63 Comments

• | May 23, 2010, 09:35 AM EDT

  Carroll09, perhaps you would care to read Patrick Cooper's follow-up article in today's IC (May 23). Your non-sensical, double-talk response below is not worthy of comment.

• Carroll09 | May 22, 2010, 03:52 PM EDT

  TomSwinford - no one is condemning the mother to death.The point is that Sr McBride and those involved made a conscious decision to DIRECTLY cause the death of the child. There was a conscious decision taken that the mother's life was of more value than the child's. Their decision should have been one which involved doing everything possible to give both the best chance of life. The mother deserved treatment - maybe the child would have died as a side-effect of this treatment,we can't know either way now. So the Catholic view is not "save the child even if the mother dies" or "let both die"- the teaching is that ALL of life deserves to be protected from conception to natural death.

• Carroll09 | May 22, 2010, 03:45 PM EDT

  FromPhoenix- no,excommunication does not only apply when someone is unborn.All sin separates us from God,but no one who repents is refused forgiveness.An excommunication itself is the fault of the person who has committed the sin, not a bishop or a diocese.Mr Reed's life was indeed as valuable as anyone else's- indeed the life of the aborted child was as valuable as anyone else's.Bishop O'Brien accepted the verdict and sentence,resigned from his diocese and expressed remorse for his actions.Granted,his remorse won't bring back Mr Reed,but he has at least faced and accepted punishment for his crime.

• FromPhoenix | May 22, 2010, 01:26 PM EDT

  Well Carroll09, how do you feel about Bishop Thomas O'Brien from Phoenix's situation? He took a human life, ran from the scene of the crime and tried to cover up his vehicular homicide. Why did the diocese pay his legal bills and not excommunicate him instead? Wasn't the Native American's life as valuable? Does excommunication only apply when someone is "unborn?"

• FromPhoenix | May 22, 2010, 09:21 AM EDT

  It is a universal value - and one shared by most in the pro-life movement - that an abortion is acceptable when the life of the mother is at grave risk. I believe that most reasonable, rational, caring people would accept this. What if this mother is already caring for several children and what if the fetus is only two weeks old, a collection of cells? Would you still condemn this mother to death? What kind of moral lunacy is this? Carroll09, in this matter, moral relativism applies. It is truly ironic that a church whose global crimes against children, countless young lives shattered and destroyed,shocks the conscience of everyone, hypocritically stands in defense of the unborn. Sister McBride is a woman of conscience and reason. God Bless her.

• Carroll09 | May 22, 2010, 05:23 AM EDT

  You need to get away from your moral relativism, FromPhoenix: no one here disputes the seiousness of abuse which some clergy were involved in, but using that to justify what Ms McBride did does nothing but further erode the high value which should be placed on each and every life. It's sad that you call those hospitals willing to kill unborn children "enlightened": a Catholic has a duty, which Ms McBride abandoned, to do their best to save both lives, not to decide which one is more valuable than the other - McBride's failure was in deciding that the child should die as a DIRECT result of their "intervention".

• FromPhoenix | May 22, 2010, 12:22 AM EDT

  Just one more thing: Phoenix has a large number of hospitals where this woman could have had her abortion. It's unfortunate that she didn't go to one of those enlightened hospitals to have the procedure done. The fact that such a discussion was taken on by the administration of St. Joseph's Hospital seems incongruous. They should have transferred her for the procedure. It's so sad that McBride pays this price while Bishop Thomas O'Brien goes free and stays in the good graces of the church despite murdering a man and fleeing the scene of the accident. You can find more information on the vehicular homicide and other iniquities by Bishop O'Brien at http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/search/index?keywords=%22bishop thomas o%27brien%22

• FromPhoenix | May 22, 2010, 12:05 AM EDT

  Additionally I would like to say that one of the Catholic Health Systems in the US has purchased a number of small town hopsitals. Often those hospitals have pharmacies in them. I know of one in particular that had a contract with a secular college to fill student's prescriptions and bill them instead of demanding payment outright. Many of the girls took birth control pills. So, after the hospital became a Catholic hospital, to save its profitable contract with the college, it continued to dispense birth control pills by getting them from a local pharmacy after their supply ran out. A number of ex-Catholics brought this to the attention of the bishop of Phoenix's office. They finally lost their contract with the college and ended up closing the doors of the pharmacy after losing the lucrative contract. People were not told and when they went in to fill their prescriptions, they saw a sign on the door that told them that their medical records were turned over to another pharmacy. Without their knowledge and permission.

