I’m a Doctor, and I’m a Catholic for Ohio

 

“This HHS Mandate is going directly going impact my ability to care for some my patients … there is no reason for the government to tell me how I must practice medicine “

How does the HHS Mandate affect Catholic doctors? One Ob-Gyn discusses it here.

  • WFS

    She seems to be someone whose opinion should be respected. The HHS mandate does not require her to be involved in abortions but she would probably have to prescribe contraceptives. She’s a doctor providing health care. It is the church that is putting her in an awkward situation not the government. She just wants to follow the rules which are conflicting. It is the church that can’t change with the times. Birth control drastically reduces the likelihood of abortions but the church won’t be reasonable. It’s a dictatorship not a democracy and the U.S. is out of its jurisdiction.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      It is the CHURCH that’s putting her in this awkward position??? The Church is just following its constant teaching. She can choose freely to follow those teachings, or not. The government is using penalties and fines that would put her out of business. Yet, you think the CHURCH is the one putting her on the spot?

      My friend, I think you just hate the Church.

    • Theresa

      Here are some ways the HHS Mandate might be affecting her ability to practice…
      1.) Depending on the size of her practice; how many OB/GYNs are on staff, how many front office staff, nurses, medical assistants, billing/collections specialists etc, she may have 50 people in her employ. She may be at the point where she has to provide coverage for her patients for care that she believes is immoral to procure. If that is the case, she may see downsizing her practice as her best option. People will sadly lose their jobs and she will not be able to care for as many women.
      2.) Let’s assume for a minute that she is an OB who doesn’t refer for abortions and sterilizations. And let’s also assume that she is willing to accept Medicaid patients or other patients on state-sponsored health care plans. They operate much like HMOs and the blessing of a primary care provider is pretty much needed to see a specialist. Given the new measures in place, she may not be able to remain the PCP of a woman if that woman wishes to have a referral for one of those services that this OB finds immoral. Other private insurance companies may choose to impose that restriction on other patients too, that if the OB you have won’t cover all the services you seek, the OB is not longer in network or the patient will otherwise be assigned to a new PCP.

      At the crux of this is not what the Church teaches so much as what we are telling people about how they can hold fast to whatever their convictions are in the public square. Regardless of what the Catholic Church teaches, it is still possible for a reasonable, well-educated woman to arrive at the conclusion that abortion/contraception/sterilization are immoral. It just so happens that the Church does have this view and I think many informed women have chosen to embrace this belief through their own research and study.
      We can’t have a law in place that says “It’s ok for you to choose not to use this option, but you have to make this option available to other people.” Not everybody sees right and wrong as a subjective issue. For a not-so-passionate example, let’s take traffic laws. I know many a person who tacks on an extra 5-10 mph to whatever the speed limit is and sees the person who obeys the speed limit as pokey. I believe it is unsafe to drive over the speed limit. Engineers design roadways bearing in mind the materials of the roadway, possible weather issues, curvature of the roads and other roadway features when assigning speed limits. Traffic laws are objective. The signs don’t read, “We think 35 is the ideal speed for this stretch of road, but we recognize that it is your right to drive as you wish and you might have something really important going on so go ahead and drive at the speed you think is best.” If I have a view of my morality as objective regardless of who is involved in the situation, than asking me to subjectify my moral code is the government telling me how I can believe.

      • Rebecca Hamilton

        Good analysis. Thanks Theresa.

    • Ted Seeber

      I reject your definition and challenge you to prove that contraception is Health Care.

  • WFS

    I actually love my local church which is my social life (even though I don’t believe things literally). It’s the hierarchy that I abhor. If my pastor was in charge and didn’t have to report to the archbishop who reports to the pope it would be the perfect place to go every Sunday. It would be like the colonies without King George.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      So … you’re a “catholic” who attends mass at a parish … but you don’t believe anything the Church teaches … and you’re an atheist?

      Personally, I would sleep in on Sundays. That’s what I did do back in my anti-god period, and I wasn’t an atheist. I think I was much better (I know I was much less ocd) than you guys at being anti-god. Remember Augustine/Wiesel/Freud? The opposite of love isn’t hatred, it’s …

    • Ted Seeber

      So basically you’re a wolf in sheeps clothing: An anti-Catholic who goes to church only to remove other people’s faith in your social group.

