They have an opinion about what the law ought to be, and they have another opinion about what the law actually is. I don't know enough about Colorado law to know if Catholic Health Initiatives is in fact arguing for the existing definition, but if so, then it hardly seems like hypocrisy, when what's at stake is not lives but money. There's no reason why favoring a change in the law means that you and only you should suffer the adverse consequences that would follow from the change.
OTOH if they are in fact pushing a novel interpretation that fetuses aren't people, against their stated principles, just to save a few bucks, then this is pretty low behavior.
I almost wrote a comment making the law-as-it-is defense, but then I decided it wasn't actually convincing in this case. If you're a church, and part of your moral system is that fetuses are people, then it is shitty behavior to refuse to compensate a family for the loss of two unborn children on the grounds that the (misguided) law doesn't require you to.
Oh, I agree that they're right on the legal specifics (for whatever my lay opinion of the law is worth). But given their indignant harrumphing about insurance policies for their employees with optional birth control coverage violating their deeply held moral beliefs, well.
I think I'll go with the law-as-it-is defense. The Church's stance on abortion is awful. This bit of legal maneuvering doesn't do anything to add to that awfulness.
3 is correct. Since various noises have been made about their intention to break the law rather than violate their beliefs on *birth control*, this is a bit rich.
It's something you'd expect of an anti-abortion CEO. But if they want to preserve any shreds of moral authority, they should make restitution and not go to court (assuming they agree they're at fault against the fetuses, which I can't tell from the article).
if they want to preserve any shreds of moral authority
Yeah, I guess my view is based on the belief that this ship has already sailed.
Well, sometimes Catholic institutions can have better principles than the central apparatus (see LCWR).
This terrible thing happened at St. Thomas More hospital. More is the patron saint of lawyers.
They may be right on the legal specifics, but... Christ. Things that are worth standing up for on principle: a) not inducing a termination to save a mother's life b) freaking out over affiliated institutions having to offer coverage for hormonal contraception. Compensating a family for malpractice? Couldn't possibly resist the might of secular law on that.