Hoag decided to stop performing elective abortions May 1st. A spokesperson for Hoag said that the reason is because they do not have enough requests for them. But the LA Times reported, it’s because they went along with St. Joseph Health System’s statement that they do not allow elective abortions. Hoag is now partnered with Catholic healthcare provider St. Joseph Health. Richard Afable, a top executive at St. Joseph Health who runs the joint health network, said that St. Joseph made it clear to Hoag that the abortion ban was “sacrosanct” and “required of ourselves and anyone we would work with.”
A spokesperson for Hoag said ” ….the partnership would lead to broader, more integrated healthcare services in the county…” — except for those women seeking an elective abortion, they will be “ass out” (my words)
This is just another example of a non-profit hospital run by a religious (dogmatic) group that thinks they know what “God” wants and are willing to trample on the rights of women to get it. Well, HELLO…Roe-v-Wade settled that way back in the 70s. Women’s right to an abortion are eroding all over the US and women have to speak up! Abortion rights do not affect me personally anymore — I am a little over the child bearing age — but when I was 25, I had an abortion and I am speaking up now for women who are of child bearing age and who want the right to decide for themselves what is right for them– not some hospital administrator who happens to have a different religious ideology than their patients.
I called Hoag to get the name of their CEO/President — his name is Robert Braithwaite. His assistant is not able to give out his email address — wonder why that is?… but here is Hoag’s phone number (949-764-4624) …call them and tell them what you think about their “women’s healthcare plan.” I did.
Doesn’t a private hospital have the right to provide the services they want to provide and you have the right to patronize or not patronize that hospital based on those service?
If you’re a vegetarian, would you demand that McDonald’s stop selling hamburgers?
If enough people are outraged by this and they stop going to Hoag, then Hoag loses market share.
The LA Times has just posted a story on this (I presume for its Sunday paper) that is an absolute “must-read.” Here are some highlights.
Inge’s covering this story here has been welcome, but I suspect that she will agree that the LA Times story is fantastic.
Nice find Greg. I wrote the story about Hoag after someone brought it to my attention. I read several news stories about it and decided even though it happened a month ago, it was worth discussing. I was not aware that Harris approved this until now.
Well, it looks like she approved the merger with conditions — which apparently weren’t met.
It seems premature to say that they conditions or the info provided to her in order to make her decision was not met…she is investigating whether the conditions were met and the info that she was provided was correct. I know that you would not want to mislead anyone…
True, I wouldn’t. That’s my opinion. I expect it to be borne out.
Does RC want to give odds on Diamond’s horse or Boutwell’s ?
It would seem way more likely that Hoag would have made false promises to get the deal through, than actually follow through on the sales job. Also they got the math wrong on the how many abortions they were doing per year.
They must have been using “furlongs per fortnight” in their calculations.
Demagogue…I just don’t think that one should imply that the conditions of the affiliation were not met when in fact it seems that as of now, they are investigating the transaction and terms.
I presume that the terms that Diamond is implying were not met is the fact that Hoag had to take steps to insure that other providers were available as stated in Section VI as opposed to the other non-abortion related items of the Conditions to Approval of Affiliation Agreement…
Unfortunately, I don’t see what “steps to insure” is defined as…I am actually surprised that it is not defined in the Agreement. Hoag will say that they have taken steps while opponents to Hoag will say that they have not. Or, a debate ensues over whether the steps have to produce the desired result (equivalent availability for all women desiring a direct abortion in their geographical area).
Actually, no, not really. It’s much more complex than the usual capitalistic claptrap that the invisible hand of the marketplace is the ultimate touchstone of correct behavior.
Didn’t Roe v Wade establish the right of a women to have an abortion and not the requirement for a doctor/hospital to perform the abortion? Hopefully you see the difference…As long as doctors are still performing abortions, I would think that the right of the women under R v W to have the abortion is still in tact (i.e. compared to if no licensed doctor is providing them, then maybe their right had been removed).
I personally do not feel that my right to have a viscetomy has been eroded because I cannot have one done at St. Joe’s, although my gut tells me that Hoag may continue to do those under the Attorney Gen’s approval process.
It is possible that it is both them making a decision based upon demand AND them looking at their relationship with St. Joe’s? If there was more demand then maybe it would be worth them deciding whether a relationship with St. Joe’s would be worth it.
What is the difference between the horrors of a Gosnell abortion and a “legal” late term abortion?
Answer: Inches
Actually, the Attorney Generals Office is looking in Hoag’s response that they don’t have a big enough demand. Of course, this reason is ridiculous…its a hospital and they have the equipment and staff needed anyway.
It’s interesting that 77% of anti-choice leaders are men….and 100% of them will never get pregnant.
Comparing a medical procedure to a hamburger is just plain dumb.
St Joseph’s will soon be the Walmart of healthcare.
