Catholic hospital abandons core pro-life beliefs to save money in devastating lawsuit over deaths of an expectant mother and her unborn twins.
At a Glance
- Catholic hospitals faced backlash for arguing fetuses aren’t “persons” in wrongful death lawsuits, contradicting Church teaching
- In Colorado, St. Thomas More Hospital used this defense after a mother died with twins at 7 months gestation
- In Iowa, a similar case involves a Catholic health provider defending against malpractice after a 35-week stillbirth
- After meeting with bishops, the Colorado hospital reversed position, admitting the legal strategy was “morally wrong”
- These cases highlight the conflict between Catholic institutions’ religious values and financial/legal interests
When Money Trumps Morality: The Legal Defense That Stunned Pro-Life Advocates
The Catholic Church has long been one of the most vocal defenders of the unborn, consistently teaching that life begins at conception. Yet when faced with potential financial liability in wrongful death lawsuits, some Catholic healthcare institutions have adopted legal positions that directly contradict these core beliefs. The most glaring example came from St. Thomas More Hospital in Colorado, where lawyers defending against a malpractice lawsuit argued that the unborn twins of a deceased mother weren’t “persons” under state law — despite the hospital being operated by Catholic Health Initiatives.
The Colorado case centered around Jeremy Stodghill, who filed suit after his wife Lori died while seven months pregnant with twin boys. Stodghill alleged the hospital failed to perform an emergency cesarean section that could have potentially saved the twins. The hospital’s defense team cited Colorado’s Wrongful Death Act, which doesn’t recognize fetuses as legal persons. After two Colorado judges ruled in the hospital’s favor, the case made its way to the state Supreme Court — along with a firestorm of criticism aimed at the hospital’s seemingly hypocritical stance.
The Embarrassing About-Face
After the defense strategy became public knowledge, Catholic Health Initiatives quickly found itself in an untenable position. The organization was forced to admit that its legal arguments directly contradicted the Church’s teachings. “That law does not consider fetuses to be persons, which directly contradicts the moral teachings of the church,” the hospital chain acknowledged in a statement. The timing couldn’t have been worse, as Catholic leaders were preparing for the annual March for Life protest against abortion in Washington, DC.
“There’s a difference between being legal and being right. Either a fetus is a person or it’s not,” said Richard Land, a prominent Southern Baptist ethicist at the time of the controversy.
Hospital administrators scrambled to meet with Colorado’s Catholic bishops, ultimately announcing they would abandon the controversial defense strategy. In a remarkable reversal, they admitted the approach was “morally wrong” and pledged to adhere to the Church’s teaching “that life is sacred from the moment of conception until natural death.” The hospital promised it would no longer argue that fetuses are not people under Colorado law, regardless of the financial implications.
History Repeats Itself in Iowa
Despite the embarrassment in Colorado, another Catholic healthcare provider recently employed the same controversial defense strategy in Iowa. The case involves Miranda and Landen Anderson, who filed a malpractice lawsuit after the stillbirth of their daughter, Eloise, at 35 weeks gestation in April 2021. The couple alleges that MercyOne, operated by Catholic Health Initiatives, negligently failed to recommend early delivery despite Miranda showing symptoms of preeclampsia — a dangerous pregnancy complication.
“There is no statute or binding case law finding an unborn child to be a ‘patient’ under the law,” CHI’s attorneys wrote, citing a 1971 Iowa Supreme Court decision which held that damages cannot be awarded “on behalf of, or for, a nonexistent person,” according to court documents.
This defense strategy aims to limit the family’s potential damages under Iowa’s 2017 medical malpractice law. Once again, a Catholic institution appears willing to temporarily abandon its core belief in the sanctity of life from conception when facing financial liability — the very definition of situational ethics that the Church typically condemns.
The Broader Implications
These cases expose a troubling contradiction that undermines the moral authority of Catholic healthcare institutions. Critics have seized on the apparent hypocrisy, with commentators noting the stark contrast between the Church’s public stance on abortion and its legal maneuvers in malpractice cases.
The controversy comes at a time when Catholic dioceses across the country have sued over contraceptive mandates in the Affordable Care Act, citing religious freedom and the sanctity of life. Yet these same institutions appear willing to temporarily abandon those principles when defending against financial liability — creating a perception problem that damages their credibility on life issues generally.
For pro-life advocates who have relied on Catholic institutions as stalwart allies, these cases serve as a sobering reminder that even the most principled organizations can falter when their financial interests are at stake. The question remains whether Catholic healthcare providers will establish consistent policies that align with their stated values, regardless of the legal context — or continue to send mixed messages that undermine their moral authority on life issues.
