Trump hits the Homos Again. [Faith-Based Discrimination in Medicine]

[TX-Beau]

You have it upside down.

The First Amendment blocks the government from interfering with a person's religious beliefs.

A law that compelled someone to take part in an abortion would be unconstitutional.

As to clinics vs hospitals, only 4% of abortions are performed in hospitals, but that isn't really the point of the policy. It wasn't a policy someone in the Trump Administration just made up; it was a reversal of an Obama Administration rule that could have compelled Catholic hospitals and other religious hospitals to perform abortions.

Yeah, you're utterly and completely wrong. The Establishment Clause just keeps the Fed from requiring a religion, it can and does regulate a huge number of religious practices from polygamy to human sacrifice to getting high.

Failed civics did we.

 

[TX-Beau]

I'll make it easy for you, your religion does not over-rule the law. Which is why these always go down in court. The only way to make that stick, is to have bias and bigotry in the lawmakers and the courts, or to prove to a court that discriminating on the basis of religion is not illegal.

 

[gsdx]

You have it upside down.

The First Amendment blocks the government from interfering with a person's religious beliefs.

Apparently you have your own version of the Hippocratic Oath as well as your own version of the US Constitution.

You should read them sometime.

 

[rareboy]

How do you make up this crap?

The medical exemption allows health care professionals to not being pressured in participating in abortions. Nothing more, nothing less.

You seem to have it all wrong. This order wasn't about abortions.

Prove where it was.

 

[opinterph]

The medical exemption allows health care professionals to not being pressured in participating in abortions. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing?

(From linked article)

Why it matters:

… critics argue that the administration is giving medical professionals a license to discriminate and that the rule would weaken protections for vulnerable patients, including gay and transgender individuals.

 

[opinterph]

45 CFR Part 88: Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority

The document linked above^ adopts as final, with changes in response to public comments, a revised part 88, Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority.

Effective Date: This rule is effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

 

[Latimer]

I looked in vain for any mention of denying care to homosexuals in this article. It specifically mentioned abortions and sterilizations. Shouldn't--as a matter of conscience--a physician be allowed to refuse to perform a procedure that he or she believes is wrong or harmful?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

The Wikipedia article mentions that there is some controversy over whether or not the oath prohibits performing abortions, although the first English translation it presents specifically does so.

For me the larger question is whether or not a physician is obligated for perform a procedure simply because a patient has decided he or she wants it.
Additionally, the US government gives precedence to conscience in other areas, why should medicine be different? As best I can tell, the Trump position brings us back to the status quo ante.

 

[Latimer]

Aren’t abortions carried out in clinics rather than hospitals? So who had religious convictions would decide to work in such a clinic?

No medical worker should have a legal right to refuse care because of their religious beliefs.

What is happening to the USA? It used to be a country I respected for its civil rights.

This is not about care. Read the article. It's about elective procedures. I know a plastic surgeon who refused to perform plastic surgery on Michael Jackson. Should he have been required to do so? By the way, the abortion law in France is much more restrictive that those laws in the US. The French prohibit "abortion on demand" after 12 weeks; in the US it is generally 20 weeks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

Moreover, abortion in France was made legal by the legislature, unlike the US where it was the work of the courts.

 

[PrivateTimm]

Yeah, you're utterly and completely wrong. The Establishment Clause just keeps the Fed from requiring a religion, it can and does regulate a huge number of religious practices from polygamy to human sacrifice to getting high.

Failed civics did we.

And I quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Failed high school civics did we?

The Establishment Clause prohibits the federal government from establishing an official, national religion. That was the tyranny that so many people who lived in America had fled. But the Free Exercise Clause protects people from the kind of tyranny that the Obama Administration was trying to impose. The Trump Administration corrected that.

 

[opinterph]

I looked in vain for any mention of denying care to homosexuals in this article.

45 CFR Part 88: Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority

(From linked document)

Comment: The Department received comments expressing concern that the proposed rule would expand Federal conscience and anti-discrimination statutes to cover areas beyond the scope of the statutes. Several commenters raised concerns about expanding protection to HIV treatment, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and infertility treatment.

Response: The Department drafted the proposed rule to track the scope of each statute’s covered activities as Congress drafted them, without being unduly broad or unduly narrow … In the event that the Department receives a complaint with respect to HIV treatment, pre-exposure prophylaxis, or infertility treatment, the Department would examine the facts and circumstances of the complaint to determine whether it falls within the scope of the statute in question and these regulations.


Comment: The Department received comments asking for clarification about whether provisions in 88.3(a) apply to sterilizations performed in the context of gender dysphoria.

