Why get all worked up over it, if your not really sure what the law is proposing?

Frankly, I would be surprised if it allows discrimination based on the person, and it seems like a lot of hype without much specifics.

Quote:seems like a lot of hype without much specifics.

That's a running theme with this administration. If this new office/law will change nothing, then why propose it and waste all of our money on it? Where are doctors being forced to perform procedures they disapprove of? That's not happening. Nobody is forcing a Christian oncologist to go perform an abortion or a staunch orthodox jewish dermatologist to be party to a sex-change operation.

It's probably the most blatantly pandering thing this administration has done, and that's fuckin' saying something.

(January 19, 2018 at 9:57 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

Quote:seems like a lot of hype without much specifics.

That's a running theme with this administration.  If this new office/law will change nothing, then why propose it and waste all of our money on it?  Where are doctors being forced to perform procedures they disapprove of?  That's not happening.  Nobody is forcing a Christian oncologist to go perform an abortion or a staunch orthodox jewish dermatologist to be party to a sex-change operation.  

It's probably the most blatantly pandering thing this administration has done, and that's fuckin' saying something.

Remember those nuns who had to cover the morning after pill, or something along those lines a couple years back.  I think this is what that addresses.

(January 19, 2018 at 9:53 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Why get all worked up over it, if your not really sure what the law is proposing?

Frankly, I would be surprised if it allows discrimination based on the person, and it seems like a lot of hype without much specifics.

Then why make the law and an enforcement branch at all? 

Fear of religious persecution over rides fear of discrimination.

(January 19, 2018 at 9:57 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

Quote:seems like a lot of hype without much specifics.

That's a running theme with this administration.  If this new office/law will change nothing, then why propose it and waste all of our money on it?  Where are doctors being forced to perform procedures they disapprove of?  That's not happening.  Nobody is forcing a Christian oncologist to go perform an abortion or a staunch orthodox jewish dermatologist to be party to a sex-change operation.  

It's probably the most blatantly pandering thing this administration has done, and that's fuckin' saying something.

Still not seeing what is bad.....
You say it does not do anything... others are saying that it discriminates against people, and that a doctor can turn away a patient because they don't like their group.  All I'm asking is what does it actually say.
If it is putting into a law what you say, then why is that bad?  In kinda seems like people just want to complain, even when they have nothing to complain about.

---

(January 19, 2018 at 10:02 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(January 19, 2018 at 9:53 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Why get all worked up over it, if your not really sure what the law is proposing?

Frankly, I would be surprised if it allows discrimination based on the person, and it seems like a lot of hype without much specifics.

Then why make the law and an enforcement branch at all? 

Fear of religious persecution over rides fear of discrimination.

I don't see any harm, in making a law, for something even if most adhere to it anyway.   
An enforcement branch may require some justification if there is not really a need for it.

However my question is still what are you getting all upset about, and why should I be?

(January 19, 2018 at 10:02 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(January 19, 2018 at 9:57 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: That's a running theme with this administration.  If this new office/law will change nothing, then why propose it and waste all of our money on it?  Where are doctors being forced to perform procedures they disapprove of?  That's not happening.  Nobody is forcing a Christian oncologist to go perform an abortion or a staunch orthodox jewish dermatologist to be party to a sex-change operation.  

It's probably the most blatantly pandering thing this administration has done, and that's fuckin' saying something.

Still not seeing what is bad.....
You say it does not do anything... others are saying that it discriminates against people, and that a doctor can turn away a patient because they don't like their group.  All I'm asking is what does it actually say.
If it is putting into a law what you say, then why is that bad?  In kinda seems like people just want to complain, even when they have nothing to complain about.

I didn't say this law wouldn't do anything.  I said IF this law doesn't do anything real, then why waste peoples' money on it.  I'd usually like laws to be clearly specified, defined, and their impacts predicted ahead of time, rather than just "seeing what will happen."  And you don't pass laws just because 'it doesn't hurt anything', you're supposed to pass laws because they have an actual positive effect on the country.

