Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays

[freetobegay]

(Lansing, Michigan) 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.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042204MichMed.htm

SNIP

And what really Burns my ass are people right here on DU saying that Gay aren't discriminated against! This goes beyond discrimination! I HOPE THAT EVERY FUCKING REPUKE & CLOSETED HOMOPHOBIA DIES A VERY SLOW & PAINFUL DEATH! AND FUCK BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT!

[sniffa]

1. doctor to deny treatment to christians

that wouLd be cooL too, right?

[Killarney]

2. How is that constitutional?

I hope someone takes that to the Supreme Court. That's ridiculous.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Beat me to it

Exactly.

On edit: I left out, "fucking bigots."

Now I feel better.

[Skittles]

65. it nicely represents conservatives though

nt

[Changenow]

12. It may be constitutional because gays aren't a class

protected by the federal civil rights laws.

I am horrified, this isn't about granting gays special privileges it is about depriving them medical care which could lead to early death. We are anther step closer to Nazi Germany.

[mouse7]

101. Do they realize they'll be refusing treatment to most Mich. Priests?

A friend of mine went through semimary in the Detroit diocese. He's went into the priesthood in that point in his life where he didn't understand what he was regarding his sexual identity. He's now an ex-priest and out of the closet.

Anyway, he filled me in on just how high the percentage of priests that are gay is. VERY high. 75% in that diocese, he guessed.

Gonna be a lot of Catholic doctors refusing treatment to their parish priests in Michigan if it passes. Now, that's justice.

[Vladimir]

23. It may not be constitutional yet

but give these dickheads 4 more years, and watch what becomes of the constitution...

Fucking bigoted pigs.

[northernsoul]

94. if those doctors receive one cent of public funding, it's not

I doubt this can withstand 14th Amendment scrutiny.

Governor Granholm will surely veto this.

[keithyboy]

99. The tone is set at the top. More incidents of racial and sex-pref harras

all across the country because they know they can get away with it now. In fact, the militias are running wild and the incidents (which are almost completely ignored by the media) of racial hatered, discrimination are rampant throughout the nation just as incidents of acts of hate and discrimination against gays are up all over. You can thank your good 'Christian' President and the American Taleban--RW evangelicals for setting this tone throughour the nation. Pat Robertson, Dobbson, among others are leading this nation to an era equal to or worse than the pre-Civil Rights movement. And most people don't really seems to care...that's the sad part.

[LynzM]

3. Dude, WTF?

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.


How is that ok??? I mean, I guess there's always the 'find another doctor' idea, but you shouldn't have to do that because of what religion you believe, or your sexuality. That makes me really pissed... gonna go read up on that now. Wow. Why did they create the bill? Were there lawsuits or something that provoked it? I can't imagine what prompts something like this in the first place, so I'm going to have to go read about it.

[asthmaticeog]

25. Not to mention...

...how could such a refusal NOT be a violation of the hippocratic oath? This could make doctors self-appointed executioners - refusing to treat criminal suspects so they die, but without benefit of a judge and jury ever hearing their case. This law can not stand.

[cleofus1]

4. what the hell is going on here...

so do they ask you first thing as you enter the ER?

[ck4829]

5. You can thank Bush

This stinks and the smell of it reminds me of Bush's faith based executive orders.

[Killarney]

6. Has this hit the AP yet?

[MichaelHarris]

8. Never happen

my wife is both a doctor and a Catholic and would never allow this. There may be some wacko doctors who may try it but the AMA will smack their ass.

Hippocratic Oath (excerpts)

The practice of medicine is a privilege which carries important responsibilities. All doctors should observe the core values of the profession which centre on the duty to help sick people and to avoid harm. I promise that my medical knowledge will be used to benefit people's health. They are my first concern. I will listen to them and provide the best care I can. I will be honest, respectful and compassionate towards patients. In emergencies, I will do my best to help ANYONE in medical need.

I will make every effort to ensure that the rights of ALL patients are respected, including vulnerable groups who lack means of making their needs known, be it through immaturity, mental incapacity, imprisonment or detention or OTHER circumstance.

My professional judgement will be exercised as independently as possible and NOT BE influenced by POLITICAL PRESSURES nor by factors such as the SOCIAL standing of the patient. I will not put personal profit or advancement above my duty to patients.

On Abortion:

I recognise the special value of human life but I also know that the prolongation of human life is not the only aim of healthcare. Where abortion is permitted, I agree that it should take place only within an ethical and legal framework. I will not provide treatments which are pointless or harmful or which an informed and competent patient refuses.



1. In 1993, 98% of schools administered some form of the Oath.

2. In 1928, only 26% of schools administered some form of the Oath.

3. Only 1 school used the original Hippocratic Oath.

4. 68 schools used versions of the original Hippocratic Oath.

5. 100% of current Oaths pledge a commitment to patients.

6. Only 43% vow to be accountable for their actions.

7. 14% include a prohibition against euthanasia.

8. Only 11% invoke a diety.

9. 8% prohibit abortion.

My emphasis added.

On edit: A note from the doctor working on the "revised" oath

"With these items considered, perhaps the world should consider this Revised Hippocratic Oath. On the other hand, perhaps Hippocrates knew what he was doing. Perhaps we should keep the original Oath and simply make note that Apollo, Aesculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea are not universally accepted. Nor is Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Krishna or Ahura Mazda."

Dennis Gersten, M.D.

ps, my little brother died that slow, painful death you speak of.

[rocktivity]

47. Whew, glad to hear it

There may be some wacko doctors who may try it but the AMA will smack their ass.

Of course, they're talking about ALL health care workers. What the AMA has to do is come up with a way to make them liable if their underlings discriminate, too.

:headbang:
rocknation

[MichaelHarris]

108. thats a good point

alot of health care workers take some form of an oath but they also hire non-professionals. Those non-professionals are the ones who turn away people at emergency rooms. My guess is the AMA is working franticaly to stop this. If you enjoy this fight then you should also join in the fight against bush's* recent apointment to the FDA

http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/appointments/

[displacedtexan]

9. They used to do this to Blacks. This battle should be OVER!

Damn!

