her, they were unsuccessful and the doctor on call purportedly never answered a page seeking medical assistance. The twins died after Stodghill passed away — just one hour after arriving at St. Thomas More.

Photo Credit: AP
The woman’s husband, Jeremy, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in the wake of the incident, claiming that the doctor on call should have responded. Had there been additional medical coordination, he believes his unborn children might have been saved. While an expert testified that the mother’s life likely couldn’t have been spared, had the doctor been on hand and ordered a cesarean section, the individual agreed that the twins might still be alive today.
The Colorado Independent explains more details about the CHI and the curious defense that the organization has given against Jeremy’s claims (emphasis added):
The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those rules have stirred controversy for decades, mainly for forbidding non-natural birth control and abortions. “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,’” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.” [...]
But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.
According to the Independent, Jason Langley, a lawyer representing the defense, argued in a brief that the court that the case should consider that “the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive” (emphasis added). The brief goes on to say that Colorado law recognizes a “person” as someone who has been “born alive” and that the family’s claim cannot possibly stand, because the wrongful death lawsuit is “based on two unborn fetuses.”
So far, Jeremy has not had much luck avenging his wife’s death, as judgements have gone in favor of CHI. Lawyers for the family have appealed to the state’s Supreme Court, where they hope to, again, have the case heard. The court is slated to decide whether to hear the legal battle in the next few weeks. Regardless of what happens, CHI’s lawyers utilizing the “fetus” argument appears extremely contradictory, specifically when considering the Catholic Church’s powerful and prevalent pro-life stance.
(H/T: The Daily Caller)





















































































































Comments (158)
Small World
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:40amThe Catholic Church is not what you think. Go to http://patdollard.com Catholic Church and Saul Alinsky. Nothing is at it appears.
Report this comment
KevINtampa
Jan. 25, 2013 at 12:24pmThis actually is the perfect lawsuit for the church.
If they can get a ruling that states a fetus does have a right to life, it will set a precedent that provides the largest setback against abortion in half a century. And the thing is, they represent the side that has to lose for that precedent to be set.
This is a case of the church fighting a losing battle for the betterment of their position in the war. When they lose this suit the precedent can potentially reverse everything we know about abortion law. Finally the Godly are playing on the same field as the Godless.
Report this comment
jorart
Jan. 25, 2013 at 12:45pmCatholic ≠ Christian
Report this comment
by faith
Jan. 25, 2013 at 1:02pmLook what we have here.
A misleading article that muddies the waters between, Church and Hospital, Legal language and hate speak, and the views of one hospital and the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Let the hate begin.
Jesus chose 12 men one betrayed Him, one denied Him and all deserted Him
This may come as a shock to Catholic haters, but the Catholic Church is filled with sinners…every last one of us. Including the Pope, Bishops, Doctors and Hospital adminstators.
But go ahead condemn all of us for the actions of a view.
Leave Peter because of Judas…that should make you feel better
Report this comment
by faith
Jan. 25, 2013 at 1:31pmHundreds of thousands Catholics in Washington today
40th annual march to life
But that’s not news, this one hospital is
The haters want to think 1 hospital and its non catholic administrator represent all Catholics
Report this comment
USAMama
Jan. 25, 2013 at 2:08pmI’m not Catholic but I think KevinTampa hit the nail on the head. They are simply using the other sides argument. So win or lose ultimately what’s being decided is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person or not. It’s actually quite genius if you ask me.
Report this comment
The_Cabrito_Goat
Jan. 25, 2013 at 2:40pmJust stand by what you believe. Sheesh, have a spine. Not just the Catholics, anyone who has a voice and an opinion. We want to hear it!
Report this comment
2gether
Jan. 26, 2013 at 1:01pmFor a person to claim damages in a civil suit on any wrongful death the person who died has to have been “alive” in a functioning and supportive role within the lives of the party involved with the lawsuit. In other words, what effect will the death of this person have on the future lives of those who were intimately supported by the dead person. This is obviously not a possible argument when it comes to an unborn baby. Whereas the wife and mother-to-be, could be. It is an unfortunate situation and of course everyone who wants to destroy the church and pro-life agendas will use this to muddy the waters….which is what attorneys do so well…as we have seen with Hillary in defense of herself….”What difference does it make?!”
Report this comment
strawberry411a
Jan. 26, 2013 at 1:48pmDelete all you want: the facts are there. Mexico is a Catholic control taken over by drug cartels, corruption and murder. The Catholic church has apparently failed to spread the Gospel in an effective manner in this country. The Catholic priesthood is RAMPANT with homosexuality, pedophilia and alcoholism. Conclusion: the Catholic church is one disgusting religion. Edit, delete as you please…but face the facts.
