Obama's threat to Catholic hospitals

But good Catholics like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy, who are well-informed about their Church's position on abortion, would never, ever, ever allow this to happen. They would NEVER allow Catholic hospitals to be forced to perform abortions. No good Catholic would ever, EVER allow such a thing to happen.

Never.

Ever.

Not ever.

No way.

I wonder if we'll so soon see Obama's mettle. There is no doubt about it, his promises to PP is going to place him in a pickle - he either breaks a campaign promise to a key constituency, or he picks a fight with the Church with a third of American hospitals at risk. He could seize the hospitals I suppose, but he'd need to fire up the printing presses yet again because the government is already broke. Or he'll put the fight off for another day.

He'll probably wait until his hand is a little stronger. But who knows? The pessimist in me says he'll pick the fight, and then accuse the Church of "imposing their sectarian beliefs on the public square" and then proceed to persecute the Church (and he will find ready fifth columnists within the Church to help). It thrills me though to see the bishops FINALLY taking a bold stand against the culture of death.

"He could seize the hospitals I suppose, but he'd need to fire up the printing presses yet again because the government is already broke. Or he'll put the fight off for another day."

Or we could burn them to the ground before he does.

"OK, but understand that this is a problem for Catholic hospitals ONLY because they want to continue to draw Federal funds. They have the option of doing without, but they choose not to do so. One can only assume that they think they cannot make it financially without Federal funds."

Federal funding is an essential part of the operation of a hospital--that's how the system works in our country and economy.

I live in town with two competing hospitals -- one of which doesn't even have an OB ward because it wasn't profitable enough and which also recently dumped outpatient chemotherapy.

In other words, hospitals pick and choose the procedures they offer every day. Call me naive, but how does this law force hospitals to perform this one procedure?

And even if that were Barbara Boxer's goal -- and I wouldn't put it past her -- why would anyone think it would be the goal of 60 senators and 218 representatives?

THe Federal funds in question are not handouts- they are Medicare payments for services rendered. Without being able to treat Medicare patients, the hospitals would not have enough revenue to stay in business.

Your Name
November 25, 2008 10:43 AM

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but the current Supreme Court may find big problems with FOCA because it's a real reach to attach interstate commerce or other claim of federal jurisdiction when limited abortion restrictions have already been allocated to the States by previous rulings.

Hopefully, the 10th amendment will be resuscitated if FOCA is passed by Congress and signed by Obama.

BTW, if Obama does sign FOCA, it will be the biggest thumb in the eye of every American who has problems with late term abortions and the illegality of parental consent for an adolescent daughter obtaining an abortion, but not a tattoo.

Even an enthusiastic agent of death like Obama knows enough not to commit political suicide. He'll tell Congress to table the idea. (But you know where his heart lies.)

Well, it does not look like FOCA may pass anyway, but if it did, I would think that it would only take Congress about a half-day to pass legislation requiring the hospitals to stay open and another couple days to make clergy abuse cases federal matters with no statute of limitations. And probably a clause put in making hiding abusing clergy a federal offense with significant prison time and again, no statute of limitations.

There's more than one way to skin a bishop.

I can't see Catholic hospitals being forced to provide surgical abortions. That's just inconceivable.

However: I can well imagine federal law requiring all hospitals to provide or make available the morning-after pill to rape victims — without first having recourse to an ovulation test.

Connecticut recently passed such a law. I can imagine FOCA enshrining this legislation nationally.

By the way: The Connecticut bishops strongly opposed the CT law that banned ovulation tests before providing the morning after pill to rape victims. But the bishops decided to comply with the law once it was passed.

The only hospital in my large, urban hometown is Catholic, and is the largest, most stable employer we have (many of the industries have packed up and left town over the years).
I can't even *imagine* what this would do to a community already struggling with unemployment and poverty... but I fully respect the hospital's position regarding abortion, and would understand their refusal to be forced to perform a procedure they find morally abhorrent. Egads! What a world we live in..

Obama has far too much on his plate to start overreaching like the Clintons did in 1992.

As far as "abuse" is concerned, if the president-elect really wants to do something about the abuse of minors and teens he would close the public schools by executive order.

ISTR a line in "The Road to Serfdom" suggesting that availability of government funding to private entities (in the form of welfare & other entitlements) would eventually lead to the dependence of such entities upon such funding. At which point, such dependence would become an avenue of government control over said entities, as the former made continued funding contingent upon certain (in)action by the latter.