• FromPhoenix | May 21, 2010, 11:58 PM EDT

  I am from Phoenix and I worked at St. Joseph's Hospital. I am very troubled that Sister Margaret McBride was excommunicated. And here is why: The former bishop of Phoenix, Bishop Thomas O'Brien, was one of the key bishops who routinely shuttled pedophile priests from one parish to another and from one state in the US to another. On top of that, he was driving his car and struck a tall Native American man who was crossing the street in Phoenix. Instead of stopping and helping and calling 911, he fled the scene. The Native American man died on the scene. Bishop O'Brien hid his car and tried to have the front of it repaired before the police could find him. The diocese did not cooperate fully with the Phoenix Police and Bishop O'Brien refused to come to the door when they went to his home after discovering it was his car. Bishop O'Brien was brought to trial, his legal fees were paid for by the diocese of Phoenix, and after committing a hit and run, vehicular homicide, and evading arrest, he was "sentenced" to probation and community service. Was he excommunicated? No. Is he still a priest? Yes. Did the church support him? Of course. Sister Margaret McBride was trying to save the life of this mother. Bishop Thomas O'Brien put children in harms way with pedophile priests, threatened children's parents if they went to the media, and then murdered a man crossing the street. And people wonder why people like me left the church. This latest debacle affirms my decision.

• linqingshan | May 21, 2010, 09:48 AM EDT

  elcome to:http://www.fashionclothe.com and so on..http://www.fashionclothe.com if you like to order anything you like. More details, please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift. enjoy yourself. thank you!! http://www.fashionclothe.com

• HoundofUlster | May 21, 2010, 08:46 AM EDT

  God bless this good person. Shame on the dark ages bishop,

• BrendanO | May 20, 2010, 05:56 PM EDT

  Sister Margaret should be sacked at once. How in blazes does a supposed medical ethicist think that killing an innocent child is somehow a 'treatment'? There were two patients involved, the mother AND the child, and the needs of both needed to be addressed. The correct course of action was a C-Section and to bring in a neonatalogist ASAP. Yes the child is much younger than the standard viability age, but it deserved to be rescued at treated. It is a person too.

• GuinnessGrrl | May 20, 2010, 04:29 PM EDT

  @Camilam42 - Since your posts seem to proffer yourself as a Catholic & bible expert, I have a question for you because I have looked & looked & can't find it...where exactly in the New Testiment does Jesus speak out against abortion?

• jacersisityourself | May 20, 2010, 03:39 PM EDT

  For the record, I don’t believe Sr. McBride should have been excommunicated for her and her colleagues’ decision. The ground rules for excommunication need to be revisited by our Church leaders. On this article’s account I’m not aware of them in Apostolic Tradition or in the Bible. Sr. McBride might well pray to a fellow nun, Sr. Mary MacKillop of Australia who also suffered because of her local bishop’s decisions, as should we Catholics who support all good nuns pray. Sr.Mary MacKillop was once excommunicated for the manner of her charitable work but was later re-admitted to the Catholic Church, beatified in 1995 and later this year will be declared a Saint of Heaven. >> http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-mary-mackillop/ << or here: >> http://anunslife.org/2010/02/22/mary-mackillop-sister-first-australian-saint/ May the peace of God be with Sr. McBride.

• jacersisityourself | May 20, 2010, 03:15 PM EDT

  I’m not into medicine but I am into science and technology – and I am an Irish Catholic. I’ve read all comments below. I agree and disagree w/ some and on others I hang in the middle. My understanding of the Church’s teaching re abortion is that all human life is sacred and no one has the right to take that human life away, either in the womb or outside of it. The crux of the Church’s teachings on the sacredness of all human life is that at the moment of conception, not only is a new human being created but a new soul is also created by God and no one but God has the right to the life of that soul. From this story, it seems that if this abortion had not been carried out, then both mother and child would have died. In other words, the souls of both would have returned to their Maker and we of us left in this world would have had to live with the human tragedy. It’s a tough call... to choose to decide for God on the souls He created or to be a human being with feelings for sick fellow-humans and give them a chance of living longer? We need more guidance from our Catholic Church on this dilemma and better explanations, not excommunications of people who are fully committed Christians and Catholics. Which is more “paramount” – the souls of our God or the human charity and love which God gave us all to exercise?

