Author Topic: HHS Civil Rights Division  (Read 1386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2018, 07:36:09 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34610
  • Tommy Points: -27841
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isn’t that the state interfering with the church?
I can understand this when it comes to a woman's right to decide...you know. But where in most religions does it say that birth control or treating gay or transgender people is wrong? At what point does it just become discrimination?

Birth control has been a sin under Catholic doctrine for centuries.  The same is true of homosexuality. It’s an established sin. 

There’s a lot of gray area. To me, birth control is probably the simplest, as it’s purely doctrinal and is fairly easy to avoid, just like if a Jehovah’s Witness didn’t want to participate in blood transfusions. Not treating gays seems like something that is impossible to reasonably accommodate, and isn’t something directly supported by any specific faith.
Exactly. So how does the deregulation allowing people to not care for a gay or transgender pass a legal litmus test, especially after the SC ruling on gay rights? People can choose to not care for others simply because that other person is immoral in the eyes of the caretaker's religion? That leads to a very slippery slope when you break it down to the ridiculous with other examples.

I don’t think, in the general medical field, that refusing to treat based upon orientation would ever be sanctioned by the courts.

I think that a doctor / nurse / med tech could assert some religious objection to participating in a specific procedure, like gender reassignment surgery or artificial insemmination on behalf of a gay couple. But, it’s very complex.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2018, 10:01:21 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17667
  • Tommy Points: 1264
I think that a doctor / nurse / med tech could assert some religious objection to participating in a specific procedure, like gender reassignment surgery or artificial insemmination on behalf of a gay couple. But, it’s very complex.
I'm leaning to the idea that you either agree to perform all duties of a medic, or none at all. I mean, folks here have no problem with the concept that a patient is free to look for another medic. How is that different from the concept that someone who is unwilling to perform the duties they don't like should look for another profession?
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2018, 11:09:01 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34610
  • Tommy Points: -27841
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I think that a doctor / nurse / med tech could assert some religious objection to participating in a specific procedure, like gender reassignment surgery or artificial insemmination on behalf of a gay couple. But, it’s very complex.
I'm leaning to the idea that you either agree to perform all duties of a medic, or none at all. I mean, folks here have no problem with the concept that a patient is free to look for another medic. How is that different from the concept that someone who is unwilling to perform the duties they don't like should look for another profession?

If a private doctor doesn’t want to perform procedures that violate his religion, why should the government compel him to? What about compelling a Catholic hospital to perform procedures or provide services that directly conflict with doctrine? Doesn’t that violate free exercise?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2018, 02:20:45 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17667
  • Tommy Points: 1264
I think that a doctor / nurse / med tech could assert some religious objection to participating in a specific procedure, like gender reassignment surgery or artificial insemmination on behalf of a gay couple. But, it’s very complex.
I'm leaning to the idea that you either agree to perform all duties of a medic, or none at all. I mean, folks here have no problem with the concept that a patient is free to look for another medic. How is that different from the concept that someone who is unwilling to perform the duties they don't like should look for another profession?

If a private doctor doesn’t want to perform procedures that violate his religion, why should the government compel him to? What about compelling a Catholic hospital to perform procedures or provide services that directly conflict with doctrine? Doesn’t that violate free exercise?
It's a licensed profession and there are standards of care. If you're unwilling to perform up to the standard, pick another profession.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2018, 06:44:49 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34610
  • Tommy Points: -27841
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I think that a doctor / nurse / med tech could assert some religious objection to participating in a specific procedure, like gender reassignment surgery or artificial insemmination on behalf of a gay couple. But, it’s very complex.
I'm leaning to the idea that you either agree to perform all duties of a medic, or none at all. I mean, folks here have no problem with the concept that a patient is free to look for another medic. How is that different from the concept that someone who is unwilling to perform the duties they don't like should look for another profession?

If a private doctor doesn’t want to perform procedures that violate his religion, why should the government compel him to? What about compelling a Catholic hospital to perform procedures or provide services that directly conflict with doctrine? Doesn’t that violate free exercise?
It's a licensed profession and there are standards of care. If you're unwilling to perform up to the standard, pick another profession.

“Standards of Care” don’t mean you perform every procedure possible.  You can make referrals, etc. And again, it’s “free exercise”, not “exercise with a bunch of conditions”.



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2018, 07:56:08 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15633
  • Tommy Points: 1003
Quote
It's a licensed profession and there are standards of care. If you're unwilling to perform up to the standard, pick another profession.

So by using this logic, policemen who arrest illegals are enforcing existing laws and standards of their profession, is that ok?   Or is it wrong?

It is simply not that simple of an issue.   Do standards of care, trump the Constitutions or Bill of Rights Freedom of Religion?   I am guessing no.  I think this is complex but I can see both sides of the issue.   If someone didn't serve me, I would simply go to someone else but we all know the folks that complain that this stuff would not do that.

I can see how they feel as well.   Being treated differently is not cool.   But a great thing about our healthcare system and society is we can choose who we go too.

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2018, 10:41:56 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17667
  • Tommy Points: 1264
“Standards of Care” don’t mean you perform every procedure possible.  You can make referrals, etc.
What if business need of a medical facility dictates that all of your personnel need to be able and willing to provide all services at all times? They'd have to let the RN that doesn't prescribe contraceptives go and hire one that does, no? Well, the measure is intended to shield that RN from termination.

What happened keeping big government out of business? Or does this only apply when the government is instituting protections for groups that conservatives don't like?


And again, it’s “free exercise”, not “exercise with a bunch of conditions”.
But it isn't. Exercise of religion has not been, isn't, and can't ever be unconditionally free. The government is already compelling everyone to certain types of behavior that produce desirable outcomes, based on broad social accord. In many cases, it does that without consideration for your religious beliefs. That's a point which has been brought up multiple times in this discussion and which I haven't seen your address adequately yet.

Otherwise, what? Chop someone's head of and claim that is a constitutionally protected right to exercise your worship of Kali Ma without "a bunch of conditions"?

(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2018, 10:47:46 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17667
  • Tommy Points: 1264
It is simply not that simple of an issue.   Do standards of care, trump the Constitutions or Bill of Rights Freedom of Religion?   I am guessing no.  I think this is complex but I can see both sides of the issue.   If someone didn't serve me, I would simply go to someone else but we all know the folks that complain that this stuff would not do that.
I agree that it's not simple.  But it's also not as simple as "I'll go to someone else".

What if you're a person of limited means and your local provider refers you to someone three towns over? Or someone outside of your network that's prohibitively expensive? Sure, you can pick a different insurance... in a year during the special enrollment period. That's not the farmer's market where you simply move one stall over to buy the carrots that are $0.50 cheaper.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com