Michigan Senate Committee Advances ‘License To Discriminate’ Healthcare Bill

[Moyank24]

The Michigan Senate’s Committee on Health Policy has approved a bill that would protect health care professionals who wish to discriminate against the LGBT community. Under the guise of “religious liberty and conscience protection,” Senate Bill 975 would allow health facilities to refuse to provide any health care service for any reason of “conscience,” which includes “religious beliefs, moral convictions, or ethical principles”:

A health facility may assert as a matter of conscience an objection to providing a health care service and may decline to provide a health care service that violates its conscience pursuant to this section. If a health facility asserts as a matter of conscience an objection to providing a health care service under this section, the health facility shall apply that objection equally to all patients that it serves, subject to this act.

The bill waives any civil, criminal, or administrative liability for the facilities that choose to discriminate, so no legal recourse would be possible. Instead, it guarantees damages for any person who is forced to violate their “conscience.” It also dictates that no public official or entity can deny aid or grants to a facility that discriminates based on conscience, which means that if same-sex recognition changes in Michigan, the state would remain obligated to financially support agencies like Catholic Charities, even if they refuse to serve same-sex couples, as transpired in Illinois.

Should SB 975 pass, any doctor or medical professional could refuse to provide any service — be it an abortion, HIV treatment, or even a basic check-up for a gay or trans patient — and the employing facility would be prohibited from taking action against the employee. Given members of the LGBT community already face severe health inequities, including basic access to care, this bill could exacerbate an already dire situation. Health policy should protect patients, not doctors’ “moral convictions.”

Source

Welcome to America in 1712 2012.

I have nothing against people of faith, but I absolutely don't believe religion should be used as justification for discrimination.

[malman89]

It's just a committee. As a Michigan resident, I will hope and assume it will die on the Senate floor. It could have enough support in the House, unfortunately.

Either way, Gov. Snyder would veto it. He's great in some ways, but in others not so much. If it's not a project of his, he's pretty hands off and just ignores things until he absolutely has to address it.

[vega07]

How embarrassing for Michigan.

I would hope that doctors would know better than to violate the Hippocratic Oath and their own conscience.

[leekohler]

This is sad. The war against us continues. I'm sure our libertarian members will just say, "move to another state". This is the problem I have with the libertarian POV. You should not have to move to another state to get proper health care.

[chrono1081]

Doctors that discriminate shouldn't be allowed to be doctors. They're obviously not of the right intelligence level to be dealing with peoples lives.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

Doctors that discriminate shouldn't be allowed to be doctors. They're obviously not of the right intelligence level to be dealing with peoples lives.

Agreed. If you can't do your job, then go find another profession.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by malman89

It's just a committee. As a Michigan resident, I will hope and assume it will die on the Senate floor. It could have enough support in the House, unfortunately.

Either way, Gov. Snyder would veto it. He's great in some ways, but in others not so much. If it's not a project of his, he's pretty hands off and just ignores things until he absolutely has to address it.

There's some comfort in that - however, the fact that this bill has been written and given the opportunity to be passed is the scary part. This isn't one nut - this is someone that has gotten support from many others in an effort to write and drum up votes for it. This is someone who has been elected. That's the scary part. In this day and age, this is a bill that should never be typed, let alone presented to a state senate committee.

As Americans, we think we are so enlightened - but we are still being lead by those whose thinking is a thousand years old.

[VulchR]

Presumably this bill would allow atheists to deny treatment to religious people....

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by VulchR

Presumably this bill would allow atheists to deny treatment to religious people....

It should. But you know they would cry foul over that.

[iJohnHenry]

Primum non nocere, or ἐπὶ δηλήσει δὲ καὶ ἀδικίῃ εἴρξειν if you prefer.

Poor, dead, Hippocrates. Maybe it's better he's not still around.

I'm still waiting for them to withhold treatment to gun-shot victims who clam-up to the cops.

That might actually be beneficial to Society.

[Andeavor]

There is something called the Hippocratic Oath, which determines that no medical professional should refuse to treat anyone based on ethical or moral justification - any nurse or doctor supporting that bill should have their license revoked.

Frankly, certain Americans should get over that religion-thing because in the long run it doesn't do them any good nor do they any good by discriminating others (What would Jesus think?). And medical professionals should be ashamed to even think of narrowing down the number of people they "should" treat, it's plain disgusting.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by VulchR

Presumably this bill would allow atheists to deny treatment to religious people....