(January 19, 2018 at 10:02 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

---

(January 19, 2018 at 10:02 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Then why make the law and an enforcement branch at all? 

Fear of religious persecution over rides fear of discrimination.

I don't see any harm, in making a law, for something even if most adhere to it anyway.   
An enforcement branch may require some justification if there is not really a need for it.

However my question is still what are you getting all upset about, and why should I be?

Of course you don't see any harm. This does not have a potential impact on you. 

How about a law is made that states "all health care professionals may not deny service based on any religious belief or moral objection"? Then I'll say, well, this will probably never happen, it's just a law, you don't need to worry about it's application or enforcement. Why are you upset?

(January 19, 2018 at 2:02 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I've never heard of a doctor refusing treatment to a patient on the grounds that the patient is gay or black or whatever else. And if one did and tried to cite this law, I highly doubt it would work. No one will take seriously a doctor who refuses to give his patient medical care due to their sexuality. I don't see this being an issue, to be honest. Seems this thread is a bit misleading/an over reaction.

It happens frequently for transgendered people in America.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...ederal-law

Quote:Sadly, this experience is common. Almost a fifth of transgender people have been refused care because of their gender identity, according to the 2011 National Transgender Discrimination Survey.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/new-report-r...ry-care-2/

Quote:*Nearly 1 in 5 (19 percent) reported being refused care outright because they were transgender or gender non-conforming.

*Survey participants reported very high levels of postponing medical care when sick or injured due to discrimination and disrespect (28 percent).

*Harassment: 28 percent of respondents were subjected to harassment in medical settings.

*Significant lack of provider knowledge: 50 percent of the sample reported having to teach their medical providers about transgender care.

*Despite barriers, the majority has accessed some form of transition-related medical care, but only a minority has had any surgery, despite the fact that a strong majority stated wanting to have it someday.

*Respondents reported more than four times the national average of HIV infection, 2.64 percent in our sample compared to 0.6 percent in the general population, with rates for transgender women at 3.76 percent, and with those who are unemployed (4.67 percent) or who have engaged in sex work (15.32 percent) even higher.

*Over a quarter of the respondents reported misusing drugs or alcohol specifically to cope with the discrimination they faced due to their gender identity or expression.

*A staggering 41 percent of respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6 percent of the general population.

(January 19, 2018 at 12:24 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: From what I understand, the intention of this is to not force doctors to perform procedures they have a moral objection to, such as abortion. I highly doubt this will turn into doctors legitimately being allowed to refuse to treat a patient based on the patient's orientation/faith/politics..

Don't you think there must be at least a few doctors out there with the same mindset as those bakers who didn't want to make a cake for a homosexual wedding?

---

(January 19, 2018 at 1:49 am)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(January 19, 2018 at 12:48 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Doctors have no such right . You choose to be doctor you will perform your job or lose it . What's next we start allowing scientologist doctors to refuse to do blood transfers or organ transplants . Do muslim doctors get to refuse to treat blind people . And their is nothing to stop doctors from doing just this . And mark my words they will .

This border line reminds me of that Kim Davis fool

This, precisely.

Years ago as an intern - yes, even I was one of those icky things once - working night shift in the A&E, the police brought in a guy for treatment who had just beaten and sexually assaulted a young woman.

I had moral objections about treating him.  Do you know what I did?

I kept my objections to myself and did my job.

I discovered later that he had apparently "resisted arrest" several times, which was why he needed treatment.

Hope you told the deputies who brought him in that you'd be there all night if he should resist some more.

It's easy to pretend that there has been no discrimination against LGBT people in healthcare even WITHOUT the law. But that's just not the case. Many Lesbian couples have been denied fertility treatment. Transgender people have often been refused treatment. And I remember one case where a doctor refused to treat the CHILD of a lesbian couple out of moral objections.