Catholic Hospital Sued Over Refusal to Perform Tubal Ligation


In its ongoing dispute with Catholic hospital officials in Redding, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Dignity Health, contending the hospital system is unlawfully denying women’s rights to contraception.
The suit is filed on behalf of Physicians for Reproductive Health and a Redding woman, Rebecca Chamorro, who requested a tubal ligation at Mercy Medical Center in Redding during her scheduled cesarean section in late January. Chamorro and her husband, who have two other children, want the procedure as a permanent form of contraception.
“The overarching issue is about women’s ability to access basic health care. It’s an incredibly common procedure used by a significant number of married women, but it’s being denied based on religious doctrine. It’s a real problem,” said Elizabeth Gill, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

Catholic Hospital Sued Over Refusal to Perform Tubal Ligation - Christine Rousselle

As I have said before the ACLU is more concerned with taking rights away rather than righting wrongs. This is another example of trying to force Christians to negate their beliefs.


the ACLU is one of Satan’s fingernails. The same one he uses to scratch where the flames don’t shine.


The ACLU should be on the other side of this.


The ACLU is a leftist commie organization. If this lady wanted to have a tubal ligation, she could have had it done in another, non-Catholic hospital. Again, this whole incident is suspect, just like the cake bakers. I contend that BO hates the Catholic Church and other staunch Christian Churches. He hates America.


Jan 5, 2016 8:24 PM by News Staff
Judge denies motion in Dignity Health lawsuit | Action News Now

A San Francisco Superior Court Judge denied a motion Tuesday brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Catholic-affiliated medical group, Dignity Health.

Dignity Health, which operates Mercy Medical Center in Redding, has denied women various procedures related to reproductive health in the past citing religious directives. The American Civil Liberties Union, the organization leading the charge against the hospital, contends that withholding pregnancy-related care for reasons other than medical considerations is illegal in California.

The motion denial is a victory for Dignity Health and Mercy Medical, which took heat last month for denying tubal ligations, a form of sterilization, on religious principles. The motion would have granted Rebecca Chamorro a restraining order against the hospital, allowing her doctor to perform the procedure.

Dr. Gupta, a doctor with the Physicians with Reproductive Health and also a plantiff on the case, had some strong words for the medical group.

“It really is a form of the catholic bishop dignity health practicing medicine,” he said. “We should leave medicine to the medical experts and leave religion and theology to those experts.”

Dignity health issued a statement following the decision.

“We are pleased by the court’s decision to deny the ACLU’s request for the TRO which will allow Dignity Health to continue to operate consistent with the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services,” the statement read.

But the battle is far from over. The ACLU plans to file a new motion and expects to be back in court sometime next week


How they can call abortion a “women’s health” issue is beyond me.


Yep. Its very UN-healthy for a woman, and it kills the child. Not much “health” in that.


Maybe if the hospital did the procedure, it would be a benefit for the rest of us. If she is stupid enough to sue a hospital for not giving her a non-life saving procedure. Then she is too foolish to have children anyways.


The hospital ultimately conforms to Catholic ethical guidelines. They are not going to do abortions and they are not going to do this. I’m sure there are other things they don’t do. Its a complicated field that I don’t know that much about.

I agree.


ACLU loses case to force Catholic hospital to perform abortions
Ben Johnson

> DETROIT, April 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – A Michigan judge has thrown out the ACLU’s lawsuit attempting to force a nationwide chain of Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.

> The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division dismissed the case, saying the liberal legal organization lacks standing to sue.

> The ACLU filed suit against Trinity Health Corporation, which operates 86 health care facilities in 21 states nationwide, last October because Trinity – a Catholic institution – abides by the U.S. Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs), which bar physicians from taking unborn human life.
> …
> The court ruled that the ACLU lacked standing to bring the case, dismissing its claims of impending harms as “dubious” and “speculative.”

> They did not rise to the point that the case should be heard, much less that a Christian organization should be forced to violate its established protocols based on its faith, the court said.

> “Trinity Health Corporation is” dedicated to “carrying out the health care mission of Catholic Health Ministries on behalf of and as an integral part of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States,” the court noted in its ruling today.

Yet another such case. The ruling is interesting. The court could have said nothing more than the fact that the ACLU. It went beyond that by pointing out that the ACLU’s claims of damages lacked substance, and that the ACLU’s was asking the court to violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause. IOW, the court was warning the ACLU that there were two further bases on which their lawsuit would fail.

So far, Federal courts continue to recognize the obvious fact that "Free Exercise" means and applies to more than what believers, churches, and religious organizations do in church sanctuaries and private homes.


In all this I have noticed no attempts to force muslim places to comply to the wishes of people demanding things against their faith or running a business. If this right is usurped no one could have any rules or standards that they could enforce. Churches would have to hold pagan services. Stores would not be allowed to sell only the merchandise they offered because someone could demand something they do not stock and sue them if they do not give it to them.


Of course, I am very happy with this ruling. It will set the precedence if other lawsuits against the Catholic Church come up–and they will. Now, to those bakers…

Regardless of what the civil law says, the Catholic Church is not governed by civil law or authorities. If the law said the Catholic Church hospitals HAD to perform such surgeries, it would either close up or simply refuse and pay the civil consequences. The Catholic Church has NEVER buckled under civil pressure. Never. Many Catholics have gone to their deaths rather than to succumb to threats. And, that goes for Christians in general.


Halal restaurants and Kosher delis can’t be forced to serve ham and bacon? Say it ain’t so!

Just such situations is the intent of recent “public accommodation” laws - and certain portions of ObamaCare, for that matter. It’s an effort in which everyone loses, even the activists advocating the efforts. Services will be lost - e.g. the Catholic adoption agencies in MA. Good people will be forced out of valuable professions (leaving a space that will be at least partly filled by less good people). Success fueling success, the activists will always move on to more targets, and do further damage.


Absolutely correct, Pete. And, we are seeing this insidious infection in our schools with the “gender” bathroom debacle. The rule is this: 1) if you were born male, you use the men’s room. 2) if you were born female, you use the woman’s room. 3) if you’re confused, go outside.


I’m afraid the precedent won’t matter much; the link quote said it was a Michigan judge. The real deal will happen if a Federal judge hears a case like this.


“The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division …”. While this court’s jurisdiction is the Eastern District of Michigan, Federal courts consider other courts’ rulings for guidance, even state courts’ rulings.

If the ACLU takes the judge’s rather broad hint, this ruling won’t be a binding precedent, but would be considered by other Federal courts, and if they rule to the contrary it would set the stage for the USSC to consider the cases.


Oh, okay; I goofed. But why in the world did the article say “A Michigan judge” instead of “A Federal judge in Michigan?”…


Not the best writing. The opening sentence in a news article typically summarizes the article. That it was a lower court is important information, but so is the fact that it was a Federal rather than a state court.