[Supormom]

16. Yes, that is true.

And what if a Christian doctor refuses to treat Muslim or Jewish patients for "religious reasons." Would that be acceptable?
This is disgusting!

[Walt Starr]

17. Under this law, they could do it again.

If a doctor decides it is immoral for a white person to come in contact with a black person, he could refuse treatment under this law.

[kayell]

10. Gee, how very Christian of them!

Not a Christian myself, although the man apparently had quite a few good things to say. I also note that Jesus allegedly healed the Roman centurions servant, who was almost certainly gay given remarks in the story. I think a few of these "Christians" would be benefited by reading the parable of the Good Samaratin also.

Interesting moral grounds that can allow a "healer" to refuse to heal.
------------------
And sadly, I have much the same reaction you do in your postscript.

[joycep]

35. I am a Christian

I am about to get hysterical about this crazy law. I cannot imagine such a thing. I would not call these people Christian. I would call them hypocrits of the first order. It's not very Christian but I hope anyone who is in favor of this get's sick and someone refuses to treat them.

[tom_paine]

79. I wouldn't call them Christians either, I would call them Nazi Monsters

They are just getting started, too.

We haven't even BEGUN to see how evil they can be. They are just feeling their oats and testing their new Imperial Power.

[SidDithers]

11. Do Governor's get a veto?

The Michigan Governor is a Dem, right? And a good one too, from what I've read.

Sid

[MichaelHarris]

13. the AMA will n/t

[NewJeffCT]

24. Yes, she is a good one from what I've read

Hopefully, they do not have enough votes to override her veto.

[GiovanniC]

60. Jennifer Will Veto the Fuck Out of This Bill

And rightly so.

When Jennifer gets done with this bill, it will be dragging its mangled, bloody pulp across the Capitol steps.

But I'm still writing my state senator. He's a good guy, a Dem, and he'll likely vote against it anyway, but this is important.

[ldf]

117. yes, this will probably get struck down

this time.

this is just developing the playing field.

who ever thought that there would even be a chance of roe vs. wade being struck down?

this is the first trial balloon. some are willing to actually state this, which gives all the others who FEEL this way the permission to start being vocal. it is a few voices that will grow into a chorus. it will be considered less and less outrageous.

this WILL happen. if george is annointed again this year.

[htuttle]

14. So how long before some 'Christian Identity' doctor refuses minorities?

Stating that it's against their religion to treat minorities?

Is Michigan going to be 'okay' with that?

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

If Michigan passes this, they are going to regret it. I'd have to think this is very embarassing to non-bigots in Michigan (and I'm assuming there are some).

[MichaelHarris]

18. about the same time the

AMA pulls their license to practice.

[pnb]

21. Or the other way around

How long until a minority dr refuses to treat a christian?

It seems as if people are only worried about certain aspects of this law rather than all of them.

[Pithlet]

59. The reason

People are worried about certain aspects of this law is because of who is being targeted with this law. Honestly, what do you think is more likely to happen more often if a law like this were to actually come to pass? Hsomosexual get denied treatment, or Christias?

I don't think a law like this can stand constitutionally at the moment, and I don't think a majority of doctors would exercise that "right" if they did. But to criticize people for focusing concern about the group that this is actually targeted seems ridiculous to me.

[pnb]

70. They didn't specifically target anyone

at least from what I read of the bill so quite honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I posted elsewhere in this thread that if you ask me, probably the people most in danger of possibly being denied treatment would be those seeking abortions.

None of us really know though so it is completely dishonest to assume we do know.

[Pithlet]

86. I was responding

to your contention that people in this thread only care about certain scenarios and not others. Can you really not see why some people might be a little bit more worried about bills like this than others, and might be more vulnerable to legislation like this?

People are denied abortions already, all the time. No doctor is forced to perform them, and there are areas where it is very hard, if not impossible to find a doctor who will perform one.

[Pithlet]

90. Also

They don't specifically target anyone. But, it states that HCPs cannot refuse service to anyone who's protected under the Elliot Larsen civil rights act, which does NOT include sexual orientation as a protection. Therefore, according to this bill, if a HCP refused to treat someone because of their sexual orientation, their employer could not legally fire them for it. I believe people have every right to be concerned about that little bit of the legislature, even if it doesn't actually spell out who they intend to target. No HCP should be able to refuse service to a patient because of who that patient IS.

So yes, I think it is actually pretty clear. I read the bill, and I think I know what I'm talking about every bit as much as you do.

[pnb]

92. I think I stand corrected

I missed that part of the bill and that would make the bill more specific than I thought it did, as you contended...and I do agree with you that they shouldn't be able to refuse service becuase of who the patient is.

BTW, I wasn't trying to imply that YOU didn't know what you were talking about...just that I didn't know.

Peace

[Pithlet]

100. You're right.

You're right, you weren't trying to imply that I personally didn't know what I was talking about. You meant it collectively. My apologies, I reacted too quickly.

[htuttle]

95. You misunderstand -- completely

If the bill says a doctor can refuse treatment based on their religious convictions, that allows for a doctor to refuse treatment based on a really fucked up 'religion', like the Christian Identity cult. Please be aware that 'Christian Identity' are a group of Aryan Nations rejects who believe that God hates everyone but white people (ie., I'm not referring to all 'Christians' here).

I don't see how the scenario you suggest would apply under this bill, since it wouldn't be on the basis of a religious belief.

[PfcHammer]

15. can I refuse payment on moral, ethical or religious grounds ?

[sandnsea]

84. Well I'm going to

My local hospital/clinic is Catholic. Besides travelling 60 miles for health care, it's my only choice. I'm thinking maybe I'll go in and have them do $10,000 worth of tests and then refuse to pay on moral, ethical or religious grounds. See, I don't have health insurance, haha. I'm thinking maybe EVERYBODY without health insurance ought to head to their nearest Catholic health care facility and bankrupt them. That's what I'm thinking.

