E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDENVER — It was a startling assertion that seemed an about-face from church doctrine: A Catholic hospital arguing in a Colorado court that twin fetuses that died in its care were not, under state law, human beings.
When the two-year-old court filing surfaced last month, it triggered an avalanche of criticism — because the legal argument seemed to plainly clash with the church's centuries-old stance that life begins at conception.
But it is also now fueling an already raging debate in Colorado and beyond about whether fetuses should have legal rights and, if so, what kind.
On Monday, the hospital and the state's bishops released a statement acknowledging it was "morally wrong" to make the legal argument.
News of the wrongful death lawsuit came as Colorado lawmakers weigh how far they should go in penalizing acts that harm a fetus, and some worry that the case could diminish the Catholic Church's credibility in advocating more rights for the unborn.
Miguel De La Torre, a professor at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, noted that the church often argues for laws recognizing a fetus as a human being.
"If that legislation was to come up again, how could the Catholic Church argue we should protect the rights of a fetus?" he said.
Indeed, last week Colorado's bishops met with executives at Catholic Healthcare Initiatives, a branch of the church that operates the hospital at the center of the case, to review how the lawsuit was handled. The two released separate statements Monday saying CHI executives had been unaware of the legal arguments and pledging to "work for comprehensive change in Colorado's law, so that the unborn may enjoy the same legal protections as other persons."
Spurred on by advancing medical technology that makes fetuses more viable and more visible, states have been expanding some rights to fetuses, sometimes in conjunction with anti-abortion groups and the Catholic Church.
State laws vary widely. It's difficult to quantify how many states allow wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of unborn children because each state has different case law and judicial interpretation. A report from the anti-abortion Americans United for Life estimates that 38 permit such lawsuits.
According to The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health issues, 37 states allow some form of prosecution for killing a fetus. A federal law also makes it a crime to harm a fetus while committing other federal crimes.
The debate over such measures has been especially heated in Colorado, which has long battled over the legal status of unborn children. For example, Colorado has been ground zero for the "personhood" movement, which pushes laws that give fertilized eggs all the legal rights of human beings. Opponents warn that such laws would outlaw all forms of abortion and some types of birth control. Voters here so far have overwhelmingly rejected such proposals.
In 1986, a federal court ruled that fetuses are indeed people for purposes of wrongful death lawsuits in Colorado, but state courts have offered conflicting views. This latest case further calls the matter into question.
The case centers on St. Thomas More Medical Center in Canon City, a few hours south of Denver, and a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a husband who lost his pregnant wife.
Lori Stodghill was 28 weeks into her pregnancy when, on New Year's Day 2006, she began vomiting and feeling short of breath, according to court papers. Her husband, Jeremy, took her to the emergency room of St. Thomas More, where Stodghill collapsed and went into cardiac arrest.
Doctors and nurses tried to revive her, but she was declared dead from a pulmonary embolism. No one tried to remove the fetuses via an emergency cesarean section, and they perished, too, court papers said.
Jeremy Stodghill sued the hospital, some doctors and Catholic Healthcare Initiatives, which owns the company that operates Thomas More. Attorneys for CHI in 2010 filed court papers asking a judge to dismiss the case because the plaintiffs couldn't prove negligent care killed Lori Stodghill and her fetuses. They also argued that "under Colorado law, a fetus is not a 'person,' and Plaintiff's claims for wrongful death must therefore be dismissed."
The trial judge agreed, finding that previous state cases required a fetus to be "born alive" to have a legal claim. An appellate court upheld the dismissal on other grounds. Stodghill's attorneys are now asking the state Supreme Court to hear the case.
The arguments were first reported on Jan. 23 by The Colorado Independent and Westword and set off a firestorm because of Catholic health groups' past stances on such issues. The trade group representing Catholic Hospitals opposed a provision of the federal health care law mandating that birth control be covered by insurance.
In their Monday statement, Denver Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila, Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan and Pueblo Bishop Fernando Isern said: "Catholic healthcare institutions are, and should, be held to the high standard of Jesus Christ himself."
They and CHI pledged not to argue against fetal personhood further in the case. They also said they and CHI sympathize with the Stodghill family.