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Jan. 27, 2013 at 12:16pmAt last…if we can get a ruling that states that unborn fetus’s are persons we can stop abortion. We can’t bring those precious babies back but we can get a ruling that will resonate throughout the world.
What the complainers don’t get is that it’s the ‘current law that fetus’s are not ‘persons’ The Attorneys for the Catholic Hospital in this case, must follow the law. We are hoping that law gets overturned even if the Hospital loses the case…it will win the war. OF COURSE fetus’s are persons !!
They are life. Coming into the world or going out of the world…life is life.
This is a very important case. I hope we’ll get updates. I would also like to see more efforts put on speeding up adoptions; an Increase in opportunities (job training) for mothers who carry their babies to term; more education in our schools – especially in our immigration communities that abortion is not ‘birth control’, and the truth put out there for all to see; Most of the abortions are minority races; many more female babies are aborted than males; Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill and they do NOT provide health care support for women. They do NOT do mammograms, pap smears, or any other exams (they maybe refer patients to places who do). Their main purpose is abortions. They need to be exposed. IT is NOT a CHOICE. IT IS A BABY.
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Jan. 27, 2013 at 12:28pm@ STRAWBERRY114A Good Grief!!! less than 1% of all the Catholic Priests have been involved in the disgusting practice of Child Abuse, Pedophilia – a lot better ratio than non-Catholics. Mexico is corrupt politically, without the Catholic Church it’s people would have nothing at all. The Catholic Church wrote the Bible; it is the source of mankind’s knowledge; it is the Body of Christ and THE ROCK that Jesus told St. Peter to build His Church upon. IT provides more hospital care, more educational services, more charitable help than all the other churches combined. Are we perfect? Answer: ARE WE HUMAN? The Catholic Church is the “HOME” most of us have sought for decades. It speaks the truth. IT is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and the one stable ROCK in our lives. Anyone who says otherwise is uninformed.
Report this comment
Salvelinus
Jan. 27, 2013 at 1:07pmThe Vatican has put corrections in place to fix this. Before posting blanket statements about the Catholic church, do your research. the fact that the Catholic faith is the largest, and the one true form of the Christian faith allows it to be infiltrated by liberals. The Church (I am Catholic, myself) has unfortunately suffered at the hands of the liberal “social justice” gang since the 1960′s. The “Protestestantization” of the church is what needs to end. Thankfully, this is now ending http://www.churchmilitant.tv
Report this comment
Jim S
Jan. 27, 2013 at 1:26pmThis is a question of CO law not Catholic Cannons. This is a legal proceeding where state law applies not religious thelogy. IF the mom had driven a few block further and had these meaningless clumps of cells flushed out of system…could the husband sue that hospital? Same dead fetuses. Ah,the rub. What if mom gets in a car accident enroute to the abortion and the fetuses dies? Manslaughter?…Can you kill non-life?..killing not human life a crime?..by who? when?. Love or hate Catholics, this suit forces the question to be answered,in civil law anyway,when human life begins. One lawful standard for all,not one for Catholics and another for others. These lawyers threw the CO law in their face,excellent…OR force the standard to be that human life begins whenever the Mother says so…that IS the standard is some states, unfortunately.
Report this comment
by faith
Jan. 28, 2013 at 6:30pmstrawberry411a
The Cristero War (1926–29) look it up.
“Viva Cristo Rey”
Report this comment
WAP
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:36amOnce again…a misleading headline and article. The headline states that the argument is that “fetuses aren’t people.” This is not what the brief is arguing.
To quote “….those fetuses are not persons with LEGAL RIGHTS.” Funny how the headline and the argument in the article conveniently drops the terminology “with legal rights” from its case.
In other words…the article is a deliberate smear.
==============================
Ask yourself this question: “What legal rights do a person in the stage of fetus have?” The answer is obvious…”none.” If the fetus had rights accorded to other people then the fetus could not be aborted.
So…what the legal argument is doing is asserting the statement of legal fact. The fetus does not have legal rights accorded to a human being. Now…if the court decides otherwise then the court is then arguing that fetuses do have legal rights. Therefore, if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff then expect massive amounts of legal challenges to legalized abortions under the reasoning that fetuses have legal rights and being aborted infringes on the legal rights of the fetus.
The argument that the Catholic Church is arguing against a belief is a “straw man” argument no reflective of the legal context of the argument. Also, does the church not have the right to protect itself against lawsuit payments using the adjudged law of the land?
Report this comment
Locked
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:54am@WAP
“Once again…a misleading headline and article. The headline states that the argument is that “fetuses aren’t people.” This is not what the brief is arguing.
To quote “….those fetuses are not persons with LEGAL RIGHTS.” Funny how the headline and the argument in the article conveniently drops the terminology “with legal rights” from its case. ”
From the article:
“As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.””
The article’s title is completely right. In the legal briefs, the defense does indeed say that the term “person” refers only to individuals born alive. In other places the defence might argue “legal rights,” but in the quoted brief, it refers specifically to fetsuses not being considered persons until they are born – a position held by the state and one that the hospital is fully comfortable in using to defend itself.
