Religious Freedom Objections: Now Includes Medical Services

When religious objections to service just involved cakes there were vigorous discussions about this being applied to more critical industries such as health care. That moment has arrived.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/18/578811426/trump-will-protect-health-workers-who-reject-patients-on-religious-grounds

The top civil rights official at the Department of Health and Human Services is creating the Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom to protect doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to take part in procedures like abortion or treat certain people because of moral or religious objections.

"Never forget that religious freedom is a primary freedom, that it is a civil right that deserves enforcement and respect," said Roger Severino, the director of HHS's Office for Civil Rights, at a ceremony to announce the new division.

The establishment of the division reverses an Obama-era policy that barred health care workers from refusing to treat transgender individuals or people who have had or are seeking abortions.

next up will be protection for physicists who do not believe in math

I was just listening to a podcast where it was mentioned that if you really believe things can't get much worse then you simply lack imagination. Protecting hospitals because if they choose to not treat certain people because of religious objections is a sign that things are definitely getting worse.

I worked at a hospital for around 8 months in 2016 which was a fairly large organization which refers to each of it's hospital locations as ministries. I may be jumping to conclusions, but I could easily see them jumping on the possibility of not treating transgendered or gay people just because they feel they can get away with it, and honestly that's a pretty scary thing in my opinion.

well have fun getting sued

Absolutely pathetic. If your religious beliefs mean you can't do a job, then you shouldn't have signed up for it.

What's next, vegans getting jobs in slaughterhouses and then suing when they're fired for refusing to slaughter a cow?

Absolutely agree with your first paragraph.

We know full well this kind of religious exemption is aimed only for Christians. If a Muslim or Sikh person tried something of the sort, I wonder what the response would be.

Yeah, if Americans could stop trying to turn their country into another Afghanistan, that would be great.

@perfect_blue: Agreed. That's what I was trying to get at with my second paragraph. Even supporters of this bullshit would say that's crossing the line, even though the only difference is the group benefiting from it.

@mattbbpl: Any word on the protections they are thinking of installing? The article was all vague.

I mean if they are claiming a company can not ask their applicants and employees something like: "Do you hate anyone so badly that you will have moral objections to doing important aspects of the job in question?" because that is religious discrimination then this is outrageous and asinine. If on the other hand you can no longer sue someone because because they are unwilling to preform actions that round counter to their dogma that is fine.

You know, so long as a Jewish person can look at non-Asian with a swastika tattoo and say "Hahaha yeah no I don't care if you need a kidney or an aspirin, you are out of here." If the lines are all drawn by Evangelicals then it is just another avalanche of hypocrisy. Selective application of the first amendment is worse then ignoring it in it's entirety.

Good, then now perhaps the liberals can learn that religion acceptance is not just a one way street with entry for people they see fit.

you fail to see that this legislation can end up biting you.

because its protection for ANY religion, not just Christianity

I don't have a problem with an Ob/Gyn that doesn't want to do abortions. I don't think you can force a physician to do a procedure they have a moral issue with. Many doctors perform only select procedures as part of their practice style. There are plenty of physicians that can perform abortions so I don't see the concern there. Nonissue.

As for not treating transgender people, what does that mean? If a transgender person walks into their internists office with a cold and is refused treatment because of their trans status, that is discrimination and should not be allowed under the law. If a transgender person is seeking treatment for their gender issues, that requires a physician with a high level of specialization in that area. It would make no sense for someone trained to treat gender issues, to not treat them. Why would they go into that field if they felt that way?

here are two situations that I see as a problem.

1. the law does not apply to JUST Christian values, it also applies to Buddhism, Musleum, and anything else the state sees as a valid religion.

2. if I am admitted into the emergency room I dont have the option to select my doctor, I am atheist. What do Muslims feel should happen to an atheist sitting on the operating table?

Sensible post.

Do you know something called the hippocratic oath.

It´s not just a funny myth people use, so if you are in need any doctor will treat you.

This suggestion is just a acceptance that we live in a free market and that we have to respect everyone and their beliefs if "valid and sensible" not just the people we like.

TC's link reads like an onion article. We truly live in a Bizarro world. Furthermore, how can a physician not treat someone based on moral or religious grounds? In a country that was founded on religious freedom?

Hypocrisy if I've ever seen it.

They no longer have to. so again.

if I am admitted into the emergency room I dont have the option to select my doctor, I am atheist. What do Muslims feel should happen to an atheist sitting on the operating table?

And it's actually NPR, largely considered the most boring news source. It's not of course, but it's reputation is there.

You need to go read up on the oath and after you do, look at your post again and i'm sure you will figure out why it's pretty dumb.

yeah I read your post wrong and corrected it.

The thing is either A. this new legislation is 100% useless because all medical staff have to perform anyway OR B. That ambulance driver who finds out I am atheist can refuse to take me to the emergency room (which by the way....is an actual story...but it was a christian driver over a possible abortion).