Attorney Timms Fowler, who wrote a brief on behalf of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association in the case, doesn't believe that allowing lawsuits over wrongfully killed fetuses leads to giving them the same rights as human beings. He said there is a difference between "the duty owed by a stranger to the mother and the unborn child" and the mother's own decisions about the fetus' future.
"To die by the wrongful conduct of a stranger, you don't have to be a walking, talking, full person," Timms said, stressing he was speaking for himself and not the association.
Last Monday, no church representatives testified as a state legislative committee considered a proposal to make it a crime to kill a fetus. Republican Rep. Janak Joshi said his measure was not meant to wade into abortion politics but rather enable prosecutors to file additional charges in cases like the Aurora movie theater shooting. One victim was so severely wounded during the July massacre that she miscarried, but prosecutors could not file murder charges on her unborn child's behalf.
Witness Heather Surovik told the committee about how a drunken driver injured her last year and killed her 8 1/2-month-old unborn son, Brady. At the hospital, the emergency staff removed him from her body and dressed his corpse in infant clothes. Prosecutors could not file vehicular manslaughter charges because Brady was not legally a person.
Democrats and an attorney for Planned Parenthood argued that Joshi's measure, as written, could enshrine legal rights for fetuses in state law and lead to an abortion ban. The committee voted it down, but Democrats later unveiled their own bill that would make it a crime to kill a fetus during a criminal act committed against a pregnant woman. That measure specifically states that the intent is to neither outlaw abortions nor give unborn children additional rights.
A hearing on that proposal is scheduled later this month.
Leave a Comment:
We just make it up as we go along. -Big Faith
For the Catholic Church, it's all about the $$$.
My question is, will the case be called a miss trial and has to be reheard by the courts. As the Church has changed their view on the case shouldn't it be reheard.
You can't have it both ways, if the secular law, which people want churches to adhere to, state that life begins at birth, not conception then the father's claim of wrongful death was inaccurate since something has to be alive, before it can be dead. The twin boys were dead when removed from the mother, they were never born, so according to how the law is written the Hospital's stance was correct. Seems to me it is the pro-choicers that want to have things both ways, not the church, they were simply following the law as we expect everyone to do...right?
No...morally wrong is not the same as legally wrong. The father lost because while the stance the Hospital took may have been morally questionable, it was legally sound, so unless they decide to pay up of their own free will I don't see how the court can do anything.
In legal terms, the statement was correct. Morally, it does not follow their beliefs.
We also don't know all the medical details. We don't know if the babies were doing well enough that they would have survived. Or if perhaps the medical team thought they could save the mother, which would have saved the babies, but by the time they lost her, the babies were too far gone too.
It may have been "morally wrong" for the Catholic Hospital to argue that the fetus was not a person, but hell, money was involved, so they dumped their sense of morality in pursuit of the bucks. Not a new story, is it?
But NOW....oh my!....they realize that they were so-o-o-o-o wrong to have done so. (But they DID it, didn't they?). They'll have to say a few extra Hail Marys and do a few mea culpas and their hypocrisy will be forgiven and forgotten. How convenient.
Kiss my Ass. BMette.
I agree BMette...money was the deciding factor. Christian Hospital is an oxymoron isn't it? Religion and science are at odds with each other if I'm not mistaken.
Since the Catholic Church now acknowledges they were "morally wrong" does this mean they've agreed to pay the damages and court costs of the claimant? Nothing here about it in the article, so I'm assuming it's like the pedophile cases. We, the Church, acknowledge we sinned and will ask God to forgive us. Now, go away.
Not necessarily. Only for those that think the Bible is an accurate word-for-word historical account. I personally feel it's a collection of teachings, with some old Jewish law (much of which is no longer relevent), second hand accounts of Jesus' works, and a super-simplified account of the history of the earth thrown in. I also understand that it's been translated many times, so any particular phrase may or may not convey the original meaning.
.. so if a Nun kicks me in the nuts that is the same as abortion!!! You people really need to get a handle on Reality
I think that a person can not be challenged for making a choice out of ignorance.
Also that Ignorance is bliss, but once you Know then it's on you to do the right thing.
When you find through modern science that you just created offspring WILL suffer a horrible existence due to deformity and become a crushing burden on your family with life only at the cost of others it's a persons responsibility to the herd to pull the plug. Not everything that exists in the World is Divine. Of course its
MHO.