[Solon]

19. Wouldn't the AMA pull licenses, even if this passes?

I sure hope so, this is the dumbest and most bigotted thing I have heard of in a long time.

[MichaelHarris]

20. yes, and will n/t

[freetobegay]

22. Now that I ve taken something to calm my nerves

I have always been a very passive person. I am beginning to turn into something I am not, because of shit like this!

[LeahMira]

26. This is shameful

I HOPE THAT EVERY FUCKING REPUKE & CLOSETED HOMOPHOBIA DIES A VERY SLOW & PAINFUL DEATH!

I'm angry as well. What are the Catholics doing? I can't imagine what on earth possible justification they make for supporting this sort of legislation. Are you in Michigan? Can someone from Michigan provide a list of senators' e-mail addresses? Did you post this on the Michigan state message board, BTW?

Of course I realized long before you posted this that people who are homosexual face discrimination. So did most folks here. What can we do to help?

[pnb]

28. in reading the actual bill

it seems to me that the Catholics are trying to use this as a way to avoid Catholics doctors from performing abortions if they don't want to. That seems to be the biggest possible consequence in my eyes.

[MichaelHarris]

30. got the link to the bill?

[pnb]

71. right here...

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/documents/2003-2004/billintroduced/senate/htm/2004-SIB-0972.htm

[jmowreader]

49. Catholic doctors always had that right

Roe says abortions are legal, not that a doctor has to do them.

[pnb]

76. Did they?

I'm not disagreeing...just thought they could get into trouble for it. I could definitely be wrong though.

[MichaelHarris]

109. Doctors have

always had the choice of not doing abortions, what they do not have is the right not to offer conseling on ALL aspects of a womans choice. What I mean to say is they have to offer that alternative. I had said earlier my wife is a doctor and a Catholic, I'm not a Catholic, I'm more a heathen I guess. After I showed this to her we got in a huge fight, thanks guys. After the pots and pans stopped flying she said, "If this is true I will leave the Catholic Church". The fight was about Catholics and some of the wacko fringe of it. Not about gay rights or anything. My wife and I know first hand about gay rights, we watched my little brother die.

[LeahMira]

68. They never heard of referring a patient?

it seems to me that the Catholics are trying to use this as a way to avoid Catholics doctors from performing abortions if they don't want to.

It would be better, IMO, if those Catholic doctors who don't want to perform abortions chose a different specialty. Cosmetic surgery pays well, I understand.

[pnb]

72. Personally I agree

But then again, I'm not a Catholic doctor.

And I assume that if this were to be the case, the patient would indeed be referred somewhere else.

[LeahMira]

89. In some situations...

... and especially in rural areas, there may be only one doctor whose specialty is in whatever field the patient needs. For instance, e-mail I'm getting from the March for Women's Rights folks claim that over 80% of the counties in the US have no abortion providers. What if there is only one doctor who specializes in treating fibromyalgia? And he's Catholic? And you're gay? And you have fibromyalgia?

[mantis49]

83. It also would enable them to refuse to dispense

emergency contraception meds.

[pnb]

91. Looks like it could

I guess it depends on how they define "emergency"...according to the bill, emergencies would still have to be treated regardless.

[freetobegay]

29. I am in Florida

But this anywhere is unacceptable! You can help by just talking & showing whats wrong with this, thats about all any of us can do since it is localized in one state & the Legislature could give a rats ass about someone in another state.

[kayell]

32. What can you do to help?

Thank you for your offer.

The biggest thing you can do AFAIC is to speak out any time you see or hear anti-gay (or any other kind) bigotry here or anywhere else. Do not allow the bigots to get away with it. Call them on it.

Bigots get away with spewing their poison all too often because it is hard to confront people about something like this. It takes nerve, and the willingness to stand up and say, "This is not acceptable". It also takes courage to confront someone when you may not feel like it is "your" fight.

Be prepared to have some tell you that you are being over sensative when you confront them about bigotry. Remember though, that even if you don't succeed in changing them, that you influence others who hear or read the exchange. You raise awareness of what bigotry is, and how it hides.

Tell people about outrages like this one. Ask them how they feel about it. Let them know how you feel. Make sure that people know that this is not just some minority issue, but an issue of human rights.

[Hunter_1253]

27. Use their argument against them

There is a simple answer to all this, which is use their argument against them. If they can refuse service based on their moral, ethical, and religious beliefs (ex. Wackjob Christian Fundamentalism) then everyone else should refuse to serve them based on the fact you think they are nuts. Their ultra-conservative views go against your belief of equality. If enough people start coming together and refuse to give services to radical wingnuts, maybe these people will finally stop.

[noonwitch]

31. I have no doubt that Jennifer Granholm will veto this

This is not just about gays, it's about anyone who someone might make religious objections to-an unmarried woman requesting birth control pills, a drug addict with septicemia, anyone looking for treatment for an std.

Or, what if a member of some white supremicist organization refuses to treat black people, and claims religious reasons?

[1gobluedem]

36. Birth Control

Birth control pills were specifically left out of this proposed bill. But it's appalling anyway, especially since there is no definition of 'moral' or 'ethical' meaning it can be manipulated by any wacko any time.

However, I don't believe this will get through the Michigan Senate and, if by some fluke, it does Governor Granholm will definitely veto it and, thankfully, I don't believe there are enough votes to override it. It's disgraceful

[Heyo]

33. This goes to show more than ever....

(and I am a straight Christian by the way)..

The Catholic Church is a very dangerous thing.

Long live the Illuminati!! :evilgrin:

Heyo

[LeahMira]

67. They certainly do have too much power.

This goes to show more than ever....
The Catholic Church is a very dangerous thing.