All fans of (say) federally-funded health care might want to take note.

SteveM - Although FOCA may not be compatible with the ICC or 10A as originally understood, this is probably true of Medicare & Medicaid as well. Ditto, BTW, the recent federal partial-birth abortion ban.

MI,

I agree with that. I've had a problem with government funding of non-profits for a long time. Catholic Community Services in Washington DC is effectively a government contractor. I was on the board of directors of one of the support organizations before CCS was created and it was absorbed. Every operational dollar came from a government contract. Donations were used for capital improvements. The Catholic Worker model of total separation may be a better one.

The question I always have about the Left is, "Why don't they do any of this stuff?" I keep waiting for the first atheist inspired soup kitchen or homeless shelter to appear. And where are all of the pro bono abortion doctors akin to the religous charities that provide free services?

Takes away too much time being sanctimonious over drinks at the faculty club I guess...

In fact, Rod, it wouldn't require the closing of all Catholic hospitals. It would require the closing of maternity wards in all Catholic hospitals, but not other wards.

That's a great loss, to be sure, but this is overstating the case.

The Catholic Worker model of total separation may be a better one.

The question I always have about the Left is, "Why don't they do any of this stuff?"

Last time I looked, the Catholic Worker was pretty far left....

SteveM:

The question I always have about the Left is, "Why don't they do any of this stuff?" I keep waiting for the first atheist inspired soup kitchen or homeless shelter to appear.

Oh, oh. I know the answer to that! Pick me!

Sorry, it's been a long day at work already...

The answer is quite simple. You are asking why atheists don't have strong, wealthy organizations who raise millions of dollars in grants and donations. Alternatively, you are asking why atheists don't have a physical center for gathering and community activities. They just don't.

Perhaps a better question would be: how many atheists donate money, goods and time to soup kitchens and homeless shelters? Controlling for the other factors (like family income and such), if atheists donate significantly less than the general population, then you can ask your first question rhetorically and actually server your argument.

Personal and anecdotal: I know a couple of dozen atheists both personally and online who donate money, goods and time to a wide variety of charities. They do so happily, use terms like compassion and giving back, and the charities they give to are for the most part faith-based and almost exclusively Christian. I believe they would be offended by the implications of your question. Just a thought...

We had a small version of this situation in Austin a few years ago. The city-owned Brackenridge Hospital nearly went bankrupt from bureaucratic mismanagement. The Catholic hospital system Seton was then hired to manage it, and agreed to do so at an very low cost because part of their mission is to provide care for the poor.

At some point - not sure about the exact sequence - it emerged that Seton was refusing to do sterilizations and abortions at Brackenridge. The city of Austin protested. Bishop Aymond basically told the city NO, we're won't, and if you don't like it then find someone else to run your hospital.

The city was unable to find anyone else to manage Brackenridge at anything approaching what Seton did. They finally worked out a compromise whereby an "women's health center" was established adjacent to the hospital to provide the services that Seton would not.

If FOCA passes, my guess is you would see something like this on a national scale. In my view it is still very close to material cooperation with sin and I hope the Bishops stand their ground.e

They could get around it by shutting down maternity and gyn services only. No reason to shut down the whole institution.

i I continue to believe that your question was poorly constructed.

That's being generous.

fbc-you say: "That's not a pedophilia problem, that's a gay problem." That statement makes you an opinionated hippocritical Bigot.

Since when? The legacy of the Church's decision to discriminate and not allow Priests to be married(prior to the middle ages it was ok) and not allow women to be Priests has resulted in a largely homosexual priesthood majority....hmmm, whom do we blame for that? The same bigots who cause senators to bash gay people and tap their toes in public bathrooms. FACT: The same percentage of gay men (1-2%) as straight men (1-2%) are pedophiles. There are more str8's than gays in the world--do the math, that translates to millions more str8 pedophiles than gay ones, as a simple function of numbers (hope you had college statistics or sorry, I have lost you here.) Pedophiles are people who have sex with pre-adolescents, not 14 year olds(though I find adults doing that now immoral and illegal act gross also). One hundred years ago and before, 14 year olds were getting legally married in the Church(largely to older wealthy men). While I find anyone a reprehensible "chicken hawk looking for the younger stuff" who has sex with anyone more than 5 years younger than they are, lusty str8 men are always trading in 50 year old wives for an 18-28 year old, if they have the dough--Look at Donald Trump and his ilk. At age 16 or 17, people become legally consenting adults, unless forcible rape is involved. Once, I was standing in line with a friend's daughter who is 11, fully-developed breasts, and a guy in his late 20's tried to get her number...I said, you will have to ask her mom, she is only 11.....typical str8 letch, only looking at the breasts. Face it, most men are pigs until they are 40. That's why so many women are getting abortions, men will not stand up and take responsibility for their ejaculations.