So, I guess the chrch DOES want to have it both way. Either pay the man explain how the church has been WRONG on this issue..
Sure they do, just like liberals want to have it both ways. They want the freedom to abort fetuses because they're not people, but still want to find the Catholic hospital guilty of wrongful death when fetuses in their care die (because apparently they are people, in that case). Well, that's just too bad. Morality and legality are two different things. By law, a fetus is not a person (thanks to you liberals), so the hospital is correct in saying that they are not guilty of wrongful death in this case.
Actually genous - liberals could give 2 @!$%#s about the law suit. We just point out the stupid hypocrisy of a church of god that forever has claimed fetuses are alive human beings - only to do an about face and say they arent.
And your analogy about liberals wanting it both ways by wanting abortion and holding the church responsible doesnt even make sense you nitwit.
Dandy, you need to check your facts...throughout the abortion debate church/pro-life detractors have always smugly claimed that they are silly, antiquated, out of touch, and down right stupid to believe life begins at conception not birth. Coloradans believed life begins at birth so much so that they codified into law, which by several constitutional amendments must be equally applied to everyone right? The ultimate hypocrisy is that the pro-choice movement, as evidenced by yours, and other posts, seem to want to morally wiggle yourself into knots saying basically that if an unborn child is unwanted it isn't a life and deserves no protection, but if it is, then it does (apparently especially when large sums of money are involved)...
What happened to this couple was tragic and horrible, but I doubt seriously if you were facing having to pay millions in damages for something you were not legally obligated to pay for I doubt YOUR morals would persuade you to pony up that dough anyway. There is no way the church/hospital should pay a dime, the law says they don't have to, so they shouldn't.
If it is a believe that can be dismissed due to money, then it is not a strongly held believe and should not be forced on others.
If they believe that life begins at conception then they should pay whatever damages the couple was asking for regardless of what the law says.
Even if they disagree with the wrongful death claim? It's possible that the hospital was in the wrong in their treatment. Apparently they don't believe so, so they brought up a legal point that kept the case from being long and drawn out. This doesn't mean they agree with the law, just that legally, there is no basis for the case.
They didn't do an about-face and say that fetuses aren't human beings, they said LEGALLY they are not human beings. Do you not understand the difference, dumb ass? So legally, the hospital is not liable. You say they should pay damages anyway, even if they're not legally required to, because their teachings say that a fetus is a human being. I might be more inclined to agree with you if all those wealthy liberal elitists who are always arguing for higher taxes to fund more social programs would follow their "teachings" and send the IRS more tax money than they are legally required to. I don't see that happening.
It all depends on the $$ factor.
Ptownz - you are absolutely correct, Money vs. Morality in the church. It is, what it is! We are holier than thou. What a crock!
Ah the good old days of selling Indulgences.
It's morally right for the Catholic Church to mind it's own business. Religion has no business in family planning.
What about the father? Does he get a say in family planning? As a woman, what I don't understand is how the woman is the only one with the deciding factor to get an abortion. Now when the 2 consenting adults agree to an abortion, no big deal (to them anyway), but what happens when the father wants to keep the child but not the mother? This is where it gets muddy for me, do the fathers get no say what so ever in the situation? How is it that the child that is half of himself can be aborted without his consent? I realize that it's the woman's body, but she shared it with a man, ending in the result that sex was made for, procreation. All of this is a hypothetical situation, one I would never be in due to my beliefs, but I do wonder about such a situation and what rights the father of the fetus has when he wants to keep the child but the mother doesn't. Anyone with some constructive feedback, I would appreciate it.
Yes. Woman want all the "reproductive rights". What about the Father. Where's his rights. If we bend the rules to allow for things like female fire fighters, then we can also give men more rights concerning their unborn children. Women want it both ways.
Women have the right to abort because the embryo is in their body. They are the ones taking on the physical risk. Really, this day and age, women are taking on all the risk because there is no guarantee that the father will stick around and live up to his obligations.
If a man could stop a woman from aborting if he wanted the child and she didn't, the flip side of this would be if a man didn't want the child and the woman did, could he force her to abort?