Any Church is dangerous when it tries to make its own beliefs into the law of the land.

The Catholics, though, have a paid lobbyist in just about every state legislature. His or her job is to prevent the passage of laws that are objectionable to the Church and to pressure Catholic legislators to vote as the Church wishes. We are seeing their power when Senator Kerry has to wonder if he will be refused communion for his position on choice.

Also, because the Vatican is a state as well as a religious center, the Catholics have representation in the United Nations. Their power there is more diluted, but the Vatican can exert pressure to limit family planning services throughout the world. Not too long ago, they managed to prevent women who were raped by enemy soldiers in wartime from getting morning after pills.

In this situation, though, it's almost ironic in a warped sort of way. There are so many priests who are gay that if the Catholics really decided to remove them from the priesthood it would have mighty few priests left.

I realize that Catholics are the largest single religious group in this country, and also the wealthiest church, but they are not the majority of people in this country.

I also realize that any group of people has the right to work for the passage of laws that it favors.

Still, I have a hard time believing that the majority of voters in Michigan favor this legislation, and hopefully they will be informed about it and let their voices be heard as well.

As for the morals and ethics of the Catholic doctors... they might consider another profession that would not offer quite so many challenges to their religion. Maybe work at McDonald's would be more appropriate to their sensibilities.

[Heyo]

97. Did you ever read Dan Brown's recent 2 books?

Angels and Demons and The DaVinci code?

I know they are fiction and most of the stuff is made up....

But damn do they stick it to the vatican... and actually I would not be surprised if the Vatican did/would have behaved in the ways described...

Like silencing scientific discovery for example...

Not good, not good....

Heyo

[TahitiNut]

34. "other health care providers"?

Corporations, especially HMOs, have no morals or ethics. Without either morals or ethics, many of these profiteers on the misery of others could only subscribe to Mammon's religious precepts.

I have a better idea: If they don't want to provide health care, get the fuck out of the business!

Nowhere in this legislation are these people required to provide referrals. This is reprehensible beyond belief.

[Mari333]

37. Michigan gay folks will be up in arms believe me

www.tri.org
have been fighting the crazy american family association in this state for a long time. They come here from Mississippi with their legions of creepy people and try to usurp every gay rights ordinance of towns in the area. They make asses out of themselves, and they usually dont win.
The Allegan County area has a real nutcase here, Rev Fulton Sheen's nephew, who is a whack job from hell, and hates gay folks with a passion. another whack job is Gary Glenn, who belongs to www.afa.net
Sean Kosofsky , of www.tri.org out of Detroit, will be on this with a vengeance. Its unbelievable how sneaky and underhanded these people are when their hate blinds them to their humanity.

[freetobegay]

38. Thank you for the links!

eom

[kayell]

39. Damn, damn, damn!

The more I think about this, the fucking madder I get. I can't believe that ANY group of people could pass a bill this incredibly discriminatory.

Apparently to these people, gay lives are so completely worthless that we should just be allowed to die if someone thinks it isn't "moral" to save us!

ARGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

[salin]

40. Stunning - absolutely stunning. Not only promotes violation of the

hippocratic oath, but demonstrates the hypocricy of the religious right. The next time I hear the language from the religious right, about how they feel persecuted (which is so over the top when one considers real acts in history of religious persecution) - I think that this should be pulled out - to point out that instead it is the religious right pushing for legalized persecution of those who are not among the religious right.

[Beetwasher]

41. Just Replace "Gays" w/ "Jews" and You Get the Picture

Gays and Arabs are the 4th Reich's Jews...

[LeahMira]

73. Or any group, really.

Just Replace "Gays" w/ "Jews" and You Get the Picture

But those of us who are Jewish have seen this happen.

It begins:
You cannot live among us as a Jew.
Then:
You cannot live among us.
Finally:
You cannot live.

Replace "Jews" with "gays" and indeed you do get the picture.

[elfwitch]

81. Amen Sister !

It's like Chris Rock said in his HBO special on Saturday. First it becomes okay to bash terrorists, then foreigners, then the French, then Arabs... Jews and Blacks aren't far behind that. We all need to stick together. Jews, Gays, Blacks, Women, Arabs, and so on....

[Iceburg]

42. Gay Doctors (and there are many) may refuse to treat rethugs

Since there is no cure short of a lobotomy.

[Solly Mack]

43. So, I can refuse to treat republicans under moral , ethical and religious

grounds? Republicans are immoral, unethical and make a mockery of religion-so now in MI., I can refuse to treat them. GREAT!!!

Ain't that America!....


What kind of sick fuck came up with this bullshit?

[Bjornsdotter]

44. A New Low

Hi,

You have got to be kidding! I can't believe this...and people wonder why Europe looks at us and shakes their head. It because of idiots like this....Gay, a peek of a breast, oral sex in the WH....anything remotely to do with sex and the majority in this country flip out.

Grow up!

Cheers,
Kim :mad:

[madrchsod]

45. Michigan catholic conference=Nazi`s medical plan

kill the retarded-gays are unfit -Jews,Slavs,Gypsy's-untreatable.

i`m sure it is a proud day for all catholics across the world to know that the Michigan conference is leading the way in the extermination of inferior people

[undergroundpanther]

46. How long is it

going to be...Do we wait until fundies make life so fucking dangerous for gay folk and slaughter us off with thugs with homophobia that we begin to "fight back againt fundies in kind?"
What is your beaking point,how much bullying out of fundies and bigots can you take before you give them back what they gave you until they stop even if it means giving it back times 100? This is a question to ask outrselves.
When is it too late to fight and we instead must use flight?

[cap]

48. what kind of nonsense is this????

the average Catholic doesn't go along with this!

What medical procedure given to gays is against the Catholic faith????
I've had CCD until I was 14. We never covered this as an act of faith. In fact I have read that quite the contrary that there are Catholic missions that do take care of gays esp in AIDS and hospice.

What kind of crap is this?????

