Shirley and Carole Simpson-Betts, a legally married lesbian couple, adopted a child through a social-service agency located in Plainview, Iowa. The child was a five-week-old foreign national from Syria who had been orphaned in the civil war in that country. Named Isaac Randolph Simpson-Bettsfollowingthe legal adoption procedure in Iowa, Isaac quickly developed some significant health issues related to lung capacity and breathing. Taken to the emergency clinic at St. Elizabeth's Health Care Center in Plainview, Isaac and his parents were life-flighted to their sister hospital, St. Elizabeth Pulmonary Clinic in Midway, Nebraska, a health care network affiliate of the Plainview clinic.

During the admissions process, while Isaac was being prepped for emergency lung procedures, a representative of the hospital indicated to the couple that St. Elizabeth's would be willing to perform the surgery using the insurance policy which Shirley maintained through her employer. The insurance company, Village Life and Health Insurance out of Smalltown, Wisconsin, accepted the responsibility for the bulk of the procedure that surgeons at St. Elizabeth completed during the pre-operative procedure. It was at this time that the hospital denied operating room observation privileges to Carole, citing the private hospital's strongly held objections to same-sex marriage and its refusal to accept the idea of open adoptions.

The surgery was successful in spite of the controversy. Carole was unable to visit Isaac until he was moved to intensive care, while her wife Shirley continually text messaged her throughout the procedure. In an action subsequent, Carole and Shirley filed a civil suit against St. Elizabeth's for discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Address the following issues:

1. Defend the private hospital against these charges, considering the fact that St. Elizabeth's is a strong, private Catholic facility.
2. Cite recent cases regarding same-sex adoptions and foster parenting in both Nebraska and Iowa.
3. Consider the claim by the church-affiliated hospital that no permanent harm was caused and the freedom of religion outweighed the slight inconvenience of the interested parties.