U.S. To Scrap 'Conscience' Rule For Healthcare Workers, Politico Reports

[roguenuke]

Saying a thing doesn't make it true.

As I say, we don't give up our rights when we join a profession, and the government can not force anyone to do anything that they have a moral/religious abjection to, and I have very high confidence that should this high court take up this specific issue, my opinions will win out in their rulings.

Can you say the same?

No your opinion won't win out, as it has rarely won in the past.

As for medical professionals, you have failed to show any sort of evidence that someone could claim a religious exemption for providing care when it comes to anything they couldn't use simply their professional belief against doing that specific treatment. The example you gave doesn't require a claim to a religious exemption. And if you are working for someone who requires you to do certain duties as a healthcare professional, then you are the one looking to sue your employer, as there are plenty, as a healthcare professional, willing to allow you to deny certain care.

 

[roguenuke]

Saying a thing doesn't make it true.

As I say, we don't give up our rights when we join a profession, and the government can not force anyone to do anything that they have a moral/religious abjection to, and I have very high confidence that should this high court take up this specific issue, my opinions will win out in their rulings.

Can you say the same?

Let me help you here, give a specific example of when a doctor would need to use a religious exemption to get out of treating a patient rather than simply saying "I don't agree with that evaluation or treatment".

 

[nvflash]

No your opinion won't win out, as it has rarely won in the past.

As for medical professionals, you have failed to show any sort of evidence that someone could claim a religious exemption for providing care when it comes to anything they couldn't use simply their professional belief against doing that specific treatment. The example you gave doesn't require a claim to a religious exemption. And if you are working for someone who requires you to do certain duties as a healthcare professional, then you are the one looking to sue your employer, as there are plenty, as a healthcare professional, willing to allow you to deny certain care.

We may yet see, but your employer is not the government and neither is you insurance company.

A private practice doctor can refuse any medical service he likes if he has a moral/religious objection to it, and you can go pound sand.

 

[roguenuke]

We may yet see, but your employer is not the government and neither is you insurance company.

A private practice doctor can refuse any medical service he likes if he has a moral/religious objection to it, and you can go pound sand.

You seem to not understand this, they can refuse any medical service they want, so long as they do not provide that service to others. But that is not the debate going on here.

 

[nvflash]

Let me help you here, give a specific example of when a doctor would need to use a religious exemption to get out of treating a patient rather than simply saying "I don't agree with that evaluation or treatment".

I've already given two examples that are as specific as I am willing to be as far as cases in law, rights, and how the high courts may rule. Each case in law is unique, so I can't really cover facts that haven't come up in law yet. I can only speak generally about what rights are, and like it or not the 1st gives specific protections on moral/religious grounds.

 

[roguenuke]

I've already given two examples that are as specific as I am willing to be as far as cases in law, rights, and how the high courts may rule. Each case in law is unique, so I can't really cover facts that haven't come up in law yet. I can only speak generally about what rights are, and like it or not the 1st gives specific protections on moral/religious grounds.

You gave examples that wouldn't fall under this law in the first place. They wouldn't be religious exemptions. The doctor can simply say they don't approve of that treatment for anyone with that particular diagnosis. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion or moral objections.

What they cannot do is refuse a person based on who the person is, certain protected classes.

 

[nvflash]

so long as they do not provide that service to others

A doctor may refuse to provide gender transition drugs to a child, but may have no objection to proscribing them to an adult and I can make a Christian case for that if you like?

 

[roguenuke]

A doctor may refuse to provide gender transition drugs to a child, but may have no objection to proscribing them to an adult and I can make a Christian case for that if you like?

It wouldn't be for the same diagnosis. If the doctor felt it was wrong to give them to children based on a Christian belief, then there is no reason they would actually prescribe them to adults. That is a foolish thing to think.

The doctor could also easily justify that with their own conservative, medical beliefs about giving certain medications to adults but not to children. That has nothing to do with their Christian beliefs.

Doctors can refuse to give vaccines to children at a certain time or at all if they have reservations about vaccines, however unfounded others may find those reservations. It has absolutely nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

You are basically trying to fit things in here. The rule getting struck down is not needed.

 

[weaver2]

Well, it's actually statutory and a civil right.