Karl Rove is trying to make problems by saying that we all go along with this.... Ya gotta be kiddin'

I think the Church will get a black eye for meddling in politics. I am getting ready to get very selective in my contributions to the church and its charities. The Grey Nuns are OK in my book.

[skippysmom]

50. This just pisses me off

I'm so tired of these people saying they can refuse treatment, or filling prescriptions, or whatever, becauase of their religious beliefs.

I was raised Catholic, and I never learned anything about hating my neighbor. Apparently some Catholics do learn to hate however. And they give this religion a bad name.

If you don't want to treat gays, or anyone else whose "lifestyle" you don't approve of, DON'T GO TO MED SCHOOL.

If you don't want to give women BCPs, DON'T BECOME A PHARMACIST.

If your religion means so goddamn much to you, that you will refuse service to people whose choices you don't agree with, become a priest or a minister and STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY LIFE!



:mad: :mad: :mad:

[No2W2004]

51. So, if I understand it right....

(and just to take religion out of the discussion)

I could be in a car wreck and badly hurt. Say I have a green mohawk, piercings and studs all over my face, and a t-shirt that says "fuck the rich" on it. As I understand it, the paramedics would take me to the nearest emergency room. Now, under this "law", a doctor could take one look at me and decide that he wouldn't treat me, potentially allowing me to die, because he didn't like the way I looked, or because I offended him?

This is crazy.....just crazy.

[Occulus]

103. according to the article

emergency services would still have to be performed, but that's it.

[American liberal]

52. no offense, but...

people here are often too quick to judge without collecting all the facts first. The article, from a biased pub I've never heard of before now, neglected to post the name and number of the bill, name of the bill's sponsors, that although both houses may be Repuke controlled, that the governor is a Democrat and a woman who I highly doubt would let the bill be passed into law. As a journalist, I want to see the bill itself, not an interpretation of it. As the daughter of a Democratic doctor who practiced in MI during part of my parent's career, I doubt that many doctors would actually support such a bill. As someone else mentioned on this thread, doctors take the Hippocratic oath--the modern version which states, in part:

"I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all (emphasis added) my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm."

Bottom line: Look at the big picture before flying off half-cocked. Granted, that such a bill could even be passed by one side of the state congress is appalling. But it is still a bill. In Illinois, thousands are introduced each year. In a good year, dozens are actually passed. I suspect it's the same in MI.

Please let me know what I can do to help defeat this attrocious piece of legislation. Who's your rep. in MI? What's the address and phone number? I'll write a letter, inform my MI friends (if they don't already know about it) and ask them to contact their legislators. But, honestly, I don't see something as blatantly biased as what was portrayed in the article has a chance in hell of passing over the governor's desk without a veto.

Take heart: The democratic process may be damaged, but it is not broken beyond repair.

[freetobegay]

55. Never mind.

eom

[Iceburg]

58. House Bills 5006 & 5276

The main bill in the package would create the Conscientious Objector Policy Act. It would allow health care providers to assert an objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a procedure with which they do not agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

The House voted 69-35 to approve the bill. It mostly was along party lines with Republicans voting for it and Democrats against it.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Conscientious-Objector.html

The conscientious objector bills are House Bill 5006 and 5276-78.

House Bills 5006 & 5276
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-5006

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-5276


A Canadian friend

[GiovanniC]

64. Upon Reading Both Bills

And their summaries, it's my guess that these bills were created not to discriminate against gays per se (although that may be done). My guess is that this has something to do with abortion, based on the wording of the bills.

[MichaelHarris]

111. good points

I just didn't have the guts to say it that way :)

[Raster]

53. if you don't like discrimination, don't support dominos pizza...

...the ultra-rightist, opus deiest, hard-core catholic, anti-gay, anti-choice dude that founded dominos pizza is using his MULTIMILLIONS to fund his hard-core, right-wing causes. Anti-choice and anti-gay are two of his top groups he supports. Michigan is his home state and the state where he has spent millions influincing state law and policy.

Once again, a fanatic is a fanatic is a fanatic. Remember, it's OK to hate, because his gawd says so!

[Senjutsu]

75. No problem

Domino's make terrible pizza anyway.

[ShaneGR]

54. Raises hand, makes a comment

Jennifer Granholm (D-MI-Governor) will never sign that into law. So the argument is mute.

[xchrom]

56. don't be so dismissive!

try to imagine being gay and realizing how close michigan is to legislating against you.
this is the kind hogwash republican pigs have been dishing out for years -- conservative christians are going much too far.
it's horrifying being gay and living in a culture that wishes physical harm to you and would go so far as to attempt to legalize.
pigs they are all pigs!

[freetobegay]

57. Thanks for your remarks

I think sometimes with people if it does not affect them like this Legislation does a Gay person, they truly can't understand the magnitude.

[ShaneGR]

62. Ok

I'm not saying it isn't serious. I'm just saying it has ZERO chance of becoming law. Most state Houses pass hundreds of bills every year that don't get signed into law. This is just another one. BTW, it's unconstitutional anyways.

[freetobegay]

69. Well so say alot of people about the Patriot act!

eom

[Bandit]

61. Substitute the term Liberal for Gay and you have the future

The fourth Reich is begun.

[LoZoccolo]

77. They could do that already if this bill passes!

They could just say that they have a "moral reason" for letting a liberal die!

OUTFUCKINGRAGEOUS.

[Skittles]

63. no way will the AMA condone this

no way

[GiovanniC]

66. Contact Our State Senators

If any of you want to fire off a few emails, educate yourself about what the bills actually say (they don't refer to homosexuality at all) and then use this link for email addresses of the Senators.

http://www.infomi.com/statesenate.html

[Senjutsu]

74. WTF

As I read it, it wouldn't necessarily just affect gays either. Wiccans, Buddhists, gays, liberals, avowed communists... fuckin' everyone's lives are being put at risk by this bullshit.