That's pretty good. Or, a vegan doctor refusing to treat a hunter.

A road to hell is paved with allowing doctors to arbitrarily deny care based on "conscience."


Also, this would still run aground of the AMA's Code of Ethics:

...B-1.50 Discrimination. Membership in any category of the AMA or in any of its constituent associations shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, color, creed, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, or for any other reason unrelated to character, competence, ethics, professional status or professional activities.

[elistan]

FWIW, the way I read it (based on the posted summary - I haven't read the actual bill) is that the service can be denied by a facility, but if it is denied it must be denied to EVERYBODY by the facility. So if a facility objects to providing a basic checkup to Group A people, it must deny basic checkups to everybody, regardless of whether they are members for Group A.

So a facility could say "No blood tansfusions for anybody" but would not be allowed to say "No blood transfusions for hunters."

[eric/]

Originally Posted by leekohler

This is sad. The war against us continues. I'm sure our libertarian members will just say, "move to another state". This is the problem I have with the libertarian POV. You should not have to move to another state to get proper health care.

Funny. I have been told "love it or leave it' quite a few times as a "libertarian" when mentioning my distaste for paying taxes. It's a very silly notion that when you object to oppression, you should just forsake your property and life to change location.

It's not a libertarian point of view to say move to another state. That is completely false. Libertarianism opposes such bias.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by elistan

FWIW, the way I read it (based on the posted summary - I haven't read the actual bill) is that the service can be denied by a facility, but if it is denied it must be denied to EVERYBODY by the facility. So if a facility objects to providing a basic checkup to Group A people, it must deny basic checkups to everybody, regardless of whether they are members for Group A.

So a facility could say "No blood tansfusions for anybody" but would not be allowed to say "No blood transfusions for hunters."

That's a good point, but it still creates really interesting inequities in care based on the arbitrary doctor "conscience." And, it gives doctors the ability to garner financial recompense should they be forced to give care.

It's a terrible bill regardless.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by eric/

Funny. I have been told "love it or leave it' quite a few times as a "libertarian" when mentioning my distaste for paying taxes. It's a very silly notion that when you object to oppression, you should just forsake your property and life to change location.

It's not a libertarian point of view to say move to another state. That is completely false. Libertarianism opposes such bias.

Then you need to talk to your fellow libertarians, because that's exactly the kind of thing I hear form you guys about marriage equality.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Then you need to talk to your fellow libertarians, because that's exactly the kind of thing I hear form you guys about marriage equality.

I'm no big fan of the LP, but:

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

And any actual libertarian believes the same.

If you've met a "libertarian" (not to be confused with conservatives or Tea Party) and they claimed that you should just move states or anything other than "I agree you should be able to marry whom you want" (though they may be against the proposition of state run marriage license all together, which is a pro-gay marriage stance inherently) than they aren't a libertarian because they oppose basic libertarian principles.

So whomever you met that said "love it or leave it" they were using a fallacy, and they were spouting a non-libertarian point of view.

Hope that clears things up.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by leekohler

This is sad. The war against us continues. I'm sure our libertarian members will just say, "move to another state". This is the problem I have with the libertarian POV. You should not have to move to another state to get proper health care.

Here's an applicable song:


We call the heartland not very smart land, IQ's are very low but threat levels are high.
They got a mandate, they don't want man-dates, they got so many hates and people to despise.

In the dust bowl, cerebral black hole, the average weight is well over 200 pounds.
I hate to generalize, but have you seen the thighs, most haven't seen their genitalia in a while.

Maybe that's why they're so scared of us We've concerns other than fear and hunger pangs.

Queers, transgends, and lesbians, vegans and vegetarians.
All you brownish red and yellow ones come and join us on the coast.

No longer svelte, they gotta punch new holes in the Bible belt.

They've blown out the fire under the melting pot, the red blood of America is starting to clot.
No compromise, no sight through others' eyes, they're just flies spreading pieces of ****.
You gotta emigrate, stop living in hate, what makes this country great is dwelling on either side.

They don't want visitors in Jesusland.
They want life canned and bland in the fatherland.

We want people with college degrees, drug use experience and STD's.
People with open-minded philosophies, come hug California trees.
Cultural revolution now, neo-conservatives run outta town.
We're gonna burn Orange County down,
And then we're off to Riverside,
Bakersfield and Fresno too,
then we're coming after you.