I am only asking about fathers that WANT to be the child's parent, not any other situation. But you're right misscreant, it's a terribly slippery slope. I just can't help but feel for the fathers (or would-be fathers) in this situation.
It is humanly wrong, ethically wrong, and morally wrong to force a woman to be on a course of pregnancy, to be forced to be a mother, to be forced to raise up a child, or to be forced to give up a child for adoption.
Do not step into any control of a woman's tommy, and no one has made any law to control the ejeculation of sperms, which has made a fetus.
Maybe I should have posted my previous post here. What happens when the father wants to keep the child but not the mother? Does he have zero say? Does he have zero right to the child that he helped to create? By the way, babies don't come from the "tommy" or tummy for that matter, they are created and carried in the woman's womb, which is in the pelvic cavity.
P.S. Personal responsibility goes a long way. In a consenting relationship, no one has forced the woman onto her back to have sex unprotected. Condoms, spermicide, and other forms of non-hormonal birth-control aren't that expensive, less expensive than an abortion or unplanned pregnancy.
ah, but the catholic church doesn't allow birth control!?!?
annon, birth control, even hormonal birth control, can fail and result in an unwanted pregnancy.
Yes it can, but I'd wager that many abortions occurred because of lack in personal responsibility. I've had one of those unintentional pregnancies on birth control, so I know it happens, but really it's a narrow margin of people. (BTW I wasn't taking my Rx properly and that is why I ended up pregnant, totally my own fault)
Trillian, with all the articles on the birth control issue apparently the only followers that aren't taking birth control are the priests and the women too old to need it.
As with everything else the Catholic Church feigns ignorance. I can't believe people still follow these dudes in dresses and pretty hats. When you can stop your flock from raping little boys and girls and stop covering it up, then maybe I will listen to what the CC has to say. Maybe when they stop worshiping false idols and basically breaking every law in the bible then, and only then might they be worthy of being listened too.
The Catholic Church...the Catholic Church...words that sit like lemons on my abraded tongue.
My tongue, long held hostage to a Catechism of lies, is now set free to speak with honesty and join the apostate's choir of damning truths.
You gotta LOVE the Catholic Church. Truth is what suits them at the moment. Join the Nazi youth as a kid, then be Pope. Preach that sex is sinful and protect pedophile priests. Teach that a fetus is not a person, but defend a malpractice case by arguing otherwise. What ELSE is new? Oh, and if American nuns DARE to speak out against the Church's hypocrisy, go AFTER them with vengeance
Gotta love Planned Parenthood. Technology has produced some amazing advances in the recent past, to include what now amounts to take-out video of your unborn baby. Mommies in waiting across the country are leaving their sonograms fully equipped with not just photos, but DVDs of their yet to be born child. Call it what you want - a fetus, an unborn baby - it's human and it's alive; sucking his/her thumb, breathing, kicking, keeping mom up at night, giving her heartburn and making her incredibly uncomfortable at times - a human being that, yes, is fully dependent on his/her mother, but a human being none-the-less. Much like a full-term baby who needs to be fed, loved, etc. All this rhetoric over whether it is a baby or not is nonsense. Let's at least call a spade a spade and be honest with ourselves. Yes, it's mom's body. But mom didn't get pregnant on her own and in most cases, mom had a choice - not to have sex. Yes, there is abuse and rape but that is the exception and not the norm. It's time for woman to act responsibly; honor the fact that sex at its very root exists for the purpose of continuing the human race; the rest is a bonus. If you choose to have sex and get pregnant, be honest with yourself about the life you are now carrying inside you and honor that life. Pregnancy is a tremendous privilege and life is truly a gift; and yet, so many of us allow so many insignificant things to convince us that this life is easily expendable, without even giving it a second thought. Things like the morning after pill allow us to absolve ourselves of any responsibility for what we are doing; out of sight, out of mind. This is healthcare?? How very sad. As women, we think we have come so far and really, we have fallen to such depths we don't even know what harm we've done to ourselves, to humanity.
I dont know about you but the sonograms and 3-d pictures of fetuses look nothing like a human being.
And honestly - how is humanity any better if a woman carries an unwanted pregnancy to term? The kid may get lucky and get adopted or, as is typical, end up in a foster home for their entire life.
Sounds to me like you are selfish and are just looking to make yourself feel better. Let me ask you this... should an adult in a vegetative state be kept alive indefinitely on life support?