I don't normally like to play the "I'm glad I live in Canada" card, but fuck, I'm glad I live in Canada.

[tom_paine]

78. OMFG! That is EVIL!

Jesus this great nation has become so EVIL lately.

Man how far from denying a sick person treatment do these MONSTERS have to go before getting all Menegele?

<sarcasm on>

I mean, if you put twin gay guys in refrigerators, which twin will die first and why?

Paging Bushevik Menegele. Paging Bushevik Mengele, your time is almost here. Be patient, my little moster...

</sarcasm off>

[GiovanniC]

80. Just Sent This Letter:

Dear Senator Schauer

It is my understanding that House Bills 5006 and 5276 have cleared the House of Representatives and will be making their way to you in the Senate in the form of Senate Bills 0972 and 0894. I have listed the URLs for these bills below for convenient reference.

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-5006
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-5276

These bills would allow health care professionals and health care facilities to refuse treatment to patients based on "ethical, moral, or religious grounds". The text of these bills would make it possible for health care providers to refuse to perform certain types of medical procedures and could also allow them to refuse to treat certain people or groups of people. This could allow some providers to refuse to perform transfusions or transplants; or even allow providers to refuse to treat homosexuals or other "objectionable" groups.

These bills stand opposed to general medical ethics, the Hippocratic Oath, and the democratic ideal of equal access and opportunity for all Americans.

Should this abomination of a bill be passed, it will almost certainly be vetoed by Governor Granholm, and rightly so. Still, I urge you to strongly oppose this bill with your vote and with your voice. These bills, if passed unchallenged, have the potential to open the door to injustices the likes of which we haven't seen since a cardboard sign taped above a drinking fountain read, "Whites Only".

[freetobegay]

82. Very good

Thanks!

[LeahMira]

85. C'mon, guys. Write a letter.

Here's what I wrote, along with the e-mail addresses of the Michigan Senators (they've got a bunch of them!)

[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],




I read on the internet that Michigan is considering legislation (The
Conscientious Objector Policy Act) that would permit doctors and other
health care providers to refuse treatment to people who are homosexual.
(http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042204MichMed.htm)

Apparently your House approved this bill, and you in the Senate will be
asked to consider it soon.

Let me say, for the record, that I don't live in Michigan. I live in
Delaware.

Also, for the record, I am not homosexual. There are, however, members
of my extended family that are gay or lesbian.

Of course I understand the concerns about HIV/AIDS, but certainly
doctors and health care providers should be the most informed about the
ways this disease is spread and the simple measures that can protect an
individual from contracting it. But, as the article reads, this is not
the main concern that is addressed by this legislation. Rather, the
concern is that treating a person who is homosexual somehow offends the
moral, ethical, or religious convictions of some doctors!

I cannot believe that if this legislation is enacted it will not be
challenged as a violation of the U.S. Constitution, if not a violation
of the laws of your state. A statement by your legislative colleague,
Rep. Chris Kolb, goes to the heart of the matter, though. He said, "Are
you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment
because of my sexual orientation?"

No doctor or health care provider is, or should be, in the position of
judging his/her patients' moral or ethical behavior. Shall a physician
refuse to treat the patient who continues smoking in spite of numerous
warnings? Or one who stops taking medication before the prescription is
used up? How much more outrageous is the idea that a physician can
refuse to treat the patient who happens to be homosexual?

I hope that you will work to soundly defeat this "Conscientious Objector
Policy Act."

Thank you for your attention to my concerns.

(Leah Mira's real name)
Newark, Delaware


On update: A paralegal friend just e-mailed with her comments.
"I think the author of the article took this wording a little too far. You will note that services can not be denied due to "classification of a patient or group of patients protected under

15 the Elliot-Larsen civil rights act, 1976 PA 453, MCL 37.2101 to


16 37.2804, or based on a disease or other medical condition.
"

***************************************************
HB-5006, As Passed House, April 21, 2004


:/\:/\:/\:/\:/\:

Now, I'm not convinced that homosexuality is a "disease or other medical condition" but does anyone know what is in this "Elliot-Larsen civil rights act"... perchance?

[LeahMira]

88. The text of the law...

... also from my friend who knows where to find things.

Sorry 'bout the double spacing... it came that way. :-)

SUBSTITUTE FOR



HOUSE BILL NO. 5006



(As amended April 21, 2004)



A bill to provide standards for personnel policies to




protect the right of conscience of health care providers who



conscientiously object to providing or participating in certain



health care services under certain circumstances; to provide for



protection from certain liability; and to provide for penalties



and remedies.



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:



1 Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the



2 "conscientious objector policy act".



3 Sec. 3. As used in this act:



4 (a) "Contraceptive medication < >" means a medication



5 < > approved for the prevention of pregnancy that is taken



6 or used in advance of sexual intercourse.



7 (b) "Health care provider" means a person licensed or



8 registered under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA




House Bill No. 5006 (H-3) as amended April 21, 2004



1 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838, a student of a health facility,



2 or another person who is employed by or under contract to a



3 health facility and directly participates in the provision of a



4 health care service. Health care provider does not include a



5 sanitarian or a veterinarian.



6 (c) "Health care service" means the provision or withdrawal



7 of, or research or experimentation involving, a medical



8 diagnosis, treatment, procedure, diagnostic test, device,



9 medication, drug, or other substance intended to affect the



10 physical or mental condition of an individual. Health care



11 service does not include the provision of a contraceptive



12 medication < >.



13 (d) "Health facility" means any of the following:



14 (i) A clinical laboratory.




15 (ii) A county medical care facility.



16 (iii) A freestanding surgical outpatient facility.



17 (iv) A home for the aged.



18 (v) A hospital.



19 (vi) A nursing home.



20 (vii) A hospice.



21 (viii) A hospice residence.



22 (ix) A facility or agency listed in subparagraphs (i) to (vi)



23 located in a university, college, or other educational



24 institution.