• ritmomente | May 20, 2010, 01:58 PM EDT

  bellaghy, the catholic church is wholly relevent to me. Aside from 2 cardinals that I've met that belong in jail, none from the parish priest to the pope himself have shown me irrelavance. Stop swearing at the Vatican when it was the diocesan bishops that kept the governing body of the Catholic Church.

• Bellaghy | May 20, 2010, 09:18 AM EDT

  And the catholic church wonders why they are irrelevent? ...or do they even?

• McNamara31 | May 20, 2010, 08:53 AM EDT

  At the end of our days, we all have to stand before God and be accountable for our actions. Judgement is His alone.

• Anobsitar | May 20, 2010, 07:58 AM EDT

  Hello - I'm a catholic from Germany and I was a little shocked when I heard this. If the reason for this decision was pulmonary hypertension (PH, PAH) I'm asking myselve how many bishops "Dr. House" are living in the USA in their cathedrals in the air excommunicating nuns on the earth while ... ah forget it: I'm indeed a little angry about. It makes the fight here in Germany against abortion for sure not more easy. I have the feeling in our region in the South of Germany are living very pragmatic people and so we have only 6 abortions per 1000 accouchements (1000 6) - although we are doing a lot of things wrong in the eyes of some clerics here. Nevertheless we do what we can do and in Berlin for example are existing 350 abortions per 1000 accouchements (1000 350). And I guess if we would try to follow always ideas like "everything or nothing" then "nothing" would be the result in the end. I would be more satisfied if the catholic church would attack - if it should be necessary - the enemies of the catholic church and not always its members. It's really not easy to be a catholic and I hope this nun will find good defenders and not to many bad comments from people who are "more catholic than the pope".

• ritmomente | May 19, 2010, 11:51 AM EDT

  McNamara, I couldn't put it more eloquent than Camilman42. The presevation of life is paramount.

• Camilam42 | May 18, 2010, 07:30 PM EDT

  @ annhowell, "How can it be Christian and right to risk the life of the mother, a fully formed and functioning person?" Because the Christian principle of charity has to reign supreme. The child in the womb is a human person. Insofar as the child is a human person, then it is to be afforded the same rights as any other human person. It is a long standing principle (c. 1st century) that the child in the womb is a human person, therefore the child in the womb has the same rights as any other human person. [...] "How can the church justify this situation which is murder in itself if the mother does not receive the care she needs and if the fetus is killing, or could kill, the mother." Because if the child and mother die, then the child and mother die natural deaths. If the child is killed and the mother lives, then the mother is culpable for the death of the child, because she is the direct caregiver and the responsible person for this child. [...] "Why is an adult with an established life deemed a reasonable sacrifice to save the life of what might not even live without the medium of the mother to facilitate the birth?" It is as much of a sacrifice as a mother doing anything else for her child. Would you not lay your life down for your child? I would. If I were to have children, I would most certainly be willing to lay my life down for my child. I am willing to do that for my niece and nephews, so I can honestly say that I would do it for my own child.

• Camilam42 | May 18, 2010, 07:21 PM EDT

  @deweymcd, "I am appalled to hear of the excommunication of Sr. Margaret McBride for being part of a decision by an ethics committee and the mother, and those defending the excommunication as just because Sister did it to herself. As others have asked, what of the others involved in the decision? Did they excommunicate themselves? Did Bishop Olmstead announce their excommunication?" [...] Yes, Bishop Olmseted announced their excommunications as well if they were Catholic. I am defending the excommunication, precisely because that action cannot be tolerated. Why should the child in the womb be killed? What did the child do to deserve to have it's life taken? Those are the questions that should be asked.

• McNamara31 | May 18, 2010, 02:36 PM EDT

  Anyone, with a compassionate heart, would never have wanted to have been in Sister McBride's shoes for a decision like this. I'm sure she agonized in this no win decision. The older we become, we realize, life doesn't always unfold, in neat little this is right, this is wrong, boxes.

• annhowell | May 18, 2010, 12:10 PM EDT

  I understand the policy of the Catholic Church but cannot agree with it (I am not Catholic). It seems women are persecuted if they cannot bring to bear the life within them - even if that life is not fully formed nor able to survive on its own. How can it be Christian and right to risk the life of the mother, a fully formed and functioning person? The best case scenario is that both would survive but to risk a viable living being with a full life is beyond comprehension. How can the church justify this situation which is murder in itself if the mother does not receive the care she needs and if the fetus is killing, or could kill, the mother. Why is an adult with an established life deemed a reasonable sacrifice to save the life of what might not even live without the medium of the mother to facilitate the birth?