Re: Your Name

Whatever the psycho-neurological equivalent of ventricular fibrillation is, you got it.

Of course, though, the bishops have *already* sold all of their hospitals to health care corporations so it is a very hollow threat.

The bishops really have no practical ecclesial control over their hospitals any more than they have control over their "catholic" universities.

I'm afraid, even from the strict Catholic point of view, the position that it is better to close Catholic hospitals than to sell them to other providers who would accept the obligation to perform abortions needs a lot of second thoughts. What would Aquinas say about closing a hospital, at the cost of perhaps hundreds of lives a year, to prevent a single abortion? Maybe that would turn out to be the morally preferable option, but surely it shouldn't be a snap judgment?

Catholic Hospitals don't rely on federal funds; their PATIENTS do! If their patients can't pay, en mass due to a withdrawal of federal funding, Catholic Hospitals wouldn't survive. But the issue isn't a religious organization taking federal funds. Big duuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

If a small-town prosecutor has an opening for an assistant prosecutor, should the elected prosecutor be allowed to decline to hire a Catholic who, for religious reasons, won't prosecute death penalty cases? Even if this is the only position and having this prosecutor on staff would essentially stop them from enforcing state law?

I would hope so. Anti-death penalty lawyers don't belong on prosecutors' capital teams. Anti-abortion doctors, pharmacists, and nurses don't belong on any unit treating potentially-pregnant or actually pregnant patients who need honest advice about their lawful medical options.

Marion, have you ever heard of Godwin's Law? I advise you to look it up.

Since you have already dragged HItler into this topic, however, let me point out that it was by no means self-evident to all that WWII was the "good war" at its beginning. The America First Committee, which opposed our entry into the war, had a sizable Catholic contingent, including the well-known radio priest, Father Charles Coughlin. Coughlin's position was that the Nazis were a necessary bulwark against Bolshevism. Many American Catholics of Irish descent simply didn't want to defend their hated enemy, Britain, and were happy to see them bombed by the Germans. Defending the Jews was not high on anyone's agenda.

An interesting quote from the notorious Charles Lindbergh speech opposing the war advances much the same arguments that are now being used by conservatives to warn gay people and feminists against agitation for their rights:

Instead of agitating for war the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way, for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. A few farsighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

In other words, for your own good, don't rock the boat or you will unloose horrible retribution on yourselves and we will, of course, be helpless to save you. (cue ominous music)

So citing Nuremberg might not be your best move. It's a bit more complicated than you think.

Re: sigaliris

Nice little meander to nowhere that is totally off topic. Suggest you toss out some bread crumbs of relevance so you can find your way back to the nest.

Now that you are safe and sound, do tell us what is so complicated...

Sigarlis asked, "Marion, have you ever heard of Godwin's Law? I advise you to look it up."

You don't want to talk about Nueremburg? Fine. Talk about My Lai. Talk about Gitmo. Whether discussing war crimes in Germany or Vietnam or Gitmo, there is a principle involved: That principle is that the American government has always placed primacy of conscience above the requirement simply to follow orders. The United States expects men and women everywhere to "do the right thing" even when they are ordered to do what they know to be wrong. And if they do what is wrong anyway, and attempt to excuse themselves on the grounds that they "were following orders", the United States has replied that doing what one knows to be wrong in violation of one's own conscience is never acceptable, even when ordered to do so. It has always been considered beyond the pale to compel a reasonable person to violate his or her conscience as well it should . . . until now, until the question of abortion arrived.

No true American would ever attempt to compel another person to do that which is in violation of his or her conscience.

I repeat: No true American would ever attempt to compel another person to do that which is in violation of his or her conscience.

Okay, SteveM, I'll bite--once--and explain it to you.

