[Puffer Fish]

An appeals court in California has ruled that a transgender man can sue a Catholic hospital for refusing to perform a hysterectomy, removing his uterus and sterilizing him.
The question now is not whether the transgender can sue for damages, but how much those damages will be.

In accordance with Catholic teaching, the hospital maintains a policy of refusing to remove organs when there is not a medical reason necessitating the removal of those organs. This is a generalized policy and is not aimed at any specific issue in general.

In addition, it is against Catholic policy to sterilize anyone, if it is not necessitated by health reasons.

Although they refused to perform the procedure, hospital helped the transgender man arrange a surgery at a different hospital.

There are multiple hospitals in this area, so it was not like they were denying the transgender the opportunity to get their uterus removed.

Nevertheless, the transgender person sued. California has a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identity, and gender expression.

The trial judge initially threw out the lawsuit, but then it went to an appeals court which overturned the first decision, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

The appeals court ruled that Dignity Health had an obligation to “provide full and equal access to services”, despite the fact the transgender was able to get their uterus removed at another hospital.

This is a Catholic hospital, with their own religious beliefs, very much against performing this type of thing. Yet the courts in California are making them subject to a lawsuit, with the seeming intent to force them to perform these procedures, taking part in gender transition surgeries.

According to law experts in this area, it’s very unlikely the California Supreme Court will choose to take up this case. The only other way it could be overturned is if it goes to federal court.

This will set a precedent forcing religious hospitals to take part in performing gender transition surgeries even though it violates their beliefs. Seems like these West Coast progressives get sick delight in forcing these religious groups to do this stuff. (Reminds one of the Oregon wedding cake lawsuit)

Unbelievable. But that’s what these laws can do, especially when you have activist judges that can interpret these laws the way they do.

https://www.cmadocs.org/newsroom/news/v ... rimination

[Pants-of-dog]

What is the problem?

[Potemkin]

The West is transitioning (pun intended) into a post-Christian society. The new moral order seems to be just as intolerant of non-conformity as the previous moral order. This is to be expected; after all, for a moral order to be a moral order, it must impose its values on the whole of society. Some people will benefit from this process, and others will lose out. Which is precisely what happened when the Christian moral order was imposed on the late Roman Empire.

Tl;dr: We live in interesting times.

[Puffer Fish]

The new moral order seems to be just as intolerant of non-conformity as the previous moral order. This is to be expected; after all, for a moral order to be a moral order, it must impose its values on the whole of society. Which is precisely what happened when the Christian moral order was imposed on the late Roman Empire.

It reminds me a bit of the historical Catholic-Protestant conflict in England. The Protestants were afraid the Catholics would suppress their order, if they ever came to power, so wanted to suppress the Catholics. In response, Queen Mary (the first) tried to suppress the Protestants, in a very militant reactionary retaliation, to try to make sure Catholics would not suffer again like they had under her father. So it went back and forth and each round kept escalating.

[Potemkin]

It reminds me a bit of the historical Catholic-Protestant conflict in England. The Protestants were afraid the Catholics would suppress their order, if they ever came to power, so wanted to suppress the Catholics. In response, Queen Mary (the first) tried to suppress the Protestants, in a very militant reactionary retaliation, to try to make sure Catholics would not suffer again like they had under her father. So it went back and forth and each round kept escalating.

Precisely, but in the end the new moral order was successfully imposed. Britain became a securely Protestant union of nations (with a slightly different flavour of Protestantism in each of the constituent nations of the union). Some blood had to flow in the meantime, but that was also true when the Christian moral order was imposed on the late Roman Empire. The pagan Romans did not go gentle into that good night. But go they did, in the end.

[Pants-of-dog]

Somehow, I doubt that the transition to a society where we no longer withhold medial treatment because of the religious feelings of medical professionals will be as bloody and violent as the rise of Protestantism.

[Potemkin]

Somehow, I doubt that the transition to a society where we no longer withhold medial treatment because of the religious feelings of medical professionals will be as bloody and violent as the rise of Protestantism.

Let us hope you're right.

[wat0n]

I would be surprised if this held up in federal court, specially in the SCOTUS.