The Taliban in America
How is it we live in a free society and crap like this STILL happens in America? I will take a president lying about a blowjob than all of these shameful miscreants any day.
This is unbelievable
Have they no shame? And they say Democrats are the party of "hate."
Topic courtesy of Atrios
This is unbelievable
Quote:
Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
Have they no shame? And they say Democrats are the party of "hate."
Topic courtesy of Atrios
Comments
Michigan should barred from receiving federal funds and censured by the AMA.
This is an interesting twist on the thread from some time ago in which a patient refused to be treated by, I believe, a doctor who didn't possess the right skin colour. Same theory applied then - either you're a patient, or you're not.
Things like this make me understand why the whole world hates America: because on some level, we deserve to be hated.
That's the impetus for this kind of legislation up here, anyway.
And what does that have to do with giving medical treatment to gays? What sort of religious argument can be made, even within the absurd notions of morality espoused by the modern Catholic Church, that denying medical treatment to gays is anything but an objective evil?
Originally posted by Kirkland
A private organization that is not owned by the church has been required to provide birth control options in their company health plan for their non-Catholic employees in California. Why? Because it was a private organization not owned by the church. That it calls itself "Catholic Charities" does not excuse it from the standards all organizations are held to. If it wants such exception, it should sell itself to the Church itself ? but the Charities wants the flexibility that comes from not being owned by the Church. They're trying to have it both ways, which the law does not allow.
And what does that have to do with giving medical treatment to gays? What sort of religious argument can be made, even within the absurd notions of morality espoused by the modern Catholic Church, that denying medical treatment to gays is anything but an objective evil?
BINGO! But, wait...there's a wingnut around here who will soon try to "rationalize" Michigan's position. In one...two....three....
There are plenty of options for non-Catholics to access birth control coverage without heavy-handedly forcing Catholic Charities to do so.
And it's unbelievable that a Catholic health care worker can presently be forced by law to participate in an abortion.
You know fully well these are the situations the bill is meant to redress. Denying medical care to homosexuals is not the driving force behind the U.S. Conscientious Objector Policy Act.
Originally posted by Northgate
BINGO! But, wait...there's a wingnut around here who will soon try to "rationalize" Michigan's position. In one...two....three....
Name-calling over debate. Nice.
Originally posted by Frank777
And it's unbelievable that a Catholic health care worker can presently be forced by law to participate in an abortion.
It's unbelieveable because they can't be forced by law into participating in an abortion. If the abortion is an elective procedure they can refuse. If the abortion is medically necessary they can quit working as a doctor and go get a job assembling hamburgers in McDonalds.
Originally posted by Frank777
You know fully well these are the situations the bill is meant to redress. Denying medical care to homosexuals is not the driving force behind the U.S. Conscientious Objector Policy Act.
Perhaps not, but you can bet it'll be used for that purpose.
Originally posted by Northgate
How is it we live in a free society and crap like this STILL happens in America? I will take a president lying about a blowjob than all of these shameful miscreants any day.
This is unbelievable
Have they no shame? And they say Democrats are the party of "hate."
Topic courtesy of Atrios
Don't mistake this for a bill that enjoins a measure against treating gay patients. It is a bill that gives doctors an option. Ultimately, any doctor should be able to refuse treatment to anyone based on anything. That's what it means to live in a free country Freely available medical services, on the other hand, is not.
Moving on, being a doctor sucks these days because malpractice and other suits get flung at them from all directions. This bill is a step forward in freedom. . . it's one of the very few steps forward I've seen in the last 12 years.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Ultimately, any doctor should be able to refuse treatment to anyone based on anything.
They already can. But a doctor who refuses to treat a person who requires medical assistance and cannot find it elsewhere deserves no special protection under the law for making that refusal on personal moral / religious grounds.
Edit: clarification
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Don't mistake this for a bill that enjoins a measure against treating gay patients. It is a bill that gives doctors an option. Ultimately, any doctor should be able to refuse treatment to anyone based on anything. That's what it means to live in a free country Freely available medical services, on the other hand, is not.
Moving on, being a doctor sucks these days because malpractice and other suits get flung at them from all directions. This bill is a step forward in freedom. . . it's one of the very few steps forward I've seen in the last 12 years.
People have a right to medical service. Why should a gay person die if the only doctor in their town is some sort of fundamentalist beast who won't care for fags?
If doctors want freedom, they shouldn't pledge to "do no harm." Denying someone services is doing them a harm.
What if every heart surgeon in the state decided they wouldn't treat gays? You would think that's okay? You would think that it's alright for thousands of gays to potentially die to protect the "freedom" of doctors to be worthless bigotted gits?
smoke and mirrors....
and the others here are right also, any health worker that refuses aid and help to a sick or injuried person needs to change profession...we are in the healing business and that counts for all people
g
Originally posted by Frank777
It's a private organization run by Catholics.
But it is still not a religious organization. Their services are not religious in nature. Their employees are not all Catholic. Neither are their patrons. They are no different than the grocery store down the block, legally, and are held to the same standards in regards to medical insurance that must be provided to full time employees.
A free country shouldn't force people to violate their consciences.
They don't have to: just associate the group with the church formally, and you can have all the religious-oragnization protections you want. But you can't have both the freedoms that come from being not a religious organization AND the protections that come from being a religious organization ? you can't have it both ways.
And religious people shouldn't be forced to check their beliefs at the church door.
So the cashier at the drug store should be allowed to refuse to sell me needed medicines because they're a Christian Scientist?
You know fully well these are the situations the bill is meant to redress. Denying medical care to homosexuals is not the driving force behind the U.S. Conscientious Objector Policy Act. [/B]
It will happen. The bigots want me and everyone like me dead, and this is a big ****ing weapon in their arsenal.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Don't mistake this for a bill that enjoins a measure against treating gay patients. It is a bill that gives doctors an option. Ultimately, any doctor should be able to refuse treatment to anyone based on anything. That's what it means to live in a free country Freely available medical services, on the other hand, is not.
Wait, you're arguing that a doctor should be able to refuse treatment to a black guy or a woman or poor person or a Jew because he finds any of those people distasteful? That, as a doctor, I should be able to hang up a sign in my window that says "No Jews"? or "Whites Only"?