Trump administration announces conscience and religious freedom HHS Division

[Whateverist]

I don't think this new law means doctors will be allowed to not treat specific patients. Neither do I think such a thing will ever be accepted.

Well I never thought this country would elect a white supremacist to the presidency.  Be prepared to be disappointed.

[I_am_not_mafia]

And I remember one case where a doctor refused to treat the CHILD of a lesbian couple out of moral objections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...a9f328aaf1

A 6 day old infant.

[Amarok]

And not just that one case 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...ee/478797/

[AFTT47]

I don't think this new law means doctors will be allowed to not treat specific patients. Neither do I think such a thing will ever be accepted.

Well I never thought this country would elect a white supremacist to the presidency.  Be prepared to be disappointed.

No shit. The fact that Donald Trump was elected president means NOTHING is too outlandish to fear. How much more unlikely can anything be than Donald Trump being elected? People who voted for that cretin are defective units and I wouldn't assume ANYTHING is too low for them.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't think this new law means doctors will be allowed to not treat specific patients. Neither do I think such a thing will ever be accepted.

Well I never thought this country would elect a white supremacist to the presidency.  Be prepared to be disappointed.

I guess when it happens then y'all can remember me and how wrong I was, and I'll just have to eat crow lol. In the mean time though, I'll continue to think it's an unrealistic thing to worry about and all this outrage is unreasonable.

[Divinity]

I guess when it happens then y'all can remember me and how wrong I was, and I'll just have to eat crow lol. In the mean time though, I'll continue to think it's an unrealistic thing to worry about and all this outrage is unreasonable.

It's already happened, but you decide to shut your ears to it so you don't have to do anything.  See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil.

[RoadRunner79]

---

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?

I think that there is a disconnect here, and you seem to be talking about something different.

I just think that there is an awful lot of bitching based on very little facts that seem to be varying quite a bit.  That this all seems to be more hype and rhetoric, than anything else.   If I'm wrong then so be it... but I'll wait for more specific information.  

I'm more interested in discussing the ideas however, than calling people names.    Unfortunately here, the latter seems to be more prevalent than the former.

For the record, I do think that someone should be able to object based on conscience a service that is being asked of them.  I don't agree with however discriminating against the person.

[Catholic_Lady]

The only way I see this being reasonable is with a mental health counselor turning down a gay person as a client. If the counselor believes homosexual activity and gay marriage are immoral, he may not be able to be fully objective while a gay client is talking to him about relationship issues and seeking help for struggles with homosexuality, etc. At which point, turning down the gay client and directing him to a more suited counselor would be the right thing to do, to avoid any sort of bias and inadequate treatment.

This should be legal of course. And already kind of happens within the mental health profession. Example: my sister is having issues in her marriage so she started seeing a therapist to help deal with her end of things. After several sessions, she wanted to bring her husband to that same therapist to get help for him too, and eventually do couples counseling. The therapist turned down treating her husband and treating them together as a couple. Since he already knew her side of the story too much, he said he would run the risk of not being fully objective when counseling her husband, so he set them up with a different therapist in the office.

Does this mean now that it's going to fly in courts if a dentist were to refuse to clean a gay patient's teeth? Or if a brain surgeon refuses to remove a brain tumor from a lesbian? Or if an emergency room doctor refuses to save the life of the transgender person who just got rushed in with gun shot wounds? Simply because of these people's sexuality? I'll believe it if I see it I suppose.

[Amarok]

I guess when it happens then y'all can remember me and how wrong I was, and I'll just have to eat crow lol. In the mean time though, I'll continue to think it's an unrealistic thing to worry about and all this outrage is unreasonable.

Your already wrong because it's already happened . So would like that original recipe or extra crispy .

[henryp]

I don't think this new law means doctors will be allowed to not treat specific patients. Neither do I think such a thing will ever be accepted.

Well I never thought this country would elect a white supremacist to the presidency.  Be prepared to be disappointed.

Out of curiosity, how much of a 'white supremacist' do you really think he is?  Without hyperbole.