In Colorado, the Catholic Church apparently doesn't know what its lawyers are up to. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

In 2006, Jeremy Stodghill filed a medical malpractice/wrongful death case after his wife, seven months pregnant at the time, died at St. Thomas More Hospital, a Catholic hospital in Canon City, Colorado. In addition, the twin fetuses she was carrying died as well.

Mr. Stodghill brought his wife to the Emergency Room that day after she experienced vomiting and shortness of breath. He dropped his wife in the ER and went to park the car. By the time he returned to the ER, his wife had lost consciousness. Approximately an hour later, Ms. Stodghill suffered a heart attack and died. The twins had been left inside her womb and they died as well. Stodghill sued, alleging that the twins could have been saved if medical personnel had taken appropriate emergency action. Despite being paged, the on-call obstetrician never responded. An ER nurse listened for fetal heart sounds, but none were heard. The ER doctor then decided against taking any action to save the babies.

The hospital’s lawyers, in defending the case, argued in part, that under Colorado law, a fetus is NOT a person, therefore, the twins could not recover anything in a lawsuit. Two lower courts have sided with the hospital and Stodghill’s case is now before the Colorado Supreme Court.

The hospital’s argument that a fetus is NOT a person directly contradicts the Church’s position that life begins at conception. After news of the story broke a couple of day ago, three Colorado bishops said they will conduct a “…full review of this litigation and of the policies and practices…to ensure fidelity to and faithful witness to the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Okay, so the church has recognized that taking a legal position directly contrary to its position that life begins at conception might raise some eyebrows. So the Church will “review” the litigation. Is the Church really suggesting that it didn’t know its lawyers had taken this position? Hard to imagine. Cosider that the Colorado statute of limitations for medical malpractice is 2 years – so presumably this case has been on file since 2008 or earlier. And the case is currently residing with the state Supreme Court. So this “fetus is not a human defense” was likely originally raised in a motion, and then briefed by the parties. The motion was then probably argued before the trial judge. The trial judge granted the motion. That order eliminated a substantial portion of the case. Typically, lawyers tell their clients when good things happen. In the old days, lawyers did that via snail mail. Nowadays, good results can be transmitted in seconds via email. The Church’s lawyers seem very capable. Maybe the Church internet connection was down.

Then the plaintiff appealed to the Colorado Appellate Court. Appellate Briefs were probably drafted. Those briefs have to spell out the legal arguments in detail, citing the statute and relevant case law. Appellate lawyers often send copies of the briefs to their clients for review or simply to let them know the work is being done. The Appellate Court then apparently upheld the trial court’s ruling, most likely in a written opinion. Once again, that would have been good news for the Church. Most appellate lawyers, proud of a good result, immediately share that with the client, oftentimes providing a copy of the the opinion. The Church hasn’t commented if it was aware of the Appellate Court ruling.

The plaintiff then appealed the Appellate Court’s ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court. A couple of news stories pop up in local papers and on the internet that Church lawyers are arguing a fetus doesn’t have legal status. Someone wakes the Most Reverend Bishops and they are most disturbed. They are going to look into this.

Maybe the Church was utterly clueless that its lawyers had taken a position directly contrary to Catholic teachings. And maybe the Church was aware that if successful, that position, would afford the Church an opportunity to eliminate the potential of a multi-million dollar settlement or verdict. So the Church simply decided to keep quiet and hope nobody makes a stink. Sound familiar?

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.