From an article in the Albany NY Times Union:

Study: Hospital care fails women

Catholic facilities deny access to emergency contraception, health group’s survey finds by Michele Morgan Bolton, Staff writer

ALBANY — Results of a national survey released Thursday say Catholic hospitals in New York routinely deny mandated access to emergency contraception to women, including victims of sexual assault.

The concentrated dose of oral contraceptives or “morning after” pills protect against pregnancy up to 120 hours after intercourse, by inhibiting ovulation and fertilization. It is not to be confused with the abortion pill, RU-486.

The study by Washington, D.C.-based Catholics for A Free Choice, a women’s health care advocacy group, said staff at 94 facilities in New York, California, South Carolina and Washington said no such emergency contraceptive treatment is available at their hospital 35 percent of the time.

Boy, that’s a misnomer… Catholics for A Free Choice is a pro abortion, pro murder, and pro homosexual group. Healthcare is the furthest thing from their mission. For an expose of the organization see The Catholic Leagues primer on the group: The Real Agenda of Catholics For A Free Choice.

While 7 percent in the overall study said emergency contraception is available upon request for all women, another 20 percent of respondents either tried to evade the calls, hung up on the callers or, at times, scolded them, according to the poll.

“The results were mixed at best, and devastating at worst,” said Catholics for a Free Choice president Frances Kissling. “Women of many different religions seek emergency care at Catholic hospitals, in part, because of their reputation for compassionate, quality care. That the Catholic hospitals we surveyed would turn women away in their time of need … is not only a violation of the law, it is a violation of their mission.”

Dennis Poust, a spokesman for the Catholic Conference of New York State, said he was unaware of any sexual assault victims who have come forward and said they’ve been denied services.

“Until they do? I’m not going to take this seriously,” he said. “They’re not a Catholic organization. Their mission is to undermine the church.”

I would agree.

Now, do not get me wrong. My Church has a different attitude toward marriage and the place of procreation in marriage. We see no impediment to the use of non-abortive contraception within the context of marriage.

The real issue here is the finger pointing that will lead to forced compliance with an unjust law. Does anyone, except these fringe groups, want this war?

The simple fact is that Roman Catholic Hospitals are indeed that, Roman Catholic. What do these people expect? These institutions, along with colleges, orphanages, and other social benefit agencies were founded, and still exist, as a major part of the world’s health care and human services milieu.

While some institutions, like some formerly Roman Catholic colleges, might very easily give up their values and teachings in then face of the —Law— or —social trends—, the tendency in the past 5-10 years, to impose legal obligations, contrary to the faith and morals of Roman Catholic institutions, and to impose them on those institution, is completely un-American.

You can see this in the recent Boston scandal concerning Catholic Charities —legal— obligation to provide adoption services to homosexuals. You can see this in New York State laws forcing the provision of health insurance covering contraception on Roman Catholic institutions.

Imposing obligations of this type is completely contrary to American legal tradition. In fact, I look at it as one of those slippery slopes.

Some of the things that make me shake my head:

The ‘duh’ factor. How do the finger pointers and lawmakers expect these institutions to act? In compliance with laws that are gravely against their teachings and values? How about a law that forces everyone to eat pork on Friday night?

Legislators with agendas will quickly find that their methods, when adopted by people opposed to their point of view, will bring greater harm to themselves and the greater public good.

State governments and indeed the United States as a whole cannot provide adequate education for children, adequate nutrition, adequate health care, and other basic needs. Sure legislators struggle with this and many desire what is best. Isn’t it then counterintuitive to push those doing the work, walking the walk, into dilemmas. It adds to the prevailing antagonism in society.

Maybe lawmakers first question should be – can we fund an across-the-board replacement of services provided by Roman Catholic institutions? I think not.

From my point-of-view, if nominal Roman Catholic institutions wish to be secular, ok, get rid of the name, wash out the tradition, and convert yourselves to a secular agency. Follow the —Law—. On the other hand, those Roman Catholic organizations and Religious Orders that run institutions, hospitals, and colleges should get in line with the Church’s teaching and make a stand.

Standing in the face of injustice and nut case organizations like CFFC will do more to protect everyone (including the rights of CFFC) than a go along to get along attitude.