Religion and Abortion When a hospital's moral and ethical decision making process comes into conflict with the source that provides funds for the hospital -- or goes against the grain of the values of the funding source -- the results can expected to be controversial at best and harmful to humans at the worst. Indeed, to be specific, when the Roman Catholic Church provides funds for a hospital, the Church expects that its tenets, canons, codes of belief and moral values will be reflected in the policies of that hospital. Is this fair to the doctors and nurses in the hospital who have their own oaths to guide their professional actions? And is it fair to the patients who come to the hospital with urgent healthcare needs that to them, supersede any spiritual values or creeds that hospital funding sources might expect to be followed? The answer to both of those questions is a resounding "no"!

The case that brought about a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union

The issue in question is the case in Muskegon, Michigan, in 2010, when Tamesha Means needed urgent hospital care and the only hospital in her county was Mercy Health, a hospital funded by the Roman Catholic Church. Means was 18 weeks pregnant and suddenly her water broke, which created a situation in which the baby had little to no chance of surviving. She had no choice but to seek immediate medical help, and according to a lawsuit filed against the Roman Catholic bishop's by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), she went to Mercy Health only to be turned down twice for care.

An article in The New York Times by Erik Eckholm points out that Means' first attempt to get help at Mercy Health was met with rejection. In fact, cruel though one can clearly see in hindsight, the doctors at this Catholic-supported hospital failed to inform Means that her fetus would have zero chance of survival and that continuing her pregnancy...

The next morning Means, the mother of two children, returned to Mercy Health. She was "bleeding and in pain," Eckholm reports, and what was the hospital's response during her second visit? Cruelly, he was sent home again.
When she went back a third time, hoping the doctors would see the enormous amount of pain she was going through -- and the third time she had an infection as well -- the hospital prepared to send her home - again. But while the hospital staff was preparing her discharge paperwork, "…she began to deliver," the ACLU press release explained. "Only then did the hospital begin tending to Tamesha's miscarriage," the ACLU continued. The lawsuit is not against Mercy Health Partners, but rather against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The ACLU stated in its press release that the directives that the USCCB places on the hospitals it funds -- which prohibit "a pre-viability pregnancy termination, even when there is little or no chance that the fetus will survive, and the life or health of a pregnant woman is at risk" -- then the USCCB is "…ultimately responsible" for the unnecessary pain, trauma, and emotional harm that Tamesha was forced to endure (ACLU, 2013).

How insensitive can a healthcare organization be and still be recognized as a legitimate source of medical care in the community? This is an issue that isn't just about hospital care or abortion; this boils down to the inhumane actions of a facility that is supposed to be serving the healthcare needs of the public. It is germane to this issue to take a look at the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath, published in NOVA (a Public Broadcast Service -- PBS -- program). These passages are part of the oath that all doctors and nurses are asked to live up to.

"I swear…