Any public-university trustees considering merger of their tax-supported teaching hospital with a Catholic hospital should ponder these wise words from Americans United for Separation of Church and State: "Public health policy should serve the public interest, not conform to the dictates of sectarian lobbies. The U.S. Constitution mandates the separation of church and state. It is wrong to let any religious group impose its doctrines on others through government action. Millions of Americans rely on safe, affordable birth control. The overwhelming majority of American women use contraceptives at some point in their lives. Many women use birth control pills for medicinal purposes. No one should be denied access to medication because of another person's religious beliefs."
And these from an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Louisville, after the UL hospital was merged with a Catholic hospital, over loud objections: "While the concept of a 'hospital within a hospital' may provide the necessary doctrinal camouflage to allow the enterprise to slip under the radar or be winked at by critical bishops, it is a medical absurdity and intellectually dishonest to pretend that the sexual and reproductive organs of men and women can be detached from the rest of their bodies for the comprehensive practice of modern medicine on any floor of a hospital.
"The statement that the medical professionals in the hospital are being asked to respect the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church, and the statement that policies on reproductive and end-of-life care will remain the same at University Hospital are mutually incompatible! Either that, or the Roman Catholic Church has taken a bold step out of people's bedrooms and into the 21st century; that it will now give us control over our own deathbeds, including allowing the withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition if so directed by a living will, medical surrogate, or humane medical practice. A [merged-system] Vice President for Mission would no longer be needed to make sure that religious doctrine is enforced."
"Attorney-general hopeful promises to stand up to U.S." Why do they hate America? What is it particularly that sets them off? Truth? Justice? What's wrong with the American Way? You'd think people would at least stay out of the American political process if they despise the country so. But no, yet another anti-American politician announced his candidacy last week, this one seeking the Republican nomination for attorney general of Arkansas. Maybe he believes that as attorney general, he could file a writ or such and block the enforcement of American law. He can't. It's been tried before, in 1861 and 1957, and proud, freedom-loving Americans wouldn't allow it. Every time we read about one of these America-hating yahoos we wonder why they don't go someplace where America-haters rule — Iran, North Korea, South Carolina — and run for office there. Maybe it's because most of those places don't have elections, at least not honest ones. In any case, we patriots would like to see them leave before they do more harm here. The Boston bombers stood up to the U.S.
Precisely. Also, there seems to be the possibility of making two sentences out of the…
Thanks for being so "kind" to the lost souls who came up with the "13"…
Another outstanding column Ernie. Thank you.
A&E Feature / To-Do List / In Brief / Movie Reviews / Music Reviews / Theater Reviews / A&E News / Art Notes / Graham Gordy / Books / Media / Dining Reviews / Dining Guide / What's Cookin' / Calendar / The Televisionist / Movie Listings / Gallery Listings