• millstreet | May 18, 2010, 02:32 AM EDT

  When the pedophile priests are excommunicated then they can talk about Sister Margaret McBride. She made a decision to save this mother not alone so all should have to meet with the Bishop...To let them both die is even worse...how could any loving church feel this way. The church needs women...not these self righteous,pompous men. (not all the priest are at all, many many are very good and caring) Think of the Mother and her family. Sister McBride did the right thing....God Bless her.

• deweymcd | May 17, 2010, 10:40 PM EDT

  I am appalled to hear of the excommunication of Sr. Margaret McBride for being part of a decision by an ethics committee and the mother, and those defending the excommunication as just because Sister did it to herself. As others have asked, what of the others involved in the decision? Did they excommunicate themselves? Did Bishop Olmstead announce their excommunication? If they had allowed the mother to die, would the fetus have survived at 11 weeks? Or would they now be responsible for two murders? Pro-life proponents can't have it just one way. The life of a mother allowed to end when an option, and it appears the only option, was available, is not taken, seems to be a dereliction of duty, and a death sentence of the mother. I applaud the ethics committee, and Sr. Margaret, as a member of that committee, for making a very difficult, and I am sure painful decision. Christisall should rethink her moniker, since Jesus would never belittle another human being, let alone suggest the death of Sr. Margaret through abortion. Pro-life in it's truest meaning? I think not. "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" is something to which you should give some thought.

• Camilam42 | May 17, 2010, 09:57 PM EDT

  For all of you who are toting out the "pedophile priest" issue to defend Ms. McBride's position, that is a fallacy and you have defeated yourselves in this conversation. The fallacy is called "poisioning the well." It is bad form and is merely a way to deflect from the real issue at hand, that abortion is evil. If you would like to see how the syllogism of "poisioning the well" works, here it is: a. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A (in this case, Bishop Olmsted) is presented. b. Therefore any claims person A (in this case, Bishop Olmsted) makes will be false. Please stop with that line of reasoning, it holds no weight in this conversation. None whatsoever. God Bless.

• vincentruane | May 17, 2010, 08:00 PM EDT

  A question for the editors! Was a pregnancy terminated or was a weak and defenseless growing human being killed.How many more million human beings is this abortion holocaust going to kill. And a question for all the eager supporters of the abortion holocaust from the voice of an unborn child. WHAT WOULD YOUR CHOICE BE,IF YOU WERE ME?

• Camilam42 | May 17, 2010, 07:55 PM EDT

  @ Tilliewillow; you're right, what I used was from the Cardinal, but a universal truth is still truth, regardless of the time in which it is said. The movie was released in 1963. That would be DURING Vatican Council II. That being said, it doesn't really matter when, since admonishing abortion goes back to the 1st Century. That is proven fact. What was said then, is appropos today. When someone deals with the truth, it is a matter of black and white. Something isn't mostly true, otherwise it wouldn't be true. It is a black and white issue. BTW, Tom Tryon (Fr. Fermoyle) was a curate at St. Peter's in rural MA when that scene took place. God Bless.

• Tilliewillow | May 17, 2010, 06:19 PM EDT

  I am bringning back two words: "bunk" and "hooey". Write your own sentence. This story is reminiscent of the movie, "The Cardinal" in which a very handsome Tom Tryon(don't know if he was a cardinal yet or a lowly monsignor) allows his sister (the beautiful Carol Linley) to die in childbirth although there were alternatives. This movie was shot either in the late 50s or early 60s. The church hasn't apparently been able to move beyond the doctrinal black and white. I like this Sister Margaret and hope she really loves her new job. Blessings!

• bcoop72 | May 17, 2010, 05:51 PM EDT

  Too many bishops are totally out of touch with reality. How can they even imagine letting this mother/wife/daughter/sister die to satisfy their strange interpretations of laws? I wonder what Bishop Olmsted would do if it was his sister or other family member? I am edified and supportive of Sr. Margaret in her courage to make difficult decisions, not only in this medical event, but in the face of egotistical and self important bishops who seem to delight in swinging their croziers like clubs. We know what Jesus had to say about them.

