Kamala Harris has supported suing Catholic nuns to violate their freedom of conscience.

Question

Timestamp: 8:37

Answer 1

This claim is exaggerated and I believe its taken out of context as well. Firstly, Catholic nuns are not being sued, a catholic hospital is being sued. The hospital does have a right to not "preform abortions for religious reasons. However, that law does not apply in emergencies." (SFGATE). Secondly, I do not believe a claim made in a presidential debate is a credible source because most things said are meant as an attack to the other side. Again, the hospital would not preform an emergency abortion because of their religious reasons. They do have a right to not preform standard abortions but that right does not protect them from refusing to preform abortions to protect the mothers life. 

Comments

I am interested in your perspective that a claim made in a presidential debate is not a credible source. Although I understand that it is usually an attack on the other side, it is still a statement being made by the candidate representing their beliefs. However, I believe that whoever is making the statement should be fact-checked and researched into their previous reliability. Overall I think it depends on who is making the statement and if it is able to be fact-checked.

---

This explanation was very well researched and it was well thought out. Adding a direct quote really cemented your point down. Also a presidential debate isn't credible just like you said because each candidate is trying to make the other look bad and so many comments can be taken out of context and twisted to not be correct.

---

I think it is interesting to say "a claim made in a presidential debate is a credible source because most things said are meant as an attack to the other side." In curious to know why you feel that way. Should we believe what the representative is saying? I understand that everything they say should be fact checked but if it's an opinion of the representative, why would it be false?

---

This is a great answer, I feel the use of a quote plus specification of what exactly is and isn't legal/acceptable makes it clear exactly where the truth and the headline differ. I also largely agree that the platform this point was presented on indicates that it can't be taken as the complete truth, but even if it is exaggerated debates are always going to include controversial claims, even if they are true.

Answer 2

While the way this claim is written can be a little harsh when it comes to the weight of what this claim includes, such as religious beliefs, it has been said directly that Kamala Harris supports the Women's Health Protection Act and she is even a co-sponser for it, which can be found directly on the bills co-sponsers list on congress.gov. While this is not necessarily a negative in many eyes as womens rights are extremely important, supporting this act includes getting rid of protections from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which "prohibits the government from “'substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion.' ” The WHPA states that "this Act supersedes and applies to the law of the Federal Government and each State government, and the implementation of such law, whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the date of enactment of this Act, and neither the Federal Government nor any State government shall administer, implement, or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law that conflicts with any provision of this Act, notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993". In more simple words; the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) takes priority over all federal and state laws, whether they were created before or after this Act was passed. This means that no government can enforce any law or rule that goes against what the WHPA says, even if other federal laws, like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), are involved. WHPA also includes provisions that allow individuals to bring legal action if they believe their rights under the Act have been violated. To sum things up, yes, since Kamala Harris supports the WHPA, she is also supporting anyone who denies facilitation an abortion due to their religion, to be sued. 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/10/02/fact-check-jd-vances-debate-claims-on-botched-abortions-catholic-nuns-are-correct/

Answer 3

This claim, a direct quote from JD Vance in the VP Debate, is taken out of context and is filtered through Vance’s motive of demonizing the left, instead of providing accurate information.  The discussion is a result of a California Catholic hospital refusing to give medical care to a woman in need, violating the “federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to provide stabilizing emergency care to anyone who needs it for any reason” (Mother Jones). Additionally, his wording is weaponized to a point of misinformation. Firstly, there is a huge difference between Catholic nuns and a Catholic hospital, the latter being the correct term. They paint a very different picture in the reader's mind, and the choice to call them nuns in his claim is an attempt to convince the audience that this big bad politician is persecuting poor old nuns. I would also add that the wording of the claim “suing Catholic nuns to violate their freedom of consciousness” is incredibly coated in underlying intentions, as the goal of suing would not be to violate their freedoms, but to protect the health and safety of anyone, and ensuring the federal EMTALA is followed. While choosing rhetoric is an integral part of politicians in election season to sway people their way, overdoing it such as Vance does makes them lose ethos, and makes the audience ask if Vance understands the topic at all.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/09/california-bonta-catholic-hospital-abortion-lawsuit/

Answer 4

This claim is definitely exaggerated, but does provide some truth to it. JD Vance made this claim within the debate between him and Tim Walz. This claim stemmed from a case in California where a lady went to Providence St. Joseph Hospital, a catholic institution in Eureka, to abort the fetus causing her medical complications. The hospital refused the operation because at her time of arrival, the conditions were not "life threatening", so they are unable to perform the termination given their religious policy. After leaving to find another hospital, the lady's condition worsened and she started hemorrhaging in the car. California law states that abortions must be performed regardless of religious status in the case of "life threatening" conditions. But given that she was not in that bad of a state upon her time of the arrival, the hospital is now caught up with their religious rights being refused. Kamala Harris has spoken out repeatedly about her support for reproductive rights and access to abortion regardless of circumstances, so we can only assume she sides with the state of California. The claim is exaggerated, but the ongoing case seems to prove it to have truth. https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/calif-sues-catholic-hopital-vp-debate-abortion-19809666.php