Report this comment
RaydocX
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:44amput ‘person’ as their definition does not deny that the fetus was a life…
as to how to pay for the loss… was the fetus going to be a productive member of society or a criminal… was the fetus going to be damaged by the mother’s heart attack and the resultant loss of oxygen for however many minuts before a crash C section completed an emergent delivery?
the unkowns are too numerous for a court to adjudge, and from that perspective arguing against a person with legal rights would not exclude the fetus as being a person.
and since we have only the husband and his lawyer’s version of the event, thanks to HIPPA, the whole of the article is tilted for the plaintiff in this case… it’s always horrible to lose children and a young wife.
i cannot argue with Cavallo, though… the recent proclomations of the Church regarding capitalism and gun violence are overreaching and there are archaic teachings that should have been adapted years ago… when i was a child, all my Catholic friends HAD to eat fish if they ate meat on Friday… to do otherwise was a sin, or so i understood it… until it was ok.
it’s true of any religion, and occurs when the policies of man in organizing a religion overstep what the religion teaches… the problem of secularists and atheists is interpreting the organized church as being directly from God and so rendering God or faith inexcusable. the church isn’t perfect as man isn’t perfect. but the church can fend for itself since it wo
Report this comment
jorart
Jan. 25, 2013 at 12:35pmThe right to live!
Report this comment
JediKnight
Jan. 25, 2013 at 1:14pmI was thinking the same thing when I read this. The lawyer is arguing that, as defined by the law, the fetus is not a life. Therefore, the hospital should not be held accountable. He’s not arguing that by the Church’s definition the fetus is not a life, it obviously is. Under the law, the fetus is not defined as a life.
This law is exactly why people are pushing for laws that define a fetus as a life. I completely disagree with this law, but that doesn’t make it any less of a law.
Progressive’s are starting to have the law they love so much used against them and they don’t like it one bit. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Report this comment
WAP
Jan. 25, 2013 at 3:23pm@Locked
The headline of the artcile states that it is “Bizarre” that the Catholic Church would choose to defend itself using the definition of a “person” as is defined in the Wrongful Death Act.
I find it hillarious that any headline considers it “bizarre” that any institution seeks to use the adjudged law to defend itself.
The use of the word “bizarre” and the dropping of the term “legal rights” IS a smear. And I stand by the assertion that if the court rules otehrwise then one can expect all sorts of lawsuits from the Church to defend the rights of fetuses is abortion cases which would then show that the Church is actually acting in a manner that the church preaches.
I’m not a Catholic and I support the right to have a legal abortion early in a pregancy (can’t stop people from getting one so it may as well be performed properly. I am pro Life as well as pro choice…so my statements aren’t made with a bias towards either side.
I can certainly recognize that the term “bizarre” is used in a manner of a smear. The headline could read that the Church is arguing for the upholding of the law. That is a case of no adjective being used to describe the action.
Inserting adjectives such as bizarre indicate a bias and show the smear attempt.
Report this comment
Locked
Jan. 25, 2013 at 3:46pm@WAP
“The headline of the artcile states that it is “Bizarre” that the Catholic Church would choose to defend itself using the definition of a “person” as is defined in the Wrongful Death Act.”
Technically it says “Catholic Hospital.” And while it is an emotional term, it’s accurate: it’s a bizarre tact to take.
“I find it hillarious that any headline considers it “bizarre” that any institution seeks to use the adjudged law to defend itself.”
If you know the Catholic position, why would it be hilarious?
“I am pro Life as well as pro choice…so my statements aren’t made with a bias towards either side.”
Neither are my own. But even I can see that Catholic doctrine says fetuses should have the rights of born humans, and that this hospital (as per the exact quote I posted from the article) is saying “No! Just kidding! Keep the definition as is!”
“The headline could read that the Church is arguing for the upholding of the law. That is a case of no adjective being used to describe the action.”
And then there would be no story, and thus no reason to cover it. Technically, then it would -ignore- the story. The hospital here is arguing in a manner that undercuts religious exemptions that other companies (such as Hobby Lobby) are trying to use – namely that if law butts up against faith, faith should prevail.
“Inserting adjectives such as bizarre indicate a bias”
Oh, you pure, innocent soul. Welcome to The Blaze.
Report this comment
Jim S
Jan. 27, 2013 at 1:33pm..Misleading headlines?..Straw Man arguments?…you must be new here..that’s the meat and potatoes of the Blaze..the only ingredient missing in this jumble of facts and opinions is ex-CIA or ex-Navy Seal reflections…
Report this comment
1FreeVoice
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:36amI doubt that it was the idea of the Church. The lawyer is required to pursue the best available defense for his client. He is using available law as it now stands, not as some would like it to be. I do not even know if the lawyer told them ahead of time what he was planning…the law firm and their client might not have been on the same page.