• Fr.Brennan | May 17, 2010, 03:22 PM EDT

  Sr. McBride is my new pin-up girl. What a woman! She was a consultant and worked as part of a team of consultants which is just the right way it should be done. She helped make the correct decision in a difficult case. She is not only right but blameless in her good Catholic work. McBride should be heralded for her courage and her Catholic spirituality. The bishop is a basket case, he needs complete rest. Pray for him. Send flowers to Sr. Margaret. It is time that the clergy, including our dear bishop, were married. He is surrounded by clericalism and does not know what the real world is all about. Sad story. We need a married clergy.

• Ms.Gail | May 17, 2010, 02:12 PM EDT

  Sailmaker, the obvious answer to all this is not to do an abortion, but to remove the featus from the mother's womb and place him or her in an incubator where he or she can be baptised and live out a natural life as God intends.No extraordinary measures should be taken, but this new small soul should be treated with respect and given last rites. You and I know it will not be a long life but it will be a life in God's hands.The costs will be marginally more than "disposing of tissue" but they are the cost of right versus wrong.

• sailmaker | May 17, 2010, 02:02 PM EDT

  Let me get this straight: there's a medical consensus that the mother will die without an immediate termination of an 11-week pregnancy. If nothing is done, both will die. What are people supposed to do in such situations? Call a Bishop?? I'm not a woman, but had I been, or if I'd been this woman's husband, I would have relied without hesitation upon the medical consensus, and pitched the bishop out on his ear if he'd shown up. Good God! No wonder the Church is rendering itself completely irrelevant to the lives of the faithful. What a tragedy in the first place: an unimaginable, unreasonable, utterly insane tragedy if the idiot bishop's position had been followed. 'Way to go, Sister. This is one of those situations that I wouldn't hesitate to say, "Let me'n Jesus work this one out!"

• ritmomente | May 17, 2010, 12:51 PM EDT

  Canon Law is Canon Law. She broke it. She could have abstained herself. Most priests have been laicized. To me, I'd throw them onto the street instead of putting them into a home.

• Camilam42 | May 17, 2010, 11:46 AM EDT

  @howareya, " I always thought Church teaching was if the life of the mother was at risk, you could save her." No, absolutely not. I would point you toward the Catechism of the Catholic Church, specifically nos. 2270-2275. Notice that since Ms. McBride is a Catholic, she is bound by the teachings of the Church. She also is bound by the legislations that occur therein. If she formally cooperated in an abortion, then she is subject to latae sententiae excommunication. It is pretty clear. By the way, that isn't something imposed by Bishop Olmsted, it is simply published by his Office. She imposed the sentence of excommunication upon herself. The bishop is simply doing his duty to make it known to her and those who would minister to her. Again, if the mother dies because she won't murder her unborn child then she dies a natural death and that is an acceptable way to die. However, if she murders the child in order to save her own life, she is culpable for the death of the unborn child and must therefore take responsiblity for that murder. The former action is just (laying her life down for her unborn child); the latter is not (murdering her unborn child) because it is done in order to save her life at the expense of another's. God Bless.

• howareya | May 17, 2010, 11:21 AM EDT

  What is up with some of you people??? You think the woman should have been let die with her child? The ultimate sacrifice? What good would that do with both dead? Would you feel the same if this was your wife, daughter, sister?I am very prolife but in this case, I think they made the right decision. I always thought Church teaching was if the life of the mother was at risk, you could save her. Like having to kill someone to save your family. I know the poor baby is innocent but if it was going to die anyway!!! I am getting really fed up with these bishops...

• KathyCallahan | May 17, 2010, 11:08 AM EDT

  erieshark. bingo. Every single time their was another pedophile priest eruption or a Kevin Cullen story was published in the Boston Globe in 2001, like clockwork, cardinal Law would change the subject immediately and take up arms against, the true source of all the pedophile priest scandals and problems -religious homosexuals. And he was going to root out each and every homosexual priest. Instead, he booked a one way flight to Vatican City. Olmstead rooted out Sister Margaret McBride to gin up the base and deflect attention away from the green green blue green grass of Kentucky. This time, around, the stakes are a whole lot higher; so Olmstead is going 'nuclear Kentucky' on Margaret McBride with the shopworn Vatican playbook in his back pocket. Cardinal Law may have a new roommate in the plush suite soon. And his name rhymes with dead. As in the state of his career as U.S. Bishop/ Overseer of the Catholic healthcare system and St. Joseph medical center in Phoenix.