    • Ted Seeber

      OOOOPS- now I’m the one being hypocritical.

  • WFS

    I used to go to church every day. I’ve done a lot of reading and now I’m an atheist. Go figure. I still have friends, including priests and Knights of Columbus. I don’t tell anyone that I “lost my faith”. This is my outlet to talk about it.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Odd. I did something similar when I became a Christian, only in reverse. I didn’t want to lose my friends. I tried not talking about it to the point of almost hiding my faith from them. Didn’t help in the long run. My experience, fwiw, is that you cannot remain friends with your atheist friends when you become a Christian. They will not do it. When I turned anti-god (I was much younger) I did not encounter this reaction from my Christian friends. Of course, I hadn’t been that much a Christian, so the transition to anti-god was less dramatic.

      Have you lost your faith in God, or in the Church?

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I would suggest that you keep reading. Those various atheist books (and I’ve read a lot of them; both older and the latest ones) don’t hold much water when you think them through. They are, as I said in a post, self-refuting.

    • J. H. M. Ortiz

      Altho as a Catholic I agree with everything the Church definitively teaches, I personally, like atheists, don’t believe that God exists. Instead, I think the existence of a personal creator can be seen by our natural human reason, as cause is inferred from effect. For consider the individual ovum and the individual spermatozoon from which you, reader, were somehow, at some moment, generated. From precisely those two cells resulted a unique genetic constitution: yours. But what if there had been twinning? In that case, two selves would have resulted with the same genetic constitution: had you been one of those twins, your genetic constitution would not have been unique. Yet you would have still been precisely yourself. Conclusion: your absolute identity — I don’t mean your psychological “identity” or persona, I mean simply your very self — is not determined by your genetic constitution, even if you’re not in fact a twin.
What then does determine you to be precisely you? Or me precisely me? For although my bodily make-up is indeed extremely complex, it seems evident to me that I — my very self — am not any FEATURE or CHARACTER or MARK or NOTE; nor any ensemble of FACTORS: I’m quite simply just me. So then, Why do I and not someone else look out from behind these eyes of mine? Why are they MY eyes?
      By this it appears evident to me that from that same individual ovum and that spermatozoon from which I somehow came, there could have come someone other than I; evident also, at the same stroke, that there is no necessity whatever for ME to have come from ANY union of sperm and ovum.
      In view of this, What reason can there be why precisely I have this individual nature — indeed, What reason why precisely I exist at all, other than that my absolutely ineffable identity itself — and the intimate identity of every human self — is the expressly intended effect and term of a free option of some person able to bring about that effect? — term of a free option, that is, of a Creator?
      (Understandably, if a premise here which appears evident to me does not appear so to a given reader, this argument won’t be conclusive to that person.)

      • Rebecca Hamilton

        I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying here. “Altho as a Catholic I agree with everything the Church definitively teaches, I personally, like atheists, don’t believe that God exists. Instead, I think the existence of a personal creator can be seen by our natural human reason, as cause is inferred from effect.”

        • J. H. M. Ortiz

          Altho my hopefully common-sense argument for God’s existence is my own, the background of the two sentences that puzzled you, Mrs. Hamilton, is rather from my exposure to Scholastic, especially Thomistic, theology, which holds that belief is based on the EXTRINSIC evidence of the authority of a trustwothy witness (for instance, God revealing through Christ’s witness the Good News of savation); whereas either scientific or common-sense knowledge is based rather on the INTRINSIC evidence of what one sees, not believes. (Not that I see God — far from it; but that I think that I see that He exists.) So, like atheists, I don’t acknowledge God’s existence based on the authority of any witness; but unlike atheists, I indeed aknowledge God’s existence.

          • Rebecca Hamilton

            I think I understand, at least a little better. Thank you for the explanation.

          • J. H. M. Ortiz

            I should have expressed myself more clearly. — And I should not have left out the “L” in “salvation”. (-:

    • Ted Seeber

      So in other words, you’re a liar and a fraud, in addition to having lost your faith?

      • Rebecca Hamilton

        Ted, play nice.