25 (x) A private physician's office.



26 (xi) A medical clinic.



27 (xii) A public or private institution that provides health


House Bill No. 5006 (H-3) as amended April 21, 2004



1 care services to an individual.



2 (xiii) A teaching institution that provides health care



3 services to an individual.



4 (xiv) A pharmacy that provides health care services to an



5 individual.



6 (xv) A corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, limited



7 liability company, or other legal entity that provides health



8 care services to an individual.



9 (e) "Medical director" means that term as defined in section



10 20906 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20906.



11 (f) "Participate" or "participating" means, at a minimum, to



12 counsel, refer, perform, administer, prescribe, dispense, treat,



13 withhold, withdraw, diagnose, test, evaluate, train, research,



14 prepare, or provide medical advice or material or physical



15 assistance in a health care service.



16 (g) "Person" means a person as defined in section 1106 of the



17 public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.1106, or a governmental



18 entity.



19 (h) "Public health emergency" means a condition or situation



20 that presents an immediate threat to the public health, safety,



21 or welfare and requires immediate action to preserve the public



22 health, safety, or welfare.



23 Sec. 5. (1) A health care provider may object as a matter



24 of conscience to providing or participating in a health care



25 service on < > ethical, moral, or religious grounds.



26 (2) A health care provider shall notify his or her employer



27 in writing of a conscientious objection described in subsection


House Bill No. 5006 (H-3) as amended April 21, 2004



1 (1). The written notice shall be given directly to his or her



2 supervisor and shall include a statement explaining his or her



3 conscientious objection and the health care service or services



4 to which he or she specifically objects to providing or



5 participating in under this act.



6 (3) A health care provider may assert his or her



7 conscientious objection under any of the following conditions:



8 (a) Upon being offered employment.



9 (b) At the time the health care provider adopts



10 < > ethical, moral, or religious belief system that



11 conflicts with participation in a health care service.



12 (c) Within 24 hours after he or she is asked or has received



13 notice that he or she is scheduled to participate in a health



14 care service to which he or she conscientiously objects.



15 Sec. 7. (1) An employer shall retain a health care



16 provider's written objection filed under section 5 for the



17 duration of the health care provider's employment. The written



18 objection is valid for the duration of the health care provider's



19 employment or until rescinded by the health care provider in



20 writing.



21 (2) Except as otherwise provided under subsection (3), after



22 receiving a written objection pursuant to section 5, an employer



23 shall not require the objecting health care provider to provide



24 or participate in the objectionable health care service.



25 (3) If a health care provider asserts an objection under



26 section 5 less than 24 hours prior to the scheduled health care



27 service, the employer shall make a reasonable effort to exclude




1 the health care provider from participating in the health care



2 service or find a replacement for the health care provider. If a



3 replacement is unavailable and the health care provider cannot be



4 excluded, the employer may require the health care provider to



5 provide or participate in that health care service.



6 (4) An employer shall not refuse employment or staff



7 privileges to a health care provider who has exercised his or her



8 right to assert an objection to providing or participating in a



9 health care service under section 5, unless participation in that



10 health care service is indicated as a part of the normal course



11 of duties in the posting of the availability of the position for



12 employment or staff privileges.



13 (5) A medical school or other institution for the education



14 or training of a health care provider shall not refuse admission



15 to an individual or penalize that individual because the



16 individual has filed in writing with the medical school or other



17 institution a conscientious objection to participating in a



18 health care service under this act.



19 Sec. 9. Except as provided in section 11, a health care



20 provider's objection to providing or participating in a health



21 care service as described in section 5 shall not be the basis for



22 1 or more of the following:



23 (a) Civil liability to another person.



24 (b) Criminal action.



25 (c) Administrative or licensure action.



26 (d) Termination of employment or refusal of staff privileges



27 at a health facility.




1 Sec. 11. (1) The protections afforded to a health care



2 provider under this act do not apply under any of the following



3 circumstances:



4 (a) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to a



5 health care service if a patient's condition, in the reasonable



6 medical judgment of an attending physician or medical director,



7 requires immediate action and no other qualified health care



8 provider is available to provide that health care service.



9 (b) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to



10 providing or participating in a health care service in the event



11 of a public health emergency.



12 (c) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to



13 providing or participating in a health care service based on the



14 classification of a patient or group of patients protected under



15 the Elliot-Larsen civil rights act, 1976 PA 453, MCL 37.2101 to



16 37.2804, or based on a disease or other medical condition.



17 (2) Subject to a collective bargaining agreement, if a health



18 care provider asserts an objection to a health care service that



19 at the time the objection is asserted constitutes a regular or



20 substantial portion of the health care provider's current and



21 defined position, the employer may give the health care provider



22 not less than 60 days' notice of the termination of his or her



23 employment. As used in this section, "regular or substantial



24 portion" means that 10% or more of the health care provider's



25 daily or weekly hours of duty consist of providing or



26 participating in that health care service.



27 (3) This act does not relieve a health care provider from a




1 duty that exists under another statute or other law pertaining to



2 current standards of acceptable health care practice and



3 procedure to inform a patient of the patient's condition,



4 prognosis, and risks of receiving health care services for the



5 condition.



6 Sec. 13. (1) A civil action for damages or reinstatement of



7 employment, or both, may be brought against a person, including,



8 but not limited to, a governmental agency, health facility, or



9 other employer, for penalizing or discriminating against a health



10 care provider, including, but not limited to, penalizing or



11 discriminating in hiring, promotion, transfer, a term or



12 condition of employment, licensing, or granting of staff



13 privileges or appointments, because that health care provider has



14 asserted an objection to participating in a health care service



15 under section 5. Civil damages may be awarded equal to the



16 amount of proven damages and attorney fees. A civil action filed



17 under this subsection may include a petition for injunctive



18 relief against a person alleged to have penalized or

[bain_sidhe]

87. "Conscience clauses" aren't new

They've just only been used to deny women reproductive rights until now. As I posted on the thread about this in the Civil Liberties forum, the ACLU has been sounding the alarm about "conscience clauses" for several years now... even though until now, they've been mostly used against women's services, they've always been a potential vehicle for wider discrimination. The ACLU's "in depth" report is old, but pretty extensive:

New ACLU Report Considers Religious Refusals To Provide Reproductive Health Care

http://archive.aclu.org/features/f012202a.html

NEW YORK - As the nation marks nearly 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion, access to reproductive health care is increasingly jeopardized by the imposition of religious beliefs in the health care context, according to a report released today by the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.

