this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
597 points (99.7% liked)

News

23311 readers
3629 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
597
Calif. sues Catholic hospital for ‘refusing abortion to mom whose life was at risk’ (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“It is damning that here in California, where abortion care is a constitutional right, we have a hospital implementing a policy that’s reminiscent of heartbeat laws in extremist red states,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said.

A Catholic hospital in Northern California is facing a lawsuit by the state’s attorney general after it reportedly refused to perform an abortion on a woman whose pregnancy was not viable and whose life was in danger.

Anna Nusslock was already in severe crisis when she and her husband Daniel arrived last February at Providence St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka, according to the suit, which AG Rob Bonta filed Monday in Humboldt County Superior Court. A doctor examined Nusslock, who was 15 weeks pregnant with twins, and told her they would not survive, the suit explains.

Without a dilation and evacuation procedure, or, what is commonly known as "an abortion," Nusslock was also at risk of death, the complaint contends.

However, it goes on, “Providence refused to allow Anna’s doctors to treat her, as the hospital’s policies prohibited them from terminating a pregnancy so long as they could detect fetal heart tones. The only exception was if the mother’s life was at immediate risk, a high threshold that Anna apparently did not yet reach. Only at some poorly defined point in the future, when Anna was close enough to death, would Providence permit her doctors to intervene. Until then, Anna and her physicians could do nothing but wait, worry, and hope.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Yeah, I have to agree it's basically assuredly not true, even when accounting for:

  • Wars, genocides, and individual people killed over religion.
  • Suicides linked to religious abuse by institutions and by zealots.
  • Religion stifling the advancement of medicine such as in the case of stem cell research.
  • The brand of "god's will" bullshit that leads to preventable deaths in lieu of treatment.

Undoubtedly religion is hugely harmful, and I'm its biggest detractor that I personally know, but we live in an era where heart disease and cancer exist. Even saying religion causes a plurality of deaths would be wrong; "more than all others combined" is bullshit on a level that I can't believe it got so many upvotes.

We can say that religion results in a fuckload of unnecessary deaths without lying.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So what about the hundreds of years where medical science was banned from studying the body. Where they had to steal corpses and learn in secrecy. How many deaths from cancer and heart disease could have prevented had we not been stifled.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

We are still banned from studying stem cells to a degree or using them for cures if they came from a fetus. Religion is still preventing medical advancement for no reason.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
  • You want to elaborate on when and how this happened? Because it wasn't "hundreds of years"; it was like 20 and limited to European Christians.
  • Do you have even vague figures grounded in fact that can make this comparable to current deaths by all other causes? That scientists during this 20-ish year period would have discovered something groundbreaking? Because by this line, I can say the leading cause of death – moreso than others combined – is Grug tripping over a rock circa 40,000 BCE and hitting his balls, thereby preventing the greatest scientist of all time from being born and curing cancer.
[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

And the dark ages?

Look, any non-natural human-caused suffering I can think of can be linked to cults. And religion is just a super popular cult.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I've been thinking about this for a minute, and I think a good standard here is making a list of (relatively) non-overlapping causes of death that have claimed over a billion human lives.

Infectious disease is almost certainly at least one entry on this list, primarily secular war as well, starvation/famine probably a few times over, cancer and heart disease are probably distinct entries, and death attempting to grow/hunt food. I suspect deaths by religion could be on that list as well, but it's the entry I'm least confident in.

In every sense of the word, this is a bad list to be on, but I don't think religion is near the biggest culprit on the list, even if you do a lot of special pleading, and group all deaths by religious cause together, but split each disease, war, etc up for some reason.