  • WFS

    I lost my faith in God and the Church except for the priests and parishioners. I don’t believe in the often referred to “Church teaching”. It’s all backwards Gays, contraception, DWD, etc. I got a good book refuting the new atheism “True Reason” which hammers Dawkins’ science. I’ll keep reading.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Have you considered the possibility that, rather than being an atheist, you are becoming a Protestant?

  • Bill S

    No. Everyone in my life is Catholic and it would do me no good to become a different kind of Christian. I don’t believe anything Protestants believe either. Especially the inerrancy of the Bible. I believe in the intelligence of Nature (more so than Dawkins) and to me that is God.

    I’ll be out of the loop today. I have an all day ceremony at the Knights of Columbus. My fourth degree ironic. I know.

    WFS is blocked. Says my response may be too short.

    I’ll catch up with you later. I’ll keep reading your articles. I don’t know how you do it.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      A couple of things: Dawkins is pretty much a nut. I don’t know if you’re aware of his behavior, but check him out. Second, remember that God gave us minds that allow us to unravel how He created things — the “intelligence” of nature (which has no intelligence, btw) being on of of His tools. Understanding something doesn’t mean there is no God. It means that we are wonderfully made, and for the purpose of interacting with Him. As I said, keep reading and thinking.

    • Ted Seeber

      A atheist going for his 4th degree is a lie.

      • Rebecca Hamilton

        Ted, I think he may be going through a period of testing his faith. Show him some kindness.

    • Ted Seeber

      2nd response, and an apology- it took Rebecca posting from Ted Kennedy’s wife to remind me that the precepts of the Church do NOT include pro-life beliefs. If Ted Kennedy can be a good 4th Degree Knight, I see no reason why you can’t as an atheist.

  • http://scpeanutgallery.com Art Chartier

    Please don’t bring the Protestants into this. We have enough problems.

    • Bill S

      Evangelization through reverse psychology! Brilliant!

  • Bill S

    Just in case you or another reader thinks I’m being hypocritical being a Knight, that would not be true. I want to believe and may someday.

    Some times you have to fake it till you make it. I sell tootsie rolls at stop lights wearing a “For God’s Children” apron.

    • Ted Seeber

      I don’t believe you’re merely hypocritical. I think you are lying to yourself as to your intentions.

      I think you have been seduced by evil.

      • Ted Seeber

        I still think you’ve been seduced by evil- BUT- so was Ted Kennedy. So was Babe Ruth. They were still Knights of Columbus.

        But I think you really need a heart to heart with your Grand Knight, your Faithful Navigator, and the respective Chaplains of your council and your assembly, to see if your goals in life are still compatible with the Knights of Columbus at all.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Bill, most people go through a period of questioning their faith. It’s a natural way of moving from what they learned when they were young to developing what they believe themselves. I think, based on a few things you’ve said, that you are being unduly influenced by the rant and ravings of the “new atheists.”

      You’ve specifically mentioned Dr Dawkins, who, in my opinion, is a fanatic evangelical atheist nut. If you read his writings you can easily see that he espouses every social movement that advocates killing, misrepresents objective historical facts, and promotes a philosophy that is basically dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest, the weak be doomed. He seeks to enforce this with political ideas that can only be described as a tyranny of the strong over the weak. Then, he gets around all the obvious problems with this world he wants by making empty and totally unsupportable claims about human nature without God. As I’ve said; self-refuting.

      This is also true for the rest of them that I’ve read. Christopher Hitchens criticizes Catholic Dogma, but doesn’t even get the facts of Catholic Dogma correct while he’s doing it; things that you, as an active Catholic should be able to identify immediately.

      All of them are highly derivative in their thinking, serving up a mish-mash of Bertrand Russell (who at least had the kindness to write briefly instead of going on and on and on and on as they do.) and Nietzsche as if they had thought of it themselves.

      I see the same thing in the many ignorant comments that various unbelievers keep trying to dump on this blog. They quote Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris as if they were saying something original.

      As I said, keep reading, and think it through — all the way through.

      You might stop by Leah Libresco’s blog, Unequally Yoked. She’s a lot smarter than I am, and could probably give you a better understanding of all this.

  • http://www.settledinheaven.wordpress.com Rob Barkman

    This issue affects protestant as well as Catholics…. thank you so much for posing information on this. Lord bless.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Thank you.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X