After picking my jaw up from my desk and checking for bruises, I had to check the calendar today, to check and see if it’s really still 2004. According to my calendar, it still is, but I’m having trouble believing it.
In an appalling move by the Michigan State Legislature, discrimination against gays and lesbians is becoming more and more overt, and going far beyond refusing equal rights in marriage. Now they’re going for healthcare.
The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don’t agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.
Opponents of the bills said they’re worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don’t approve of homosexuality.
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.
[…]
Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.
“Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching,” he said in a written statement.
I blogged about this, too. The bill has some limitations: for example, it doesn’t allow discrimination on the basis of race, sex or religion, but it says nothing about sexual orientation. It also doesn’t allow refusal of emergency treatments or contraceptives, and it only applies to medical procedures rather than specific patients. But it’s so fuzzily written that it does indeed seem to suggest enormous abilities to refuse treatment. This could be a real problem in rural areas where there are very few sources of care.
If I were a Michigan doctor and this passed, I’d refuse treatment to Republicans. Or something. Something that if enough people do this law would be off the books in a month.
Of course it’s a double edged sword that sort of civil disobedience. It wouldn’t be my Republican patients’ fault that this law were on the books. But then, by now we’re going through so many levels of hypothetical I might as well add in me flying a rocket to the moon and meeting a talking wildebeest to the morality tale. Much can be learnt from the talking wildebeest.
But then it’s probably better to hope this law never goes on the books.
But then, so long as I’m rambling anyway, if this were to go on the books, and then be brought to the supreme court, it could be the case that decides once and for all that homosexuals are protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Well, there’s my thoughts.
….I am thoroughly shocked. My jaw, too, is on the floor, and I don’t think I’ll be able to pick it up for quite some time.
Now not only can I get married, but I can’t even get medical care??! What the hell does my sexuality have to do with healthcare? I don’t see doctorse refusing care to the sick and dying who do other “immoral” things! Doctors still treat men who come in with STDs they got from their girlfriends and they don’t want their wives to find out!
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. I think i’m going to throw up.
Yeah, it’s called a Hippocratic oath.
Whoever introduced this bill needs to be slapped silly.
Your intro is inaccurate. There’s no “overt” discrimination in the bill.
At best, one could contend that, as applied in an individual case, it could allow someone to discriminate in some fashion against a homosexual patient. That could be a valid point, but I can’t really think of a real-world example.
The article of course paints a distorted picture of the bill. But I suppose that’s what you get when you rely on 365gay.com as your source.
but i think raznor should be able to discriminate against republicans if he wants to.
ok, I’m slow, or perhaps not a human being, or something, because appearantly this sort of thing is common and I just don’t get it.
why would anyone EVER think it’s acceptible to be cruel and in general harm other people out of spite? that’s really what this is about, isn’t it? you dislike someone for whatever reason, and so rather than express disapproval in a way that doesn’t harm, yet might convince (Socratic debate?) you just spite them and let harm come to them.
the question is, what makes it a health care capacity? can a father stop feeding a child then, because he “seems a little fruity,” or republican, or gay republian?
just an example, but hey, explain it to me. what’s wrong with tolerance in the literal term? “I don’t like you, you don’t like me, so let’s just do what we have to, and then leave each other the fuck alone?”
Well, pangloss is right on the face of it, but there must be something more going on; the Detriot News, for instance, has pretty much the same take on it as 365gay.com. The outward motivation appears to be preventing health workers from being involved in abortions, for instance, if they object to them. But there must be some reason that the other side fears that this will be used against gay patients. (And I can hardly believe that the appeal to gay rights is a smokescreen for principled opposition to the bill on other grounds.)
DonBoy,
The bill’s exceptions incorporate the protected classes specified in the state’s human rights statute. I would suggest that gay rights groups are opposing the bill to use it as a lever to expand the list of protected classes in the h.r. statute. In other words, it’s not about this bill at all. Those far out, scary speculations that someone, somewhere out there might somehow or in some way object on conscientious grounds to treat a homosexual person are really just a way to try to push for an expansion of the h.r. statute. It’s a deceptive but obviously effective tack.
Bush is forever saying that democracies do not invade other countries and start wars. Well, he did just that. He invaded Iraq, started a war, and killed people. What do you think? Is killing thousands of innocent civilians okay when you are doing a little government makeover?
Our country is in debt until forever, we don’t have jobs, and we live in fear. We have invaded a country and been responsible for thousands of deaths.
The more people that the government puts in jails, the safer we are told to think we are. The real terrorists are wherever they are, but they aren’t living in a country with bars on the windows. We are.