The report, Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights, makes available for the first time the ACLU's recent public opinion research, which shows that Americans overwhelmingly oppose laws that protect religious objectors at the expense of the patient's rights and the public health.

(snip)

In its framework for analyzing religious refusals, the report notes that it is often possible and appropriate to accommodate an individual health professional's refusal to provide a service, but only if the patient is ensured safe, timely, and feasible alternative access to treatment.

An institution claiming a right to refuse, however, raises significantly greater concerns. According to the report, it is crucial to consider if an institution, like most religiously affiliated hospitals, is operating in the public world and serving and employing a religiously diverse population. If it is, then it ought to play by public rules.

The above is from a press release. The full report is in PDF format at http://archive.aclu.org/issues/reproduct/refusal_report.pdf

More info:

Pharmacies New Reproductive Rights Battleground
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1003

And on the Catholic take-over of public health care:

Women's Services Cut as Catholic Hospitals Expand
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/316/context/archive

Catholics for a Free Choice, a pro-choice advocacy organization in Washington, D.C., reports that in the past 10 years, the number of Catholic medical care centers has grown rapidly through acquisitions, mergers, business arrangements and now consolidations. In 1998, the group says, Catholic hospitals were the sole providers of medical care in 91 communities--a 20 percent increase in a single year.

This is occurring at the same time that other hospitals, public and private, are shutting their doors or eliminating services.

Women in need of reproductive health care who find they must rely on a Catholic-run facility may suddenly encounter the strictures of the Ethical and Religious Directives, adopted by the church's National Council of Bishops in 1994, which applies to all U.S. Catholic institutions. It explicitly states that abortion "is never permitted." It also prohibits sterilization, including tubal ligation, the most commonly used method of birth control in the nation, as well as other legal reproductive health services. The religious proscriptions apply to all patients, regardless of their individual religious beliefs.

**Edited because I hit "post" instead of "preview" before I was done!**

[ElementaryPenguin]

93. WTF? Will they be allowed to deny treatment to DYING gays as well?

How far have we fucking sunk? Have we truly become Nazi Germany?

:wow:
:puke:
:argh:
:mad:

[Lithos]

96. Another case of Compassionate Converatism

bastards

L-

[Dark]

98. Wha?!

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

:wow:

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.

Catholicism, what a wonderful gift from our ancestors.

Doesn't refusal to treat a patient based on anything other than the patient's welfare or will contradict the Hippocratic oath?

[frank frankly]

102. when we call them fascists, it is because it is true

when we compare Bush to Hitler, it is because he will end up exactly like hitler if given the chance.

i can't help thinking, though, that this level of bigotry and persecution will backfire on the RW. will the Log Cabin Republicans exist after this?

my apologies for my country. i do not support this. it will not stand.

[Redleg]

104. Absolutely disgraceful. Brought to you by the compassionate conservatives

Jeeebus. What will they think of next?

[Kat45]

105. All I can say is WTF????!!!!!

This has left me speechless.

[Colin Ex]

106. Tom George is getting a phone call tomorrow.

This is pretty much inexcusable.

-C

[Malva Zebrina]

107. I sometimes wonder if these Catholics have ever had to have a

Major operation, such as , say, open heart surgery.

Do they know the religious orientation or to the sexual orientation of their surgeon?

How many surgeons are atheists? If they are athiests they can be credited with saving the lives of artery clogged Catholics?

Should surgeons be required to let it be known that they are atheists, or Catholics or Methodists or Buddhist? Is that where the future is headed under Bush?

This is getting ridiculous and Bush is the insane enabler. I heard him say today that he will restore the wetlands and that the almighty wants to see the wetlands restored .

I refer to Catholics for no particular reason other than the article refers to them.

[deacon]

110. who is really guilty? the catholics or the politicians who pander to this

madness?

[Deja Q]

112. That's evil.These "people" support life and the right to life? And DUers..

It's a hypocrisy, to say the very least.

I don't know what's keeping me from making some very angry comments, but don't ask me to say them.

And who are the (more angry words against) people on DU saying we're not discriminated against? To them I say one thing: I wish you were gay. I wish that and everything that happens to us onto you. Then tell me differently.

[camero]

113. This bill is a threat to alot more than gays

You said, "The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds".

Ever smoked? They could refuse you on religious grounds.
Ever eaten a cheeseburger? Ditto.
Obese? Moral and religious grounds.
No money? Doctors could claim it's immoral to be unable to pay them.

That bill is a very slippery slope. Who says we're not Nazi Germany? Could have fooled me.

[noiretextatique]

114. how is denying someone healthcare "religious freedom?"

isn't this just plain old bigotry?

[wellstone_democrat]

115. Violates the Hypocratic Oath

that's for sure!
(so says the Medical Ethicist sitting next to me in this Starbucks!)

[Nobody]

116. How repugnant!

There aren't enough adjectives to describe how disgusting this is. How dare the originators of this bill even think about considering themselves a civilized human. To be fully human, not to mention civilized, a person has to have some element of empathy.

These people don't have ANY empathy whatsoever.

I'm disgusted, outraged, and embarrassed to have them as members of my species.

To compare them to the sludge at the bottom of an outhouse that has never been cleaned insults the sludge.

[Karenina]

118. ::SIGH::

This shit is so beyond sick... Deep breath. ::SIGH::