• Mollyanne | May 17, 2010, 10:39 AM EDT

  We had a referendum in Ireland to save the mother in cases like this, its a hard one to call, this nun I would imagine was not the only one in the decision making. If its a Catholic Hosp. I am sure she was not the only Catholic involved either has the Bishop excomunicated others?

• CaliforniaShamrock | May 17, 2010, 10:37 AM EDT

  I would suspect that if the pregnancy had been allowed to continue they both would have died - would that have been more "pro life"?

• nyperry | May 17, 2010, 10:21 AM EDT

  I have been a patient at this wonderful hospital. The nuns were great and I am sorry the priest made such an anal retentive decision. Shame on him. The nuns always know best, anyhow.

• irishathens | May 17, 2010, 10:11 AM EDT

  From the Vaticans point of view it's ok for a mother to die but not a fetus. Thank God for sanity, the nun concerned is wiser than all of them put together.

• borefield | May 17, 2010, 10:08 AM EDT

  Classic case of the catholic priests making hard nosed decisions regarding women and pregnancy. I am by no means a supporter of abortion. There are extenuating circumstances and this bishop should have listened to the medical experts. Arrogance and chauvinism among the catholic priests are eroding belief in the catholic church. Wake up bishop.

• erieshark | May 17, 2010, 10:00 AM EDT

  In politics when you want to change the subject, you do something more outrageous. I think the Church is returning to the topic of abortion to take pedophile priests out of the headlines. While I am anti-abortion in nearly all cases, I am not going to second guess a hospital ethics committee. We can not possible know all of the facts in this situation. I do know a woman who had a similar medical condition and two small children dependent on her. The entire family situation must also be taken into consideration. Let us not substitute our judgment without knowing all the facts.

• irish central | May 17, 2010, 09:27 AM EDT

  Did the Catholic Church excommunicate those pedophile priests? Nuff said.

• phoenixnurse | May 17, 2010, 09:07 AM EDT

  The Nun made the appropriate decision! There is no doubt in my mind she examined the entire medical situation with great concern and care and had no other options but to save the Mother. To transfer this Nun to another position within the hospital is wrong. She is being made the "Scapegoat" by the Bishop!

• haasny007 | May 17, 2010, 08:39 AM EDT

  Who cares about those religious fanatics?!

• quixotic | May 17, 2010, 08:30 AM EDT

  Actually, as a graduate of a Jesuit Institution and, therefore, required to take several ethics courses (Catholic Theology based) the sister acted according to the dictates of Catholic Teaching. So what is with this bishop? Perhaps he is acting in this way to demonstrate that he is, indeed, NOT an employee of the Vatican. That would help the Vatican in its defense of the other issue of our times.

• KathyCallahan | May 17, 2010, 01:10 AM EDT

  Dr. Appell, medical ethicist, reported on 5/16, Bishop Olmsted is also the organizer in chief of an effort to 'incorporate local church parishes individually in order to shield the Phoenix archdiocese from suits by sex-abuse victims.' Bishop Olmstead appears to be coming undone on the eve of Vatican attorney Jeffrey Lena's appearance in a Kentucky courtroom tomorrow morning on behalf of the pope and bishops, in an unprecedented effort to have the case against the Vatican thrown out now! The institutional loyalist bishop has gone where no U.S. bishop has ever gone before in a Catholic Medical Center. Targeting, excommunicating and demoting a nun who served on patient ethics committee. The male physician was not excommunicated and demoted. Before Olmstead was elevated to bishop he worked in the Vatican as a close associate of the former and current pope for sixteen years. Olmstead's very curious career path and 'group think a like' behavior on behalf of protecting the church from victims lawsuits provides a wellspring of anecdotal evidence in support of attorney McMurry's legal arguments that will be heard in Kentucky tomorrow morning.

• GerRegan | May 16, 2010, 11:18 PM EDT

  Sister McBride made the right call, I believe, a tough one but the right one!

• Camilam42 | May 16, 2010, 09:30 PM EDT

  @ hyattsville. You're correct, Ms. McBride was put in a terrible position, but as a Catholic she should have made the decision NOT to participate in the abortion. Honestly, the supposedly Catholic hospital should not have put her in that position. Bishop Olmsted did the only thing he could, publish what she had done to herself. The excommunication was latae sententiae. What level of respect does he have? The utmost. He supports the right of the mother to do the most unselfish thing she can do, give her life for her child. Unless you happen to think that isn't the most unselfish thing a mother can do for her child. BTW, I am a relative to a woman who's had an abortion. She is never going to be fully over it. We pray together about it almost daily. God Bless.