I think that they will regret not telling their lawyer to try another tactic, or settle to avoid this though. They can’t have it both ways, and this does make them look like hyp%^%.
Report this comment
zorro
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:31amI find it odd that in a legal suit, people are upset about lawyers using legal terms. You want to consider fetuses people? Go for it! But don’t do it only when it will hurt a religious hospital.
That said, based on the little information we have, it does appear as though this hospital should be liable for the deaths of these two children.
Report this comment
RaydocX
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:36amwrongful death NOT being murder, given the latter would require proving the docs, nurses, and hospital as a whole were trying to kill the baby, which would be a ridiculous assertion to make…
it is unfortunate that the hospital’s lawyers are utilizing a legal strategy that is in conflict with the teachings of the church/ hospital, and the CEO should immediately kibash that, even if it hurts the case… the Church has enough difficulty addressing issues of hypocrisy as it is.
that said, the FACTS of the case are not available here in sufficient totality to address what happened and whether anyone was at fault. A curious by product of no personal responsibility in modern America is an equal certainty that ‘someone’ is responsible, reinforced by lawyers such as John Edwards who in court was known to claim he was ‘communicating’ with lost feti (though politically he supported abortion, a curious duality) insisting that a doctor or nurse is the cause of any nongenetic birth defect…
sorry folks, but it’s total bunk… sometimes bad things happen. and sadly, sometimes docs and nurses have to choose between bad outcomes… and sometimes doing the best that they can, bad things still happen (notice, tort reform is NOT part of Obamacare,leaving ‘cya medicine’ a huge unaddressed cost factor in modern medicine).
i’m not blaming the hospital here unless their legal team is allowed to continue with this argument… for the lawyers its just business as usual, no emo
Report this comment
colascguy
Jan. 25, 2013 at 1:18pmThis sounds very Machiavellian to me. Win by whatever means possible. Ultimately this is a win for the church no matter the outcome. If they win they loose no money to a settlement. If they loose than they still win because it redefines what rights a fetus has. Many have questioned the morality of this approach. I’m not sure that the ends justify this but I do think it is brilliant.
Report this comment
Uechi
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:33amThe Catholic Chruch to be a lone voice in the protection of life and unborn babies. Like most other churches and organizations the hierarcchy has been taken over by social justice loons and lawyers. Born and raised a Catholic I gave up on them a long time ago all the care about now is $$$.
Report this comment
mycomet123
Jan. 25, 2013 at 4:28pmI’m glad that you don’t go and stero-type a whole group of people, based on the actions of a few! Given that analogy, all the apostles betrayed Christ instead of just one!!!!!!!!!
Report this comment
Verceofreason
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:32amYou folks REALLY need to read the Catholic Hospital article here
to appreciate the hypocrisy of Catholics
Report this comment
barber2
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:01amVERCE: Well, we are well versed in the hypocrisy of the radical Lefties who now control the Democrat Party ! ( The so-called ” 99% ers. ” The ” we have to pass the bill to read the bill.” ) But they get a pass, since Rules For Radicals does not hold them to being truthful. Only to pass their agenda, which is for the ” good” of all citizens ! Big Brother tells us so…
Report this comment
holy ghostbuster
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:27amGotta love the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church. I guess the Pope will now issue a directive that says life begins at conception only when it is convenient for the Church and in instances where it benefits the Church, fetuses will not be considered persons.
Report this comment
Cavallo
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:41amAt least they are not advocating for capitalism, that would be equal to terrorism according to them.
Report this comment
zorro
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:32amHypocrisy? Because their lawyers are using legal terms? Do you agree a fetus is a living person? If you don’t, then you’re the hipocrite.
Report this comment
Locked
Jan. 25, 2013 at 12:00pm@Zorro
“Do you agree a fetus is a living person? If you don’t, then you’re the hipocrite.”
That’s not the issue here. The issue is whether a fetus has the same rights as a living person. In Colorado, it does not. The Catholic church argues that all fetuses should… but the hospital is taking the state’s side, despite being religiously-affiliated. This undermines other religiously-affiliated organizations who try to argue that the law should not able to enforce practices that are against their faiths.
Report this comment
zorro
Jan. 25, 2013 at 12:12pmThis is a legal matter, not a religious one. This has nothing to do with the Church’s definition of life. It has to do with the State’s definition. In fact, what the Church thinks is irrelevant. We have to follow what the state says.
If the roles were reversed, would you side with what the church says? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Report this comment
Locked
Jan. 25, 2013 at 1:03pm@Zorro
“This is a legal matter, not a religious one.”
But the implications of this will set precident for other cases where religion and legality **** heads (for example, Obamacare forcing companies that carry insurance to make sure the insurance covers contraceptives).
“This has nothing to do with the Church’s definition of life. It has to do with the State’s definition. In fact, what the Church thinks is irrelevant. We have to follow what the state says.”
I agree. However, that’s not what the overwhelming majority of religiously-affiliated organizations want to hear. Cases like these would put a nail in Hobby Lobby’s appealing of fines, for example.
