this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
1620 points (98.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
6106 readers
2796 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem is that in many areas there are no alternative institutions for someone to receive care. Choosing to go to another non-religious hospital is often not an option in many places. I live in a major metro and the majority of hospitals here are religiously affiliated. It's not a matter of allowing a few random institutions to uphold their beliefs, it's an institutional problem when a person cannot receive valid medical care because of the objections of a religion. If you live in a small town with a single hospital, and the next closest one is an 8 hour drive away, then that hospital should be required to provide all FDA approved treatments the doctors are physically capable of administering.
I'm all for allowing people to practice their religion however it best suits them to do so, until it negatively interferes with the lives of others. When your religion starts preventing people from accessing widely approved and safe healthcare, then your beliefs should not be protected. I don't care if you're Catholic, Muslim, or Pastafarian - you have no right to prevent someone from accessing healthcare because of your beliefs.
This situation is unfortunate, I suppose, but your government is not preventing anyone from getting these services in many states, and as of now, it does not have to provide all procedures to all the people. If you want your government to ensure that all approved procedures are easily accessible, and not leave it to the free market, it should actually manage it's own hospitals, rather than force catholic ones to do abortions, which to me seems like too much to ask from a religious institution.
The irony is the state government in many instances has defacto prevented it in many states, even before the overturning of Roe. In a lot of states the governments passed laws making it so egregiously difficult, both logistically and financially, for small clinics to provide even simple abortion pill services, that every clinic was forced to close. This leaves only the larger hospitals, which are, you guessed it, religious institutions.
The long and short is, our country is a shit show. That said, I still do not think people should be able to deny medical care or government services (like marriage licenses) to others based on religious beliefs unless there is someone else immediately available to provide them instead.
The "unless someone else can provide them" part is unrealistic and unenforceable. I sympathise with you, but you should really just get your shit together first. Catholic hospitals are a drop in the ocean.
Boy would I like to live in the America that you think exists lol. Nearly 20% of US Hospital beds are at religiously affiliated hospitals. According to the Catholic Health Association 1 in 7 patients in the US are cared for in a Catholic hospital
They're not a "drop in the ocean" - they're prolific and everywhere. This is especially a problem in rural locations where they are the ONLY hospital. Even places that are metropolitan outliers, like a place I lived in high school, have issues because it may be a 30-45min drive to another hospital, that may or may not be covered by your insurance.
You think you understand the problem, but it's way bigger than you realize.
I meant it in a way that this is a very minor issue overall that is a direct consequence of your general approach to healthcare.