Loading…

www.google.com

The law is a very gracious accommodation to religious dogma of several religions. American have always bent over backwards to provide workplace acceptance of religious diversity. Religious conservatives have returned the favor by stomping on the rights of others, especially women, minorities, LGBTs, and the poor and expressing anger at public support these groups. All done under the tent of Christianity

 

[nvflash]

The rule getting struck down is not needed.

I may yet come down to a ruling of the high court, then will will know what is needed.

Anyway, a rule is not a law, so doctors will simply do as they like, as they have always done and someone may sue if they don't like it or as I say, go pound sand.

 

[roguenuke]

I may yet come down to a ruling of the high court, then will will know what is needed.

Anyway, a rule is not a law, so doctors will simply do as they like, as they have always done and someone may sue if they don't like it or as I say, go pound sand.

On what? Because someone got a job at an abortion center and then refused to do abortions? On someone who refused to care for a patient who had a coin stuck in their ear because they have religious beliefs against wasting money or believe that is some sort of just punishment based on religious beliefs? Perhaps they just refuse to treat people with STIs, saying that is a punishment from God? Which of these is going to come to the SCOTUS? It isn't going to be yours, because again, that one is one where doctors can refuse to give prescription medications, do surgeries that they, in their personal opinion are not necessary.

 

[nvflash]

On what? Because someone got a job at an abortion center and then refused to do abortions? On someone who refused to care for a patient who had a coin stuck in their ear because they have religious beliefs against wasting money or believe that is some sort of just punishment based on religious beliefs? Perhaps they just refuse to treat people with STIs, saying that is a punishment from God? Which of these is going to come to the SCOTUS? It isn't going to be yours, because again, that one is one where doctors can refuse to give prescription medications, do surgeries that they, in their personal opinion are not necessary.

People can make any excuse they like, but if a doctor gets sued and he puts up an affirmative case on religious grounds this may yet come down to that.

The case of the baker and the gay wedding is case in point, because big government liberals that think freedom of religion is freedom FROM religion will shop a doctor they know won't give them a medical service they desire, then they will sue because they want big government to force others to affirm their life choices.

 

[roguenuke]

People can make any excuse they like, but if a doctor gets sued and he puts up an affirmative case on religious grounds this may yet come down to that.

The case of the baker and the gay wedding is case in point, because big government liberals that think freedom of religion is freedom FROM religion will shop a doctor they know won't give them a medical service they desire, then they will sue because they want big government to force others to affirm their life choices.

Then he'd be lying. Why bother lying when you can simply stand by your medical assertions

The case of the wedding cake, that you misconstrued?

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Very narrow ruling based on the fact that they stated the Colorado court showed hostility towards his religious beliefs, which made it not a neutral ruling. It doesn't do what you claim it does.

Anyone can sue for pretty much any reason. No laws prevent that and making up stupid religious beliefs to go off of rather than using reason, especially for a doctor who is allowed to refuse to prescribe pretty much anything (there is a reason you need a doctor to write a prescription) is going to hurt your cause for real religious exemptions on the very rare occasion where they may actually be needed.

 

[nvflash]

Then he'd be lying. Why bother lying when you can simply stand by your medical assertions

The case of the wedding cake, that you misconstrued?

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Very narrow ruling based on the fact that they stated the Colorado court showed hostility towards his religious beliefs, which made it not a neutral ruling. It doesn't do what you claim it does.

Anyone can sue for pretty much any reason. No laws prevent that and making up stupid religious beliefs to go off of rather than using reason, especially for a doctor who is allowed to refuse to prescribe pretty much anything (there is a reason you need a doctor to write a prescription) is going to hurt your cause for real religious exemptions on the very rare occasion where they may actually be needed.

We'll see what we see when we see it.

 

[dockside]

Maybe i'm ignorant, but who the hell is being forced to perform an abortion that isn't an abortion doctor?

It's not abortion. It's birth control, end-of-life treatment. What if a Jehovah's witness doctor refused to order a blood transfusion. Is anyone o.k. with that who is not a JW? In many states, a patient has a right to ask a doctor to prescribe a medication that will end their life, if they have a fatal disease and death is all but certain within six months (or whatever the law says). I certainly want the ability to do that if I qualify. It's my life (quality of life is more important to me than quantity), not your religion, at stake.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You don't give up your rights when you join a profession.

When the governing body of that profession has an absolute lock on whether or not you can continue to practice that profession - you most certainly do.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You don't have a right to absolute religious exemption from doing your job, regardless of your religious beliefs. Otherwise, anyone could simply take a job and then refuse to do half the things required of that job due to "religious beliefs". That isn't how that works.