“If the roles were reversed, would you side with what the church says? Yeah, I didn’t think so.”
I honestly don’t know what you mean by this. If the state was being sued by a religiously-affiliated hospital?
Report this comment
sizzlinsexybeckster
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:16amIf you look up the abortion laws for the United States, however, each state may be slightly different…
the average estimate of the baby inside the womb can be aborted up until the 20th week. SO COMMON SENSE WOULD SAY that AFTER the 20th week you CAN (by law) consider your fetus a baby, therefore you CAN legally sue anyone for the wrongful murder of a death of that human being you are carrying in yourself. Of course yours and my morality would probably consider the baby a person inside yourself the first moment right after conception, however, by law, if you do a little research, it IS MENTIONED as after the 20th week. If this baby was murdered after the 20th week, you and your lawyer have a case for your murdered baby. Good luck and sorry about your loss.
Report this comment
seek.the.truth
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:13amI have a sister born 40 plus years ago at seven months gestation. She is a healthy productive person today. With modern technology, it is quite common for babies at this gestation to survive.
What a shame that Mr. Stodhhill lost his wife and two children. Inexcusable that attempts were not made to save those babies!
Report this comment
NOBALONEY
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:08amObaMaoCare catholic hospital.
Report this comment
Verceofreason
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:19amYou miss the point, hon.
ALL OF A SUDDEN where MONEY is concerned the church turns on a dime.
HYPOCRITES times a millions
woodyee
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:30amVerce – YOU missed the point – the story doesn’t say the Catholic Church supports this defense – in fact, it isn’t even clear if this is IN FACT, a Church-sponsored hospital. Catholic Health Initiative is the organization that owns the hospital. for all we know it’s a Soros front company.
The story is misleading the reader to believe that THE Church is being hypocritical. Or better said, IMHO, BILLY is misleading the reader.
Report this comment
barber2
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:32amVERCE: Yes. You atheist Lefties have a built-in hypocrisy meter , especially when it has anything to do with an organized religion. Like old Saul taught you, just hit Christians with their own Commandments and standards which they can never achieve and which your fellow Lefties never bother with ! Oh, and by the way, Saul’s ” use the law to change the law” seems appropriate here since the lawyers in this case are using the state law to , legally, argue their case. You Lefty guys can’t lose…
Report this comment
Cavallo
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:34amI’m going to have to agree with Verce here. Their real Master seems to be money, and a love affair with government tyranny. More and more they seem to be coming out of the fascist closet.
Report this comment
sta
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:41amVerceofreason, you miss the point, hon.
They are forcing the legislators hands. Are those “tissues” fetuses, with no rights of a human being? Then why would anyone asked to be paid for nothing. The law is to make one whole so if they are not human beings, the family lost only the mother.
Are they babies who have rights as Human Beings? If they are then, the State is saying that it is legal to kill babies in the womb. See the game being played here?
Sometimes one must play chess and move carefully to win the war.
I know that The Blaze and it’s readers are sometimes not very happy with Catholics, but using this article from a left wing “newspaper” doesn’t give it any credibility. Come on Billy. Snopes, Salon and now this? Where is your head at. Please read some of the other articles on a website before you present them to the conservatives and libertarians here.
Prayers for all the marchers at the March for Life in DC today, including my daughters’ Yellow Balloon Life group!
Report this comment
holy ghostbuster
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:43am@ WOODYEE – The article said the hospital was St. Thomas More Hospital and was owned by Catholic Health Initiatives, you would have to be an idiot to think this wasn’t a Catholic sponsored hospital. Get real dude.
Report this comment
sta
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:44amwoodyee- I’m not sure we are going to get past the happy “Catholics are evil” dance that the readers do here so often.
Report this comment
holy ghostbuster
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:51amBy the way, I’m a recovering Catholic.
Report this comment
woodyee
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:15am@ HoleyGhostbuster – Does the story claim the hospital is owned by The Catholic Church, or by Catholic Health Initiatives?
Who is Catholic Health Initiatives owned by?
You’re making a lot of ASSumptions, Holey.
Report this comment
zorro
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:36amThey’re using legal terms, folks. These are the laws in this country. If you want them to consider fetuses people, by all means, help us change the laws! Don’t call Cathlics hipocrites because they’re operating under the law.
It’s no surprise to hear some of you say you’re “recovering” Catholics. They tend to be the most ignorant of all.
Report this comment
Verceofreason
Jan. 25, 2013 at 2:50pmI did NOT use the word Catholic.
Report this comment
biohazard23
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:08amAnd lawyers wonder why they’re considered bottom feeders. Absolutely nothing is off limits to them, is it? They’ll turn everything upside down just to make a buck.
Report this comment
Locked
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:08amThey are legally correct; in the state of Colorado, a fetus is not recognized as a child. However, to be arguing this way completely undermines Christian organizations arguing that their religious views must be upheld when it comes to work.
“I follow my faith until I can get in trouble for it” is pretty flimsy, no matter where you stand on the issue.
