Sacramento hospitals and the abundant Catholic sway maintained
Only a few non-religiously influenced hospitals exist in Sacramento. Accordingly, the majority of the hospitals in Sacramento County force patients to yield to and conform to Catholic beliefs, practices, ethics, morals, and political sway. That’s right; an extremely scarce amount of non-biased clinics exist in Sacramento County.
This means no sterilization is made available: no tubal ligation for the preventative measures of the woman; no vasectomy for the benefit of the man; no medical birth control readily available whatsoever. Women on welfare, medicare, or medi-Cal (medicaid), who give birth to such an overwhelming amount of children in such an overwhelming number of cases, simply cannot and have not been able to receive the sterilization and the birth prevention needed to prevent more unwanted births. Then we get to see these unwanted children grow up to populate the state and federal prisons, another expense left completely to the taxpayer. But that’s a seperate issue entirely. The main point herein lies that these mislabeled yet accused women have been left defenseless and vulnerable by a faulty society.
The patient is not in control of her body; she must abide completely in accordance with the “mercy“ of the hospital in order to receive any services which the religious sway of the hospital condones. This misguided medical practice would seem to be the first vital alteration to be made during times of such a stagnant economy. Instead, the singled-out women in this case end up being chastised and reprimanded socially while the rest of society is forced to foot the bill.
In the case of a Welfare recipient living in government subsidized or low-income or otherwise housing funded by means of state or federal funds, or homeless women who have every legal right to adequate hospitalization, the state budget is then stuck with the bill when this woman comes in with her fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth child, or however many children she can provide fertilization. Excessive children, not to be overlooked, which were not prevented due to this lack of the person’s constitutional right to choose birth control.
Moreover, the doctors on hand do not even have the right to prescribe these drugs. For instance, an Evangelical, Christian, Orthodox Christian, Mormon, Lutheran Minister, what have you, is authorized at Mercy San Juan to counsel and perform clinical duties on patients of any other denomination, though he or she must first get the approval required by Catholic “Sisters” (Nuns). In other words, this doctor may provide his or her medical duties as long as the strict guidelines of these Catholic principles are upheld and enforced. The same thing goes with the doctors and surgeons. Doctors must prove financial and medical necessity for this mercy to be granted which will allow the doctor to perform any services. Every single thing must be approved by these Catholic administrators, thereby giving absolutely no liberation to the medical faculty and patients alike.
The exception goes for the woman who has not only been impregnated but has successfully delivered 4 to 5 children, depending; she must be on medical; and must be able to show proof of “financial hardship.” Then, even after providing all this documentation, services are still not a guarantee. This confining “exception” sounds like more a case of a no-win play on words play on words rather than any kind of autonomous or liberally selected “right to choose.”
Where are this patient’s Constitutional Rights in this matter?
The only power that this pregnant woman has, if anything, is if by luck she can locate an additional “out of network” hospital to accept her medical insurance and perform the tubal ligation or offer her birth control that the vast majority of these hospital who operate under the astringent regime of the Catholic Church will not. Placing her under anesthesiology unnecessarily by two different doctors in two separate hospitals puts her at risk while all this havoc needlessly inconveniences her greatly. She must now pay two separate bills while this secondary facility plays the unnecessary third-party intermediary — all due to this mandated Catholic sway.
Alas, state funds get to foot the far greater majority of the bill.
In concern to the patient, she can be billed up to 20% of the bill from any of these various hospitals operating under this Catholic guise. And that is only in the fortunate instance that with persistence she dug deeply enough in order to find some secondary hospital to serve as the unnecessary third-party intermediary.
Especially during the times of such a world-wide financial hardship, we all need to reevaluate and first recognize where the system is faulty, then collaborate upon a means to fix it, before we blindly and unproductively accuse the assisted who are left completely powerless by the Catholic governance and misguided direction of the hospitals.
B David Ferrel