Once they suck up all of the smaller hospitals, they will dictate the parameters of health care for all of us.
Healthcare shouldn’t be driven by religious beliefs.
St Joseph’s is not a non-profit …..google how they’ve screwed over their employees.
Google St Joseph’s employee’s settlements…..they’ve screwed their employees for years, and settled for millions.
The atty general looks into a lot of things, but shouldn’t the hospital/doctor also have the choice? Isn’t that what pro-choice is about? Choice…
The hospital weighs the choice of performing abortions versus the benefits of the St. Joe’s alliance. Even if they did perform a lot of abortions, shouldn’t they have the choice to decide what is right for themselves? As long as there are other providers I am not sure that I see the reason to force someone or an entity to provide an elective procedure (as opposed to life threatening to the mom) that they can get somewhere else. Sorry if “elective procedure” is not the right term, and it definitely is not meant to minimize the impact or importance of an abortion.
Anyways, I will stand by my prior statement about Roe v Wade being about the right of a women to have an abortion not about requiring someone to perform an abortion.
Of course, about half of the population will never get pregnant, but they certainly are involved with the process. IMO, they should also have a choice about whether they want to be a parent and raise the child. Some will never have that choice because they may never be informed of their partner’s decision.
So I am guessing that doctors can also choose not to treat someone who is gay…after all it’s about choice and maybe that doctor has some religious issue with gays…or a pharmacist deciding that contraceptives are against his religious beliefs and won’t sell them.
Yeah…that is exactly what I am saying Inge…wrong.
In your first example, you are referring to treatment of a person without regard to the procedure. The doctor should have the right to choose to not do a procedure that they may otherwise be qualified to perform unless there is harm caused by not doing it. They should not have the right to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation (it is possibly even illegal…??), race, religion, etc…There is a very big difference. Choice has its limits and that is where the gov’t comes in to protect certain classes, but I don’t think that the gov’t has even come close to requiring a doctor to perform an elective abortion…maybe you think that they should.
In your second example, I believe that certain pharmacies are already allowed to not sell certain drugs. Maybe that is wrong…as I am typing this, I am not exactly sure how I feel about it. On one hand I don’t think that every pharmacist should have to carry every type of drug thinkable and they are a business, so they should have some choice about what type of product that they provide for sale.
Using your tactic of an example…should a doctor, who is qualified to do the procedure, be required to perform a facelift even if they do not feel that the procedure would help the patient? Or should every 711 be required to provide condoms for sale? I personally don’t think so.
Again, Roe v Wade was about choice by the women, not requiring doctors to actually perform the procedure.
There can be no “choice” without availability. If you’ll let the government set up well-protected and adequately funded abortion clinics wherever they’re needed, then I don’t really care what Hoag does. Until then, I do.
If you don’t see the difference, in terms of a person’s (an unequivocal person, not a mid-term fetus) fundamental rights, between an abortion and a facelift — you’re probably not trying.
No, at this point I want Hoag to reverse this rotten policy. That won’t cost taxpayers a dime.
Diamond…the facelift example was in response to Inge’s over the top example with my own…everything in context my friend.
It seems that we are both on the same page in terms of Roe v Wade not being violated as long there is availability. If I recall, in the OC area, there are multiple other options available for those who are seeking an abortion (UC Irvine and Planned Parenthood come to mind but I am sure there are others too), so if you can’t see that there are other options besides Hoag/St Joes’s and gov’t set up clinics, then you are the one that is probably not trying.
Diamond…is your desire to reverse their policy based upon legal concerns (i.e. they should be required to provide elective abortions) or is it based on your own beliefs?
“They’re well wilting their right ..”
For now – wait until the government gets control of all healthcare. You recall the recent case of Comrad Sebelious not allow the young girl to have a lung.
We “recall the case of Comrad Sebelious not allow the girl to have a lung…”
No??
It’s like skally has never even dealt with a private health insurance company. “Not allow a girl to have a lung” doesn’t even register on the Richter scale of top atrocities committed annually.
Se-bilious, ya that’s it.
She-bilious
The Hoag excuse is ridiculous……how many brain surgeries do they do per year???? Are they going to ban those because there are not a sufficient number? I think not. This was a back room deal made for an unknown “real” reason (maybe St. Joes has the upper hand financially in the joint “venture” or shared arrangement). There should have been NO reason for Hoag to have made this decision other than a pressure “deal” put upon them by St, Joes. They should have respectfully refused. They also lied to staff…telling them there would be no policy changes with the shared joint venture. This is not a merger or buyout…so there is no reason for Hoag to comply to the policies of St. Joes….they are two separate entities.
Look out Hoag, here comes the Government to trample on your religious beliefs. Also, don’t be surprised if the IRS wants to look at your books soon too. You have no 1st Amendment right in CA unless your of the Lib philosophy. IE gay marriage too. Why won’t Harris fight for the will of the majority? I think Harris wants to wipe out humans. She wants abortion everywhere and gays to marry. That sounds like a recipe for the elimination of babies and future generations….. just a thought.
