A fetus is not a person. ~ The Catholic Church

A fetus isn't a person after all (when there's money involved).

More conservatives cashing in on hypocrisy!

Catholic Hospital Chain Kills Wrongful Death Lawsuit by Arguing that a Fetus is Not a Person

Neetzan Zimmerman

A major Catholic health provider has successfully dismantled a wrongful death lawsuit brought against it by arguing — in defiance of its own long-held doctrine — that a dead fetus is not the same as a dead person.

The case involves the 2006 death of 31-year-old Lori Stodghill, a woman seven months pregnant with twin boys, who was brought in to the emergency room at St. Thomas More Hospital in Cañon City, Colorado, on New Year's Day.

According to her husband Jeremy, Lori was vomiting and had shortness of breath — symptoms that would later be attributed to the clogged artery that caused her untimely demise.

After he parked the car, Jeremy returned to the ER to find Lori unconscious. Less than an hour later she would be dead of a massive heart attack, and her twins would die with her.

But Jeremy maintains that it didn't have to end this way.

Despite being paged by the hospital, Dr. Pelham Staples, the on-call obstetrician (who also happened to be Lori's personal obstetrician), never arrived. Instead, he spoke with Jeremy by phone.

"He said, 'Well, what do you want to do? Take the babies? Take the babies?" Jeremy recalled to Westword. "I kept responding, 'I'm not a doctor!'"

ER staff, meanwhile, were unable to detect any fetal heartbeats, and the decision to perform a perimortem Cesarean section fell to doctors at the scene, who decided against it.

A short while later Jeremy, who believes the Cesarean section might have saved his twins, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the faith-based nonprofit which operates St. Thomas More.

Catholic Health Initiatives is the second-largest faith-based health system in America, and boasts 78 hospitals in 17 different states.

CHI claims to follow the tenets of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care [PDF], which clearly state that "The Church's defense of life encompasses the unborn."

But when push came to shove, CHI abandoned their beliefs in order to win a malpractice lawsuit.

CHI's lawyer, Jason Langley, successfully convinced both the Fremont County District Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals to throw out Jeremy's lawsuit on the basis that CHI can not be sued for the wrongful death of a fetus, because it is not a person.

[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.

Jeremy's attorneys are now seeking to have their case heard by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Many Catholics are finding themselves in the awkward position of supporting the Stodghills in their battle against the Church, because they believe a win for the plaintiffs would be a win for pro-life advocates.

Pick a link - any link: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...8&fr=yfp-t-701

yahoo news

oh and the guy's name is Zimmerman

Originally Posted by mistrzmiasta

yahoo news

oh and the guy's name is Zimmerman

The link at the bottom of the post will take you to a variety of sources. Use it, choose your own source.

Hold on. The lawyer argued that a fetus is not a person? Is the lawyer catholic? The Catholic Church should have stepped in and professed their beliefs even if that meant losing a lawsuit. Hopefully this gets reviewed by the bishop and things are set right. If not, what message does this send to parishioners? But then again, state law trumps religious beliefs.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by 5ynd1cat3

Hold on. The lawyer argued that a fetus is not a person? Is the lawyer catholic? The Catholic Church should have stepped in and professed their beliefs even if that meant losing a lawsuit. Hopefully this gets reviewed by the bishop and things are set right. If not, what message does this send to parishioners?

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

At least it's a better message than the priest touching little boys.

Originally Posted by evolved

At least it's a better message than the priest touching little boys.

Aren't you cute. Every single priest is a pedophile now?



Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by 5ynd1cat3

Aren't you cute. Every single priest is a pedophile now?



Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

Don't get your habit in a twist. Not every priest is a pedo, but it certainly does not reflect well upon the church when the pope, and various other higher ups, attempt to sweep the issue under the rug.

Originally Posted by evolved

At least it's a better message than the priest touching little boys.

Hey now.

They don't send that message, they hide it.

Originally Posted by evolved

Don't get your habit in a twist. Not every priest is a pedo, but it certainly does not reflect well upon the church when the pope, and various other higher ups, attempt to sweep the issue under the rug.

I couldn't agree more. I was counting down how long it would be before molestation was mentioned. 2:48. Not bad.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

For the right price people will say and believe anything. Politicians are a fine example.