Report this comment
sta
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:50amIt isn’t “follow my faith until I get in trouble for it”. It’s “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”.
First, go to a site other than the Left leaning website this came from and read the facts. There is more to this story than they relate. The Doctor wanted the husband to make the call to risk the life of the mother by sectioning the babies. By the time he did, the babies were dead.
The defense the hospital is using is a chess move, not to win the case. It’s forcing CO to call babies at 21 to 28 weeks, human.
Report this comment
ConstitunalAmerican
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:55amExactly.
Report this comment
Locked
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:57am@Sta
“The defense the hospital is using is a chess move, not to win the case. It’s forcing CO to call babies at 21 to 28 weeks, human.”
An odd thought, as the defense for the hospital has urged the state to not change the definition of person to only those individuals born alive. If they were trying to change the definition, they would have done the exact opposite; said “Yes, the suit is right, those are people and if you follow through with this lawsuit it will change the definition in Colorado!”
Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:53amThe lawyer was arguing Colorado law not the teachings of the Church. I, for one, wished that they would taken the moral high ground not the legal ground. My belief on the sancity of life is worth more that the mere money involved in this suit.
My Church needs to grow some cojones. In a case like this, either you render unto Cesar or you render unto God. They made the wrong choice.
Report this comment
Vietnam Vet
Jan. 25, 2013 at 3:45pmBill of Rights — Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ……….”
Article II, Colorado Bill of Rights
“Section 4. Religious freedom. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed …..”
A couple of points here that seem to be missing. The First Amendment to the Federal Constitution clearly states that no law can be made “prohibiting the free exercise thereof (religion)”. Believing life begins at conception are among the beliefs of all Christians, not just members of the Catholic church. Requiring that a Church based hospital be required to commit abortions is a violation of Constitutional Rights, as is requiring business owners who are Christians to provide health insurance that pays for abortions, abortifacient, etc. Requiring that persons of the Christian religion commit acts that are directly against their beliefs is obviously Unconstitutional.
The Colorado Constitution, likewise, is plain when it states, “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed”.
In both cases,establishment of a law that requires Christians to violate their beliefs is illegal.
As concerns the argument that “fetuses aren’t persons” by an extension of the Catholic church is an EGREGIOUS act
Report this comment
Argosy
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:07amThis is a hospital not a church saying this, one works also with the law.
Report this comment
Locked
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:21am@Argosy
“This is a hospital not a church saying this, one works also with the law.”
And this is the same justification for why religious organizations (such as Hobby Lobby) need to carry insurance that covers contraceptives – something that has been in the news a lot recently, you may recall. The argument used by religiously-affiliated, non-church, organizations is that their faith should dictate how the law applies to them and thus they should be excused from the portions that go against their faith. This hospital effectively just neutered that kind of reasoning in an effort to avoid a costly lawsuit. If the court agrees, then the ruling could likely be used as precident for other religiously-affiliated organizations.
Hence why this is a story.
Report this comment
thibx
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:06amfollow the money. money won over God. don’t suprise me.
Report this comment
Verceofreason
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:21amThe church is all about money – and the oppression of women
barber2
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:37amVERCE: And the radical Left ( now a political religion ) is all about the ” oppression of the individual ” to the benefit of the collective STATE.
Report this comment
dosdelgados
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:06amKilling an adult is depriving them of life.
Aborting a baby is depriving them of life.
Yet, wear a fur coat and they’ll start foaming at the mouth.
Report this comment
seek.the.truth
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:15amVery good point.
Report this comment
Verceofreason
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:23amWhen do Libs condone killing an adult?
Your post makes no sense whatsoever.
Report this comment
barber2
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:38amVERCE: What part of human ” life” do you not understand ?
Report this comment
Cavallo
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:45am@Verced This is where I disagree with you. Bill Ayers (Obama’s buddy) advocated for the murder of 25 MILLION Americans that would not convert to communism.
Report this comment
dosdelgados
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:52am@VERCE,
Quite the opposite…the libs see capital punishment as “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Why is aborting a third-trimester baby out of convenience a “choice” and a “right”…but the permanent removal of a jihadist shooting up an Army installation in act of terror is considered “morally reprehensible?”
PETA wants to erect a memorial on the PCH for thousands of fish who perished when a truck carrying them flipped over, but the same folks don’t bat an eye when innocents are ripped from what should be the safest place in the world, their mother’s womb.
Report this comment
termyt
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:03amWell, they have good legal standing for their argument. But anyone who defends bad behavior based simply on its legality is immoral, or at the very least, a fool.
For a supposed Catholic organization to allow its lawyers to make an argument counter to their own stated beliefs is the height of hypocrisy. It makes me very sad. On what grounds, then , would this Catholic Hospital, or any other for that matter, resist obamacare’s abortion and contraception mandates?
Report this comment
CamilleF
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:02amIt’s really not bizarre. Roman Catholic doctrine disappeared from the Church during Vatican II. The feminists, Communists and Marxists were brought in to destroy Western civilization.