If the "normal" things for a member of "Profession A" to do are "B", "C", "D", "E", and "F", then if a person holds themselves out to be a member of "Profession A" any potential client can expect that they do do "B", "C", "D", "E", and "F".

However, I see no problem with a member of "Profession A" NOT doing one or more of "B", "C", "D", "E", and "F" PROVIDED that they make it explicitly clear to all potential clients that they do NOT do those things.

IOW under "normal" circumstances, "Bakers" make cakes for weddings. If a potential customer goes into "Baker A" wishing to purchase a wedding cake, then they have a right to expect that "Baker A" will sell them one. However, if "Baker A" prominently advertises

"We don't make cakes for queers and faggots so that they can pretend to get married
because our God says that they are abominations and should all be destroyed." ​

or if they clearly post

"We do not serve 'Coloreds' or 'Gooks' here,
because God says that they are less than human
and it defiles Whites to deal with them."​

then I see absolutely no reason why they should be required to comply with a request that the potential requester already knows they will not comply with for their constitutionally protected right to practice their own religion as they see fit.

Mind you, they might lose one or two other customers, but that's a small price to pay for following the dictates of what you have been told God wants you to do - right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The law is a very gracious accommodation to religious dogma of several religions.

The law is one that was enacted by a group of people that had a majority of members who came from colonies/states where there WAS an "established religion" and where persons who did not subscribe to that "established religion" were frequently at a societal disadvantage.

In fact the majority of the delegates FAVORED the US having an "established religion".

What those delegates could not agree on was WHICH religion would be the "established religion". They could, however, all agree on "Well, if it isn't going to be MY religion, then NO religion is going to be the "established religion.".

American have always bent over backwards to provide workplace acceptance of religious diversity.

You might want to tell that to the Native Americans, the Jews, and the Mormons (to name only three groups).

Religious conservatives have returned the favor by stomping on the rights of others, especially women, minorities, LGBTs, and the poor and expressing anger at public support these groups. All done under the tent of Christianity

Under the tent of what is called Christianity. It is, however, a tent that Jesus wouldn't set foot in.

 

[roguenuke]

If the "normal" things for a member of "Profession A" to do are "B", "C", "D", "E", and "F", then if a person holds themselves out to be a member of "Profession A" any potential client can expect that they do do "B", "C", "D", "E", and "F".

However, I see no problem with a member of "Profession A" NOT doing one or more of "B", "C", "D", "E", and "F" PROVIDED that they make it explicitly clear to all potential clients that they do NOT do those things.

IOW under "normal" circumstances, "Bakers" make cakes for weddings. If a potential customer goes into "Baker A" wishing to purchase a wedding cake, then they have a right to expect that "Baker A" will sell them one. However, if "Baker A" prominently advertises

"We don't make cakes for queers and faggots so that they can pretend to get married
because our God says that they are abominations and should all be destroyed." ​

or if they clearly post

"We do not serve 'Coloreds' or 'Gooks' here,
because God says that they are less than human
and it defiles Whites to deal with them."​

then I see absolutely no reason why they should be required to comply with a request that the potential requester already knows they will not comply with for their constitutionally protected right to practice their own religion as they see fit.

Mind you, they might lose one or two other customers, but that's a small price to pay for following the dictates of what you have been told God wants you to do - right?

So I'd be okay with this on a limited basis.

The problem is that there are some businesses, services, professions that are so scarce but still needed that there has to be a point where this isn't allowed. Part of the problem with Jim Crow was that there really were few to no places in at least some of the South where anyone would serve blacks, anyone not white. That is a huge problem. The same is the reason we ended up with many smoking laws, was because there absolutely is a pressure to conform, especially when certain groups make up some significant portion of your business, even if they may be harmful to others.

 

[TomFitz]

It gets special attention becuase republicans are like the Taliban. They want their bullshit religion instilled on all people. And the courts are stacked now with right wing hacks that will allow Christians to use their religion as an excuse to violates others rights


Same thing with the pharmacist denying providing birth control, or Plan B and claiming religious objections. It's just the right wing Taliban's way of trying to get away with shitting on others like they have done for history of this country.

It does seem to be increasingly at the core of GOP marketing. That, and open racism.