So my question, in point, remains

Here

https://www.emsworld.com/news/10341285/illinois-emt-sues-ambulance-company-over-firing

people who want an abortion do not need an abulence, its extremely likely her life was in danger..NFG let her die said the driver....in effect anyway.

Yes your question remains and in that case the ambulance driver should just stfu and do his job.

Any incident like that should of course be met with a person who does their job.

Where a choice comes in , is in instances where a person is not in urgent need of care or treatment and has the time for someone else to come or go somewhere else. It's a free market after all.

yes I agree that is reasonable on how it SHOULD be...but I dont think this legislation makes that distinction between emergency care and that of choice.

that is where I have a problem. Otherwise, to be frank, I am looking forward to doctors having to give me their religious affiliation but I would rather not be cared for by a person of any religion. That is a choice I would like to exercise. I dont like the idea of my health in the hands of people who believe in sky gods

Well, we can agree there. The legislators will probably not make a distinction. But we will have to see if and when it goes into effect.

Because it will be insane if a EMT leaves someone who is in urgent need of care because it's a atheist or some other reason.

fair enough, there are however a few other problems.

1. can medical staff now ask me my relgion before performing services?

2. can I ask medical staff their religion before performing services? If they are not going to perform some service dont i have a right to know BEFORE I go see them?

well that is a constitutional concern

You do know the oath is no a law right?

You do know that most professionals are professionals right?

But talking about laws, there is actually a federal law that states that in a emergency they can´t refuse to treat no matter what.

well to be fair regardless that would not change how things CURRENTLY are.

if its not a law then a doctor today could refuse treatement, this law just would say they could not be fired for it

we're going to start seeing a lot more "valid religions" start popping up.

with Trump in charge I think the only one likely would be Flat Earthers

You know what's funny? When a homosexual decides to speak for all homosexuals in that the gay couple should have just shopped somewhere else, I'm going to show them this.

The issue isn't just homosexuality. The issue is when private businesses and entities start to deny services to a person based on characteristics that they have little to no control over.

A gay man can't stop being "gay." A black man can't be white so suddenly. And so on. We've seen this throughout history, especially Jim Crow and it was one of the worst parts of American history. It's too much bullshit.

Way to take everything over the top.

Sexuality is nothing like race, so perhaps stop comparing apples and oranges.

Are you implying that sexuality is a choice?

I am implying, saying race is equal to sexuality is stupid and shows a lack of common sense.

So you're saying it's okay to deny any services to a gay man but not a a person based on their race, is that true?

If so, why is that okay?

Also, I suggest you look at my previous statement regarding that a person shouldn't be denied services because of CHARACTERISTICS THEY CANNOT CONTROL. But please, continue making idiotic comments. It shows what kind of person you are.

Yes, I'm saying that it's ok for, let's say a baker to deny service to a gay couple, on the basis of religious beliefs.

And I know what you wrote and again you are comparing apples and oranges. The difference you are trying to negate here is race a thing you have absolutely zero control over and sexuality where you have some control.

In other words, where a gay man/woman have control over if the bird should land, no one has any control over what the color of their skin is.

no sorry you do not have 'some control' over your sexual interests. Speaking as a hot blooded hetro sexual with plenty of porn in my digital collection, i am not about to take any pleasure in re-caberating my sexual intrests to enjoy the taste of a D.

lets get real here

@drunk_pi: Could you not destroy my post with your comments and learn to quote?

Also, you may want to get that what I am saying, is that any person has control over whether or not they want to actually act on their attractions.

no they dont.

they might have control over acting on them but they do not have control over wanting to.

my question though is should we have religion in government? should we escalate that?

Does the baby want his bottle?

Ehmm, that is what I said. They can´t prevent the bird from flying overhead, but they can prevent it from landing and making a nest.

to be fair you actually didnt say that:

quote: is that any person has control over whether or not they want to

I am saying they do not have control over whether or not they WANT to but rather they do have control over if they actually take action

which is different

Not sure what you are trying here.

But go back and read what I actually wrote.

dude I literally quoted you and put in bold what you said where you are wrong. I think I know what you about now and I plan to treat you approprately as such so get ready

Quote: .....is that any person has control over whether or not they want to actually act on their attractions.

want to actually act and actually acting are two different things

I have no idea what you are on about. Also if you intend to quote a post, use the proper quotes so I can see it´s my quote.

And also again what I said was, like the first time. Any man or woman, be it gay or straight has 100% control over whether or not to act on their attractions.

your statement just then however is DIFFERENT from what you said. but fair enough, I think you just made a typo that you refuse to take a look at.

but moving on. i understand you now

And of course these protections don't apply to someone who has a moral objection to Christianity or a Christian worker whose religious views clash with their religious employers' views. By "freedom of religion" they really mean Christian supremacy, and a very narrow definition of Christian at that.