It appears that the one last hope for Western civilization may be in Russia. Yes, they had Communism but after the Soviet Union fell Russian traditions still existed under the surface and have bubbled back up.
From Yahoo news 1-21-13: “The legislation being pushed by the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church would make it illegal nationwide to provide minors with information that is defined as “propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality and transgenderism.” It includes a ban on holding public events that promote gay rights. St. Petersburg and a number of other Russian cities already have similar laws on their books.”
Report this comment
VanGrungy
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:15amNo, Russia is no hope at all
Russia is being overrun by muslims..
Report this comment
CamilleF
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:22am@vangrungy: So where do we go? Is there no country for white Christians?
Report this comment
sta
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:55amPoland.
Report this comment
hillbillyinny
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:07amActually, no, doctrine did not “disappear” from the Church. It’s still there, but many within the hierarchy, vowed religious and lay persons have chosen to not follow Church Doctrine!
Little by little those Bishops and Priests who are not true to the Church are retiring (sometimes as soon as their letter is submitted!) and are being replace by those who are true to God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Church. Those religious and other leaders who are still espousing heretical information are being challenged even by laity who have “done their homework” and often understand the true teachings of the Church better than those who took the writings of Vatican II and used them for their own purposes and desires.
The Church does not change in areas of Faith and Morals. It does develop its understanding in these areas over time, but has never back-tracked from true written or declared doctrine.
Pray for Jesus’ Church, now called the Catholic Church, that we may be truly led by God’s Holy Spirit to the coming of Jesus’ Kingdom in the New Heaven and the New Earth as Jesus promised that He would be with us forever! Pray for those who would subvert Jesus’ teachings and doctrines as declared by the Church, that those who would misuse their power would repent and return to the Fullness of Truth that is the Catholic Church and Redeemed and Rewarded in their saving action.
Maranatha, come Lord Jesus, alleluia!
Report this comment
barber2
Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:58amThe state law needs to be changed .
Report this comment
nonofmybiznez
Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:58amAnd if someone shoots a pregnant woman and kills her unborn fetus, it isn’t murder either. Do you see how stupid this argument is?
Report this comment
CamilleF
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:14amTexas allows for capital punishment when a woman with a baby inside her is murdered. It was applied in Lubbock a few years ago to Rosendo Rodriguez III for murdering a pregnant prostitute named Summer Baldwin. He is on death row.
Report this comment
Locked
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:35am@camillef
He’s getting the death penalty for murdering the prostitute. But that’s just guilty of first-degree murder. In the judgment for that case:
“The State concedes that there was no evidence at trial that Rodriguez had any knowledge that Baldwin was pregnant. Baldwin was still in the first trimester of her pregnancy and there were no outward signs that she was pregnant. Therefore, the State agrees that the evidence is insufficient to show that Rodriguez intentionally murdered more than one person during the same criminal transaction.”
He’s guilty of murdering both, but for all intents and purposes, the pregnant woman and her unborn child count as only one murder.
Report this comment
CamilleF
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:47am@locked: But I thought this was the reason capital punishment applied in this case:
Rodriguez was charged with two alternative theories of capital murder: (1) murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit aggravated sexual assault, and (2) murder of the victim and her unborn child during the same criminal transaction.
Report this comment
Locked
Jan. 25, 2013 at 1:07pm@Camileff
“(2) murder of the victim and her unborn child during the same criminal transaction.”
However, this is only considered “one” murder, not two. If the fetus alone had been killed it would not be considered murder at all (likely aggravated assault resulting in miscarriage) because Rodriguez didn’t know the woman was pregnant, nor did he purposely try to harm the fetus.
In other words, it added to his crimes, but it didn’t double the murder count. It’s kind of like hate crimes: it just makes the punishment worse, but doesn’t necessarily warrant the punishment by itself.
Report this comment
AppleAnnie
Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:56amAnother scandal for practicing Catholics to “swallow.” When is the Church going to dismiss/excommunicate those who advocate against church teaching? The mother dies and the hospital lets the babies die because in their opinion the babies are non-viable maybe human. This hospital will not lose anything because of the HHS Mandate. It’s safe. What a load.
Report this comment
woodyee
Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:55am“A Catholic hospital in Cañon City, Colo”
“pointedly bizarre considering the Catholic Church’s intense pro-life stance”
Apples and oranges. What’s wrong today, Billy? Can you say –
Cardinal Roger ‘Mojones’ Mahoney protected a boatload of Los Angeles-based priestly gay pedophiles, “pointedly bizarre considering the Catholic Church’s intense anti-gay lifestyle stance.”
Bad ‘gay story day’ Billy?
Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:57amFind out who has infiltrated the church….. George Soro’s Catholics for a Free Choice Organization is clear example of “Church Infiltration”.
Report this comment
Lordchamp
Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:55amIt’s always all about the money, unless principles can make money otherwise principles go out the window. Right and wrong matters not.