Marion's analogy implied that: it is obvious that following the rules of their society (as Public Defender suggests Catholic hospitals should do) was bad when the Nazis did it. Ergo, it should, obviously, be bad if the hospitals do it. Because, I assume, Marion thinks our society is so much like that of the Nazis--but I merely infer that. Marion didn't say it in so many words.

My comment pointed out that: while it seems obvious in retrospect that Nazis were evil and under no circumstances to be obeyed, it was apparently not obvious to all, including many Catholics, at the time when the war started. Nazis were tried for "war crimes," which included bombing civilians and slaughtering Russians, Communists, gays, Jews, etc. But all of those things received at least conditional approval from many on the other side, who approved bombing when it was done by our side, and who didn't like Jews or Bolshies either--see Fr. Coughlin's speeches.

Marion attempted a clear parallel between abortion opponents and enemies of the Nazis--both unequivocally good--and pro-choice people and Nazis--both "followers of orders" and unequivocally evil. That analogy doesn't hold up if you look at the historical record. Perhaps you're right and I'm beating a gnat to death with an entrenching tool--but bad analogies bug me. They muddy one's thinking and are to be reprehended.

Your Name: it is not I, but the rules of internet discourse that don't want people to talk about Nuremberg unless the topic is specifically about Nazis. I urge you, too, to look up Godwin's Law. When every topic reduces to "Look over there! HITLER!" then the Brigadier has to come out and inform us that this sketch is getting silly. (See Monty Python.)

As for Americans never forcing anyone to violate his or her conscience, that's not historically justifiable either. Which is a nice way of saying it's BS. Look up the history of conscientious objection, for example. Look up lawsuits involving the Pledge of Allegiance. Look up the history of compulsory schooling. Look up war tax resisters. And what do you think the Bush "gag rule" on foreign health care agencies that provide family planning advice is all about? There are plenty of other examples one could come up with.

Public defender wrote: "Anti-abortion doctors, pharmacists, and nurses don't belong on any unit treating potentially-pregnant or actually pregnant patients who need honest advice about their lawful medical options."

As a formerly-pregnant person who believes that abortion is murder, why should I be denied the ability to choose a doctor who agrees with me? Why on earth would I want a doctor who thinks my unborn child is a non-person treating my child and me for nine months? Why should I have to accept that my only choice of a medical professional must be someone who is comfortable killing a baby at ten a.m. and then monitoring my (same gestational age) baby's heartbeat at eleven?

I would never be comfortable in a situation where I would be forced to see a pro-abortion ob/gyn as my only option. So why not continue to let those medical professionals who object to abortion continue to see patients like me? Whom does that hurt?

Erin Manning wrote: "I would never be comfortable in a situation where I would be forced to see a pro-abortion ob/gyn as my only option. So why not continue to let those medical professionals who object to abortion continue to see patients like me? Whom does that hurt?"

It hurts the plans of Sauron-Moloch to dominate all. Resistance is futile, Erin. You will be assimilated. All who resist the power of Sauron-Moloch will be assimilated. Submit now or be annihiliated.

Nazi analogies? Dreher repeatedly complains that anti-gay religious people are tarred with the "bigot" label, but anti-abortion* people routinely compare pro-choicers to Nazis. Even on the gay rights issue, the Catholic leadership asserts gay people as "intrinsically disordered."

The anti-gay-anti-abortion crowd should not be surprised to see their opponents used a toned-down version of their own rhetoric.

Daniel makes a good point. When patients show up at the doctor's office, hospital, or pharmacy, they reasonably can expect to be offered the best medical advice about their options. At a minimum, those patients need to know what they are not getting.

Also, if you support conscience clauses that exempt individuals from policies of their employer's that the individuals believe to be immoral, would you support the right of a pro-choice doctor at a Catholic hospital to offer contraceptive advice and services morning-after services to rape victims if the doctor's conscience required him or her to offer such services? How about the right of a pro-family adoption counselor working for a Catholic adoption agency to place a child with a same sex couple if his or her conscience told her the placement was morally required? Same with a pro-choice pharmacist and contraception.

Or do you only support the right to personal conscience when you agree with that personal conscience?

So explain, Rod, how you get from "(bishops would) turn out the lights rather than comply" to "(Obama would) force the closing of every Catholic hospital in America."