The fear stricken, born again Christian, they got a vision a homogenized state.
Textbook decline, Intelligent Design.
They got bill nye on the list execrate.

They don't want visitors in Jesusland.
They want life canned and bland in the fatherland.

Punk Rockers and emo kids, people doing things the church forbids. Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists we're moving out of jesusland.
Art students and thespians, excluding country, all the musicians.
We want all hookers and comedians, nihilists are welcome too.

No longer svelte, they gotta punch new holes in the Bible belt.

NOFX

because I prefer the direct approach just break their noses

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Macaroony

There is something called the Hippocratic Oath, which determines that no medical professional should refuse to treat anyone based on ethical or moral justification - any nurse or doctor supporting that bill should have their license revoked.

Frankly, certain Americans should get over that religion-thing because in the long run it doesn't do them any good nor do they any good by discriminating others (What would Jesus think?). And medical professionals should be ashamed to even think of narrowing down the number of people they "should" treat, it's plain disgusting.

You beat me to it.

But I also pose this: In relation to the Hippocratic Oath, you have the following two English translations:

Originally Posted by Hippocratic Oath, English Translation 1

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

Originally Posted by Hippocratic Oath, English Translation 2

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

Emphasis on the bold. What this doesn't get into is what if your choice to NOT do anything has the opposite effect and does harm to their patient? This would mean that their choosing to not treat a patient due to their conscience would do more harm than throwing their conscience aside and helping them, violating the oath they swore.

It falls into the logic that not choosing is a choice in itself. A good analogy: with the topic of abortion, those who are pro-life are inherently pro-choice; they chose to be pro-life. They consciously made the choice. That same analogy could apply here. So what happens when this law and the actions to release them of all liability puts them in violation of an oath they swore to when they entered this field?

BL.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by eric/

I'm no big fan of the LP, but:



And any actual libertarian believes the same.

If you've met a "libertarian" (not to be confused with conservatives or Tea Party) and they claimed that you should just move states or anything other than "I agree you should be able to marry whom you want" (though they may be against the proposition of state run marriage license all together, which is a pro-gay marriage stance inherently) than they aren't a libertarian because they oppose basic libertarian principles.

So whomever you met that said "love it or leave it" they were using a fallacy, and they were spouting a non-libertarian point of view.

Hope that clears things up.

Then would you say Ron Paul is not a libertarian?

Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[143] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. The act allows a state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.

His belief here would indeed force many to move to another state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

[eric/]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Then would you say Ron Paul is not a libertarian?



His belief here would indeed force many to move to another state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

No, he's not

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by eric/

No, he's not

I see. So only people you agree with can be libertarians? Be sure to let Mr Paul know.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by leekohler

I see. So only people you agree with can be libertarians? Be sure to let Mr Paul know.

Typical. Instead of learning about something you are apparently confused about, you throw in Ron Paul, who runs on a Republican platform every year, not a Libertarian one, claim that he's a Libertarian, point out where he isn't a libertarian, then tell me that since I disagree with his stance that Libertarians are only people I agree with.

If you ever feel like learning about something, start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Whenever you want to have an adult conversation about the subject not filled with strawmen and malice, let me know.

[steve knight]

So a christian who does not follow Christ but expects Christ to save them it is just hard to understand. At this rate the only Christians that will be left are the hard core ones everyone else will be fleeing like rats from a sinking ship.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by eric/

Typical. Instead of learning about something you are apparently confused about, you throw in Ron Paul, who runs on a Republican platform every year, not a Libertarian one, claim that he's a Libertarian, point out where he isn't a libertarian, then tell me that since I disagree with his stance that Libertarians are only people I agree with.

If you ever feel like learning about something, start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Whenever you want to have an adult conversation about the subject not filled with strawmen and malice, let me know.

The quit being disingenuous in the first place. Mr Paul considers himself a Libertarian. I am not to the one to argue with, he is.

Hey, I'll have an adult conversation when you start acknowledging reality.

Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American physician, author, and politician who has been serving as the U.S. Representative for Texas's 14th congressional district, which includes Galveston, since 1997. He is a three-time candidate for President of the United States, as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012. He is a member of the Libertarian Party[1] and Republican Party. He holds libertarian views and is a critic of American foreign, domestic, and monetary policies, including the military–industrial complex, the War on Drugs, and the Federal Reserve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20...libertarianism

And, looks like a lot of people consider Paul to be a Libertarian:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/us...anted=all&_r=0