The article twisted the story.

Fact: Colorado law dictates a wrongful death suit cannot be filed against an unborn.

CHI was protected under Colorado law. It has nothing to do with CHI's beliefs.

Originally Posted by Green_Shine

The article twisted the story.

Fact: Colorado law dictates a wrongful death suit cannot be filed against an unborn.

CHI was protected under Colorado law. It has nothing to do with CHI's beliefs.

Media twisting the story? no wai?!?!?!?!

Hmmm, how convenient.

So, it hid behind a Colorado law that goes diametrically against its own base principles, implicitly condoning the law in the process, simply in order to protect itself from financial loss due to malpractice. This, rather than comporting to its own (higher?) moral principals regarding fetuses as being fully human life and thus, in keeping with those morals, values and beliefs, paying up as it should (presuming it was found negligent in the death of the fetuses).

Perhaps the Catholic church should stop acting less like a large amoral (if not immoral) corporate institution and more like a, well, church.

Originally Posted by Rhumb

Hmmm, how convenient.

So, it hid behind a Colorado law that goes diametrically against its own base principles, implicitly condoning the law in the process, simply in order to protect itself from financial loss due to malpractice. This, rather than comporting to its own (higher?) moral principals regarding fetuses as being fully human life and thus, in keeping with those morals, values and beliefs, paying up as it should (presuming it was found negligent in the death of the fetuses).

Perhaps the Catholic church should stop acting less like a large amoral (if not immoral) corporate institution and more like a, well, church.

The law is the law, regardless of the church's stance on the legal status of a fetus. They can't choose to not follow that law, it is on the books. To not bring up that law would be malpractice by the attorney.

Of course, but that church run hospital could simply have, upon a finding of negligence in the death/loss of the fetuses, then simply paid up on their own in comportment with their own values/beliefs/morals, regardless of the constraints of the secular law.

Is this the same church that wailed so much when another secular legal requirement, that insurance mandated regarding birth control or whatever?

Again, way too convenient to hide behind this secular law when it might save a wad of cash, even if it contrasts with a basic church moral tenet, yet scream bloody murder when its cheap and easy to decry some other secular law that presumably goes against a moral tenet, however indirectly.

Sorry, I still see a greater overall hypocrisy here, however cleverly contrived and legalistically worded.

Originally Posted by Act of God

The law is the law, regardless of the church's stance on the legal status of a fetus. They can't choose to not follow that law, it is on the books. To not bring up that law would be malpractice by the attorney.

True. The attorney did his part but the Church risks a hit to its already tarnished image.

Originally Posted by Rhumb

Of course, but that church run hospital could simply have, upon a finding of negligence in the death/loss of the fetuses, then simply paid up on their own in comportment with their own values/beliefs/morals, regardless of the constraints of the secular law.

Is this the same church that wailed so much when another secular legal requirement, that insurance mandated regarding birth control or whatever?

Again, way too convenient to hide behind this secular law when it might save a wad of cash, even if it contrasts with a basic church moral tenet, yet scream bloody murder when its cheap and easy to decry some other secular law that presumably goes against a moral tenet, however indirectly.

Sorry, I still see a greater overall hypocrisy here, however cleverly contrived and legalistically worded.

Perhaps they will pay up on their own accord. The situation is being reviewed by the bishop. Maybe if this was in another state with different laws on the books it would have turned out differently? The church isn't hiding behind anything. Laws are laws.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

For the right price people will say and believe anything. Politicians are a fine example.

Churches are another one.

Originally Posted by Rhumb

Perhaps the Catholic church should stop acting less like a large amoral (if not immoral) corporate institution and more like a, well, church.

They are acting like a church.

They have been a large amoral (if not immoral) corporate institution for most of the last 1400+ years.

Originally Posted by Green_Shine

The article twisted the story.

Fact: Colorado law dictates a wrongful death suit cannot be filed against an unborn.

CHI was protected under Colorado law. It has nothing to do with CHI's beliefs.

Originally Posted by Act of God

The law is the law, regardless of the church's stance on the legal status of a fetus. They can't choose to not follow that law, it is on the books. To not bring up that law would be malpractice by the attorney.

This.