Are you now denying the US bishops the capacity for free will? Or simply granting them a priori absolution for what would be a breathtakingly spiteful act of moral handwashing?

Or is your alarmist reasoning just really, *really* sloppy?

Re: Daniel

"I expect them to perform as medical professionals and not impede the public's ability to obtain contraceptives or receive an abortion during a medical crisis."

Let me point back to a comment I made earlier about religious charities. Catholic dioceses established what were essentially missionary programs in inner cities by providing decent educational opportunities to many non-Catholic minority children. Those schools are often largely funded by Catholic benefactors since the kids' parents are not members of the parish and may not be able to afford the tuition.

Why can't or won't abortion proponents do the same? I.e., set up missionary abortion clinics in areas that from their point of view are inadequately served. And just like Catholic Charities has an annual appeal, set up an Abortion Charities and solicit funds from advocates of the cause.

The important subtext here is that Catholic educators may believe in educational choice. The public education model may be normative, but they did not stop at advocating for policy changes. They actually invested in solving the problem of poor quality education.

Laura wrote: "how many people will die because the Catholic Bishops will be closing all those hospitals?" Laura, the good news is that no one has to die . . . if the Congress and the President-elect cease to move forward with legislation that would force Catholic hospitals to either perpetrate that which God has forbidden or to close their doors. Laura, for the sake of those patients who are at risk if Catholic hospitals close down, please contact your Congressional Representative and Senator, and the President-elect, and ask them to back off from this outrageous and dangerous legislation. Thank you.

"As an American I am opposed to anyone being compelled - against the dictates of his or her conscience - to inflict lethal injuries on a fellow human being."

But the law does not recognize a fetus (or a non-implanted fertilized egg) as a human being. Many PETA people think that killing animals is morally equivalent to killing human beings, should they be able to get jobs at packing plants and then refuse to do any work because they don't believe in killing?

If I believe that standing by and not taking a chance to preserve life is morally equivalent to killing, am I allowed to lie and cheat to increase the chance that my capitally charged client will live?

The problem is that anti-abortion and anti-contraception people have not set forth an objective argument that society should exempt them from the general rules that govern us all, but not others.

Public Defender wrote: "But the law does not recognize a fetus (or a non-implanted fertilized egg) as a human being." I see, Public Defender, that human rights are, for you, whatever the state says they are. And human beings are, for you, whatever the state says they are. Whoever gets hold of the state apparatus also lays automatic and exclusive claim to all moral authority to define "human" and "human rights". Whoa! (Shiver) I have two words for you: "Dred" "Scott".

SteveM, I'll take blame for being dense today (long week, long story), so please forgive me: I just don't see your point. Would you mind expanding it to show the logical points in between?

Re: Franklin Evans

It's like Michael Corleone promising Kay that in 5 years all the Family's income will be legit. Maybe so. But money is totally fungible. So in the meantime, a merchant who sells to the Corleone can rationalize, "Oh, Mr. Corleone is buying 3 of my suits with money from his legitimate business. So I don't feel bad making the sale."

If FOCA passed, the government would be Corleone. Another merchant of death. The Catholic hospitals would know that it could step on their necks anytime. They can't take the money.

The anti-Catholic Left BTW, would applaud wildly.

Marion,
Dred Scott was the law for a (thankfully brief) period of time, and I expect the law recognize the law. Sometimes lawbreaking is morally required, but, as both Ghandi and MLK recognized, the State must treat lawbreaking as lawbreaking. Someone helping a fugitive slave escape between Dred Scott and the Civil war should have prosecuted or not regardless of whether they were doing it for money or conscience.

The question I have for you is, if people deserve a conscience exception from the law when a they believe they are morally required to break the rules to preserve human life, should the law allow me to lie and cheat in a death penalty case to save my client's life? What about the PETA member who believes that animal life is equal to human life?

Society has a set of rules for dealing with religious requests for accommodation. For example, sometimes, an employer can require an employee to wear (or not wear) certain items of clothing that would violate deeply held beliefs. Sometimes not. I don't see any attempt by the anti-abortion and anti-contraception crowd to explain why they deserve an exception other than it's really important to them.

"No, the law should uphold that which is right; lying and cheating, even to save a life, is generally (with some few exceptions) not right."

