>>So none of this changes the context of the report from Michael Crichton that Catholic hospitals in the 1960's gave preferential treatment to married mothers-to-be over unmarried ones.

Probably they did give preference, as did society. But that wasn't your accusation. Your accusation was that unmarried women were denied anesthetic. Crichton did indeed write of such a "impression" (not report) after a fleeting visit as a disenchanted med student when he had problems with most aspects of healthcare administration. If you actually read his impression, actually he thought that women who did not get anesthetic were better off, IOW opposite the context you want to assign. But seems to me a grain of salt is required either way: the same book contains his views that psychiatry does not help people and positive impressions of auras, clairvoyance and astral projection. At one point he also discovered that he had been possessed by a demon that moved in during a recovered memory of rock climbing at the age of 4 when he realized that his father wanted to kill him.

So do you have any other "evidence" of this "fact" that you insist on? And how is it tied to the other "fact" that the beastly nuns pounced on unwed mothers while they were still befuddled from anesthesia to seize the infants from them?