Response: The Department is aware of three cases brought at least in part under the Church Amendments, in which the claimants argued that the Church Amendments’ sterilization provisions protect the claimants’ conscientious objections to performing gender dysphoria related surgery. … In the event the Department receives any such complaints, the Department will consider them on a case-by-case basis.

 

[rareboy]

^ Thanks for pulling this up.

It is the generality of the coverage for religious exemption that is most likely to result in someone refusing care.

And while some think it is only about Doctors, it isn't. The exemption could effectively protect anyone in the care field, including administrative staff from carrying out their work.

Don't think it can happen.

Ask the woman who refused to issue marriage licenses.

 

[opinterph]

The exemption could effectively protect anyone in the care field, including administrative staff from carrying out their work.

I think you are correct. If anyone encounters an unfair refusal of service, they should contact the Department of Health and Human Services. The agency has promised to examine the facts and circumstances of each complaint to determine whether it falls within the scope of the statute in question and these new regulations. Complaints will be handled on a case-by-case basis. What could be more fair?

The deliberately vague language could apply to everyone from receptionists refusing to book appointments to scrub nurses refusing to assist with emergency surgery.

The Trump Administration Is Trying to Make It Easier for Doctors to Deny Care to LGBTQ People (Rewire.News; January 2019)

 

[PrivateTimm]

Nothing in what you cited comes close to justifying the headline, "The Trump Administration Is Trying to Make It Easier for Doctors to Deny Care to LGBTQ People". Nothing.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules that would lead one to conclusions reached in the headline.

 

[opinterph]

Nothing in what you cited comes close to justifying the headline, "The Trump Administration Is Trying to Make It Easier for Doctors to Deny Care to LGBTQ People". Nothing.

The new rules appear to compliment the administration’s move to rescind transgender health protections.

(From linked article)

Go deeper: Trump administration poised to rescind transgender health protections

 

[TX-Beau]

And I quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Failed high school civics did we?

The Establishment Clause prohibits the federal government from establishing an official, national religion. That was the tyranny that so many people who lived in America had fled. But the Free Exercise Clause protects people from the kind of tyranny that the Obama Administration was trying to impose. The Trump Administration corrected that.

Silly Boy, The Fed regulates religion, speech, the press, and even your freedom - there is NO SUCH THING as an unbridgeable right. There are circumstances and rules under which the Fed can take all of that from you. If you are incapable of understanding, I lack the patience to educate you.

You. Are. Wrong.

 

[Latimer]

The new rules appear to compliment the administration’s move to rescind transgender health protections.

What are transgender health protections?

 

[Sausy]

Freedom of religion doesn't apply when using "conscience" you fail to respect basic rights of others. Freedom of religion does not extend to freedom to blatantly discriminate. And I wish these devoted conservative "constitutionalists" would be anywhere close to as righteous as when the religious right makes inroads towards subverting those very freedoms they claim to love so much. One's freedom ends when it interferes with the basic freedom of others. Plenty of people in years past were denied basic freedoms because they were another color... they had to sit in the back of the bus or train, could not use the same entrances or exits or even sit at the same lunch counters or drink from the same water fountains or god forbid, put even a toe in the same pool reserved for the white folks. It was unconstitutional then and even though it's not as blatant as color these days, it's still wrong when because one isn't straight, they just don't get served because it "offends" some one or some group's religious beliefs. If Jesus himself basically reformed the Ten Commandments to one basic ideal, "love one another as I have loved you".. UNCONDITIONALLY… this whole bullshit shouldn't even be a thing.

 

[gsdx]

If Jesus himself basically reformed the Ten Commandments to one basic ideal, "love one another as I have loved you".. UNCONDITIONALLY… this whole bullshit shouldn't even be a thing.

Indeed. And I find it amazing that so many Bible verses are conveniently and completely ignored because they don't allow some Christians to hate or discriminate, such as the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) or that 'judge not lest ye be judged lesson' (Matthew 7:1-3).

 

[opinterph]

What are transgender health protections?

Transgender health protections prevent discrimination against transgender persons seeking medical care.

 

[Sausy]

Indeed. And I find it amazing that so many Bible verses are conveniently and completely ignored because they don't allow some Christians to hate or discriminate, such as the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) or that 'judge not lest ye be judged lesson' (Matthew 7:1-3).

Those people are always the biggest to praise Jesus but always make the time to act in ways that diminish what he taught. At best they go "love the sinner but hate the sin" yet even here where is the love when they are being denied basic rights and protections potentially because they are LGBT?