Well, first of all, this is not specifically targeting gays, and it does not permit then to refuse to provide emergency treatment. I think that mostly, it'll serve to expose the bigots in the Michigan medical profession, of which I suspect it'll turn out there are relatively few. This bill isn't being passed for the sake of doctors and nurses; it's being passed by legislators whose principles and integrity are available for rent by the hour to the highest bidder, to salve the outraged egos of religious bigots who'd really like to be able to just send all those gays, heathens, people with long hair and tattoos, and anyone else who's Not Quite Right to the concentration camps or the gas chambers.
That said, any bills to "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" would create a very broad and dangerous predecent allowing for a vast scope of discrimination against ANYONE merely by saying that it's being done as a matter of religious principle.
(I honestly think that organized religion is one of the three most destructive and evil concepts ever to spring from the fevered minds of men.)
Honestly, I don't think this will stand. I think the Michigan Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional, either immediately or at the first competent legal challenge (which is to say, the first case not brought by a half-wit).
Well, first of all, this is not specifically targeting gays,
That dosen't make it any better though.
and it does not permit then to refuse to provide emergency treatment.
Yeah, but what does that cover? America is full of small towns. This essentialy gives any non-emergency room the right to post a "No [fill in the blanks] allowed" sign.
Yeah, but what does that cover? America is full of small towns. This essentialy gives any non-emergency room the right to post a "No [fill in the blanks] allowed" sign.
Well, that was sorta my point, if you read down the rest of my comment.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 02:36 pm (UTC)That said, any bills to "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" would create a very broad and dangerous predecent allowing for a vast scope of discrimination against ANYONE merely by saying that it's being done as a matter of religious principle.
(I honestly think that organized religion is one of the three most destructive and evil concepts ever to spring from the fevered minds of men.)
Honestly, I don't think this will stand. I think the Michigan Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional, either immediately or at the first competent legal challenge (which is to say, the first case not brought by a half-wit).
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 04:50 pm (UTC)That dosen't make it any better though.
and it does not permit then to refuse to provide emergency treatment.
Yeah, but what does that cover? America is full of small towns. This essentialy gives any non-emergency room the right to post a "No [fill in the blanks] allowed" sign.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-22 05:38 pm (UTC)Well, that was sorta my point, if you read down the rest of my comment.