Dandy, try and adopt a new born, just go out and inquire. Newborns aren't the ones in orphanages often, or state homes. It's children who are older who are either not eligible for adoption but are for fostering or just older and people who want children usually want to start at the very beginning of the child's life, not somewhere in the middle of childhood that requires a "re-training" of behavior.
My 3-D pictures of my kids were amazing, sure the color wasn't "normal", it was in more of a sepia tone, but I could tell exactly what they looked like, even so much as to confirm to my husband that his daughter does indeed look just like him (as I predicted she would, even before she was conceived, though mostly as a tender notion than a fact).
They always look like really bad TV picture reception to me, but damn if women can't se every detail in them. Must be a kind of "Where's Waldo" type picture, cause I can never see him!
annon,
Mothers always think their children look like their fathers. It's an evolutionary quirk to keep the father from being jealous and killing the thing.
Actually, my son is a good mix of us both and my other daughter looks just like me.
And I'm glad she (the one that looks like my husband) got her grandmother's nose, b/c large noses are just fine on guys, but you always feel sorry for the girls with the huge honkers!
Mother bulldogs will kill off their newborns until they are comfortable with the size of the litter.
Sounds like Catholic principles are merely principles of convenience, as if we didn't already know that from their conspiracy to cover up pedophilia.
keep ion mind that these were legal arguments written by lawyers, not priests. And there is nothing wrong, I think, with invoking existing statutes in connection with your case--you don't have to believe in the premise for it to be legally valid. At the same time, given the fact that the Catholic Church is also trying to WRITE the laws, they definitely got caught with their rosaries down.
CHI is, first and foremost, a corporation. I worked for a facility under the auspices of CHI (it was actually owned by a Catholic order of sisters) when we attempted to organize a union. Despite the church's long-standing support of "social justice" the organization wasted no time bringing high-powered union-busting attorneys from CHI headquarters to intimidate and frighten employees (and fire a few organizers).
The church ties itself in knots - once again - in trying to balance greed with total control of the female body.
So if a women needs to abort the fetus because of health risks then the mother can be sued for wrongful death?
Abortion is wrong and the Catholic Church is so wrong on so many issues.
A fetus is a child according to the catholic church... unless of course they are being sued for that logic. Hypocrites.
All moral opinions are based on unprovable assumptions, whether they be self-centered, God based or society based. The Catholics base their ideas on the opinion of Pope Pius IX who said that since Mary was conceived without sin, his soul is infused at conception. Under the Bush administration the American idea has been that life begins at the implantation of the fertilized ovum. And naturally people who are pregnant and don't want a baby base their moral decision on their self-centered desires. There is of course the evidence that one attaches to his or her unprovable assumption. It may be historical, traditional, empirical or from authority of some sort – – like a pope, a mother, a father, a minister, a Rabbi or an imam. ( if you are really interested in the idea of human values I suggest reading Book 4 of the series andgulliverreturns.info-- particularly the chapter on abortion.) In the present case it is clearly a conflict between the unprovable Catholic idea and the unprovable societal idea relative to when life starts.
Probably the major criminal who should be dealt with his God, because most fertilized ova never implant, and many that do & are spontaneously aborted. This is all obviously God's doing!
How about raping children Catlicks? Too bad you don't seem to consider that "morally wrong."
Anyone who falls for this religion crap is an idiot !
Bob ... Anyone who believes there is no God ... has no future! ;)
The hospital was completely in the wrong here. A fetus is not a person. Depending on the size, it's either an appetizer or an entree.
That was outrageously disgusting Joe, great post!
The entire Catholic hierarchy should be held to the high standard of Jesus Christ himself. But it isn't.
If the Catholic church actually held themselves up to the "high standard of Jesus Christ himself." then they should know how much they have FAILED... repeatedly.
The Catholic Church is spending all its money defending Pedophile Priests. They don't give a @!$%# about anything else.
If it was morally wrong than give the person who sued the Catholic Church the money that was in question!
Can't have it both ways - take the money and run or settle the suit - betcha they won't - they will keep the money and try to wiggle out of the decision - love the hypocricy!
As usual the holier-than-thou hypocrisies stop at the pocketbook.