Todd,
Here we go again…another MALE deciding what is right for a woman. You will never get pregnant so it is none of your business. I bet you also believe that food stamps and welfare should be eliminated. You probably are against free public schools and would love more prisons to be built. You are probably pro 2nd Amendment and think war is justified.
And if you don’t like gays getting married…you don’t have to marry one. If you are so pro-commandments…do you work on the Sabbath? Had sex before marriage? Impure thoughts? Honor your neighbor? Take the Lord’s name in vain?
You probably think slavery was a good idea to… Gov. Perry is looking for businesses to move to his state…why not go there…they seem to be more your style.
And in closing…your homophobia probably stems from the fact that you kinda like guys…but are afraid to admit it.
Bravo, Inge.
Inge…I am not defending a word that todd said, but when you say that since men will never get pregnant, so it is none of their business, that truly bothers me (as I am sure what I have said sometimes bothers you…fair enough). It takes two to get pregnant. The man is also part of that equation. Often the man has zero choice in whether to have the abortion or not, but that does not mean it necessarily should be that way. Shouldn’t part of pro-choice be that the man can choose to raise the baby? Is the only choice that matters, that of the mother? There are many men who would love to raise the child….there are many who also would not care too, but by saying that it is none of the man’s business you seem to be taking that choice away from the father.
BTW, just because someone is Christian does not mean that they never break any of the Commandments or teachings of Christ. That is a big misperception…
Sorry for the rant…sort of.
Here’s why the man’s view should never trump the woman’s view (if she has one) re: childbirth vs. abortion.
There are nine possible outcomes regarding abortion when a woman gets pregnant with a man’s sperm:
(1) Man and woman both prefer birth. Outcome: “birth” by a 2-0 vote.
(2) Man and woman both prefer abortion. Outcome: “abortion” by 2-0 vote.
(3) Woman prefers birth, man doesn’t know she’s pregnant. Outcome: “birth” by a 1-0 vote.
(4) Woman prefers abortion, man doesn’t know she’s pregnant. Outcome: “abortion” by a 1-0 vote.
(5) Man prefers birth, woman doesn’t know she’s pregnant (rare, involves coma). Outcome: “birth” by 1-0 vote.
(6) Man prefers abortion, woman doesn’t know she’s pregnant (rare, involves coma). Outcome: unclear, may depend on prospect of recovery and prior expressed will. Will probably become a cable TV movie.
(7) Neither knows that she’s pregnant. Outcome: “birth” by 0-0 vote, (tiebreaker goes to fate.)
(8) Woman prefers to birth, man prefers abortion. Outcome: “birth” — 1-1 vote but woman wins tiebreaker.
(9) Woman prefers abortion, man prefers they have baby. Outcome: “abortion” — 1-1 vote but woman wins tiebreaker.
(9) is the only case where anti-abortion or (pro-life) people who defend fathers’ rights disagree with pro-choice people. They want the man to win the tiebreaker. It has to be that way for their to be a right to self-determination at all. One argument in favor of this is that the woman has much more “skin in the game” than the man. If the man wants her to have the baby for him to raise, he has to convince her — for example with marriage, money, medical care, and/or pathos. (Violence is right out.)
5, 6, & 7 are rarities that really should not be part of the discussion. 1 & 2 there is no disagreement. That leaves really 4 possibilities (3, 4, 8, 9).
I cannot see why the father does not have the right to choose to raise the child in possibility #4 & 9. If this is about choice, then the father should have the choice as to whether he is capable of raising the child.
when the father is capable of carrying the fetus in his own body…he can choose.
Well, I guess that sums it up pretty well. Nice.
Boutwell…if the man wants to raise the kid…then it becomes a conversation between the man and woman…not some stranger…who is usually someone pushing their religious beliefs on others. Pro-lifers want to take away the rights of anyone except their own… to butt in to yours and my business. These nut jobs who are nothing more than busy bodies…are the ones who are pushing this issue. They should just call themselves pro-birth because once the kid is born…they could care less about whether it eats, gets healthcare or an education.
It’s not a thought. It’s a massive brain fart.
Know that, Hoag hospital is NOT the only location to obtain an abortion within Orange County, not by a long shot.
If a privately owned hospital decides (based on the communities beliefs and previous protests) not to offer, why do you care?
If you cared about womens health issues, you’d stop bashing a privately owned hospital and find a way to reach out to these women who “find” themselves in a position they do not want to be in……
Citizen…please elaborate on your thoughts about ” ‘finding’ ” themselves in a position?”… and will you disclose whether you are male or female…or would you like to continue to “hide” behind your screen name? Are you pro-life or pro-birth?