Why are lying and cheating to save a life "not right"? We allow people to commit lesser wrongs to prevent greater wrongs all the time. Heck, we can even legally kill people to protect ourselves and our families (or to stop our car from being repo-ed if we live in Texas). Lying to save a life is a lot less bad than killing to save a life.

But back to your point. The problem with your abortion and anti-contraception argument is that your arguments depend on the rest of us agreeing with your underlying premise. Your argument, if accepted, would require that abortion and contraception be banned, but your argument does not allow for a middle ground in which contraception is allowed but you personally don't have to participate in it.

Public Defender wrote, "if a job would require you to violate your conscience, don't take the job.

I will take the job, Public Defender, I will take it just the same. I will run the clinic and the hospital, and I won't destroy life, even if I am persecuted for refusing to do so. I will serve as a police officer in the South, and I will refrain from racial profiling, even if ordered to do so. I will take the job and I will be true to my beliefs. I will serve as a soldier or a Marine, assigned to a prison duty or to guard a village, and I will refrain from torturing prisoners or abusing civilians, even if ordered to do so. I will take the job, and I will be true to my belies. I will work in hospitals, factories, offices, garages, day care facilities, nursing homes. And I will do what is right, even if King George III himself rises from the dead and tells me to do otherwise. And if I am jailed, fined, or shot for doing so, I will appeal to the inherent goodness and decency of the majority of the American people - the American people who understand that the final authority in all matters is not the power of the gun or the sword - the power of King George or of Caesar, but the power of God.

As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King said, "And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

I accidentally put Marion's name in the box that identifies the poster in the 8:49am comment. The post was mine, not hers. I meant to address my comment to her, not pretend to be her. Sorry.

Marion, while I understand your passion for this topic, I also am sad to watch you shoot yourself in the foot over it.

There are no small pieces here. There is only one question: when you choose the balance between personal conscience and public ethics (by which I mean complying with laws with which you disagree), are you willing to suffer the consequences? I don't mean being a martyr. I do mean going to jail, just like Dr. King and others did.

If I hired you to do a job, if I clearly stated to you what the duties and details of that job were, and in accepting my offer of employment you failed to state that there are one or more of those details which you would not comply with -- out of conscience -- then upon your refusal to do those things I would fire you and file a with-cause complaint with the state government (I'm in PA), which would further deny you unemployment benefits.

If I were kind, if I were even a little sympathetic to your cause, I would be a liar if I didn't file the with-cause complaint. I would further be engaged in unfair employment practices if I failed to fire you in the face of my other employees doing the things you refused to do.

Now, do you get it? You are free to act (or not act) on your conscience. Society in turn is free to react. That is as generic a description of the rule of law I can think of. If you don't like a law, and you are bent on breaking it, then you suffer the consequences at least until society -- by the process of legislation -- changes that law. That, by the way, is the part you are missing when you cite Dr. King. His conscience, his heroism, was in breaking the law knowingly and consciously, bearing the consequences, and staying with it.

Marion, good luck in finding the real America. You have not found it yet. In the meantime, I wish you the best of health and an eventual realization that those who disagree with you are not your enemies, and to assume so makes you an example of the greatest danger to our republic that there can be.

PB, I tried to show understanding of Marion's position. That I continued to disagree with her is, I'm assuming at this point absent contradiction from her, the deciding factor. One cannot disagree with a moral stance and find understanding in return.

I want to be fair to Marion. What I can't tolerate is a contradiction to the expectation that a citizen will uphold the rule of law.

For me, the distinction is imperative. I can think of situations where I would deliberately break a law. I live in a situation where I am forced to break the law (traffic laws) because to comply with them is dangerous. Try staying at 55mph in the right lane of a four-lane highway without being threatened by other drivers, most of whom are blithely unaware of the threat they pose.

The point she is missing, or so I read her posts, is that deliberately breaking a law should somehow be free of consequences under that law.

Actually, this is probably even worse than "only" losing Medicaid and Medicare (as devastating as that would be), given that it seems likely that some form of Federal (Socialist) health care will be put into place under Obama and the Democrat Congress. With the Feds grabbing control of the flow of most, or all, of health care dollars, then yes, this could close hospitals of faith (such as Catholic hospitals). However, I would guess that then the Feds would grab control of the closing hospitals as an "emergency measure" (reference the handling of the financial crisis), retaining all staff who would stay on.