• hyattsville | May 16, 2010, 08:32 PM EDT

  What a horrible position for Sr. McBride to have been put in and I believe she made the right and ethical decision even though she knew what the outcome would cost her. What kind of a person is Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted and what level of respect does he have for Women anyway that he would sit and watch a mother die along with her fully incubated fetus? Primitive and controlling. A Talibanesque appreciation of the female species. Arizona is making news for all the wrong reasons these days. I would hate to be a female relation of some of you who have commented here by the way or under your medical supervision.

• Camilam42 | May 16, 2010, 08:09 PM EDT

  *womb -- geez, can you see where my mind is regarding this issue. Mea culpa. It should read, "As it is, the mother has to live with the knowledge that her baby was killed while still in the womb." Mea culpa.

• Camilam42 | May 16, 2010, 07:46 PM EDT

  If the mother dies because she won't abort the baby, she dies of natural causes (and so does the baby). But by killing the unborn baby, a murder is committed. Under no circumstances can an abortion be justified. What Bishop Olmstead did was appropriate and just. What Ms. McBride (formerly Sister Margaret) did by formally cooperating in an abortion is cause for separation from the Church. Ms. McBride is not a champion of women's rights, but rather a formal cooperator in the destruction of a human life. It would have been more courageous to pray with the mother as she made the ultimate sacrifice and endered into Eternity with her child. As it is, now the mother has to live with the knowledge that her baby was killed while still in the wound. That is traumatic. That is sad. I am sorry that the mother was put into a position of being duped into a completely unethical position, under the guise of a medical procedure. I will pray for the repose of the soul of the baby; the healing of the mother who lost her child; and the hopeful reconciliation and recantation of Ms. McBride, for her actions.

• BVAazhot | May 16, 2010, 04:12 PM EDT

  Bishop Olmsted. Stop "proclaiming" any evils. You don't seem to know what one is. If you did you would know that allowing both a mother and her child to die (when at least one could be saved) merely to maintain the appearance of institutional righteousness is evil -- by almost any imaginable standard of morality! It is just as evil as covering up the felonious misdeeds of serial child molesters and then protecting them from prosecution just to maintain the appearance of institutional righteousness!

• Christisall | May 16, 2010, 03:53 PM EDT

  I'd like someone to abort MacBride.

• Christisall | May 16, 2010, 03:53 PM EDT

  To ainehannah, you are a gobdaw of a human being.

• Christisall | May 16, 2010, 03:52 PM EDT

  MacBride should lose her job; she is a supporter of murder of children. End of story. She disgusts me.And, it is a farce this excuse of saving a mother's life. Bullpoop.

• ainehannah | May 16, 2010, 02:10 PM EDT

  Hurrah for the Sr Margaret MacBrides of this world, and sweet mother of divine jaysus can nobody sack that thick gobdaw of a bishop?

• KathyCallahan | May 16, 2010, 01:07 PM EDT

  Now the excommunicated McBride Sister is a lightening rod for vatican transformation from a cubicle in the basement. Bishop olmsdead and the hierarchy excommunicated and elevated Margaret McBride all at once. Her plight for justice and saving a women's life will not be forgotten. And she will not be forsaken

• bcoc1124 | May 16, 2010, 01:02 PM EDT

  HAs any priest who raped children and "destroyed" lives been excommunicated? I think not. For shame.

• KathyCallahan | May 16, 2010, 12:50 PM EDT

  Michael Clancey of The Arizona Republic wrote, Sister Margaret McBride, who had been Vice President of Mission Integration at the hospital, was on call as a member of the hospital's ethics committee when the surgery took place, hospital officials said. She was part of a group of people, including the patient and doctors, who decided upon the course of action.

• KathyCallahan | May 16, 2010, 10:32 AM EDT

  This who they are and what they do...Maureen Dowd wrote about the recent inquisition of the nuns. And they took out Margaret McBride. Bishop Olmstead excommunicated her from the church for her work on the hospital ethics committee and they all voted in unison. McBride has been relocated to another position in the basement of the catholic hospital system of care. In the long run the bishops will be paying for their treatment of the nuns. Mark my words.