Report this comment
ColoradoMaverick
Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:55amThat would likely be the attorneys for the insurance companies taking that “legal” stand based on current law. Under the current legal definition of a person, they are within their legal rights to this defense. The law should be changed to protect all persons, both born and unborn.
Report this comment
holy ghostbuster
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:49amDoes that make their defense morally right? Premarital sex among consenting adults and homosexuality is also legal, but against Catholic values.
Report this comment
Tri-ox
Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:54amRidiculous and disgusting – - – a PERSON is a PERSON, from conception.
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/scienceabortion.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0004.html
Report this comment
G.E.R
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:22amIt’s a fetus and it’s actually a parasite not a person.
Report this comment
Perkins
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:58amGER, parasites are by definition not of the same species, thus the fetus, being human, the same species as the mother, cannot be a parasite.
At the same time, parasites are also separate entities from the host, so your argument is implying the fetus is not part of the woman’s body; thus it would not fall under her choice control of her body. Good job arguing for the pro-life position even if completely misinformed about parasitism.
As a fellow human being who cares about you though I know you naught, please take the time to learn before you speak. There are excellent biology classes online, and probably through your local community college. A little time researching goes a long way to keep you from looking foolish.
Report this comment
G.E.R
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:24amThe placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site. For this purpose, it uses several mechanisms. It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.
Report this comment
Verceofreason
Jan. 25, 2013 at 5:22pmA fetus IS a parasite.
The decision to end a pregnancy is 100% the mother’s with some input from the father
if he hasn’t run.
Report this comment
Perkins
Apr. 26, 2013 at 5:26pmI know this thread is dead and gone, so I am just making myself feel better. Besides, you’re reading it now aren’t you :)
Notice GER indicated the fetus uses the same processes as parasites, therefore fetuses are parasites. Of course, GER uses the same respiratory processes that cats do, therefore GER is a cat… Right.
Second, GER never answered the scientific definition that parasites are different species from hosts, the fetus being human and the mother being human means by definition fetuses are not parasites.
If GER wished to continue the argument that, though not a parasite, the fetus is still an intruder in the mother’s body, then, again, GER is making the argument that the fetus is an independent organism. This independent organism is human, and being human has an inalienable right to not be killed, thus making a very strong “pro-life” argument.
There, I feel better :)
Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:52amSorry but you cant have it both ways. Either it is or it isnt. Cant pick and choose depending on the liability. Hypocritical to the core.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:07ami once heard someone say “Democrats are the party of stupid. Republicans are the party of hypocrites”
Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:25amHey Soy
I think that they both apply to both parties.
Report this comment
Cavallo
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:26amMost Catholics are fascist democrats.
It won’t be long before they are forced to perform abortions in their hospitals, or go without medicare/medicaid. The legislation will look something like: Healthcare organizations must provide the full compliment of women’s health options in order to be available for medicare/medicaid reimbursement or 340b drug programs.
I’m done defending them. They make their bed, they can now lay in it. I’m not running to the defense of an organization that advocates for my enslavement by the State. If they want to be State Slaves, they will have to suffer with all that entails. Screw the RCC.
Report this comment
barber2
Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:34amLove the Free Pass of the Left : they insist on secular laws and then condemn a church for using the very laws that the Left has insisted upon. Win – Win for the Left.
Report this comment
barber2
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:03amThe topic of the Catholic Church draws atheist Lefties the way flies are drawn to Barack Obama’s face.
Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:24amBarber
Was that directed at me??
Report this comment
JediKnight
Jan. 25, 2013 at 1:20pmHave it both ways? So you’re saying that I can’t believe life starts at conception and then argue that the State defines it differently? That’s asinine. I most certainly can tell you what I believe and argue that I shouldn’t be held LEGALLY liable for something that the State has not defined as a life.
That’s exactly what this lawyer is doing. It’s only being made an issue because it’s a Catholic Hospital. The lawyer is quite plainly stating that the hospital cannot be held liable because under Colorado law, a fetus is not defined as a life and therefore, under Colorado law, it has no rights. This isn’t a statement of his or the Church’s beliefs. It’s a statement of law.
If you don’t like it, go get the law changed. Many people in a few states are trying to do just that, but it got voted down in the last election.
Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Jan. 25, 2013 at 2:15pmJed
It’s not about the law. It’s about standing for the principles that you say you stand for.
Although the lawyer is making the statement he is acting as a representative for the hospital. By doing so he needs to act as an arm of the church. I do not know if malpractice is the case in this instance and I am not taking sides on the suit. However this argument is not in concert with the Catholic belief. This sir is known as being hypocritical.
Report this comment
Locked
Jan. 25, 2013 at 2:50pm@Jedi
“So you’re saying that I can’t believe life starts at conception and then argue that the State defines it differently? That’s asinine.”
You sure can. But it’s dishonest to advocate changing the legal definition of personhood to include fetuses, and then turn around and uphold the legal definition when it’s convenient to you. One would rightly point out that yesterday you were crying about poor dead babies and how the law needs to be changed to recognize that, and today you’re saying they’re not people and the law should stay the same.
Report this comment