11–20 of 47 posts
The title and article aren't quite telling you the truth. The bill allows providers to decline to provide specific services where those services are in opposition to their beliefs. It does not allow them to deny all health care, just those specific services they are opposed to. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.
So does this mean you can deny medical care to those who support this bill? [That feels like that would be in the spirit of this bill]
1. your sincere religious beliefs impelled you to deny all medical care to people based on their beliefs - in other words your religion establishes that certain beliefs make you an unperson.
AND
2. This bill were written saying anything at all about denying all medical care, which it is not, since the provider would be forced to identify specific forms of care that they were unwilling to provide to _all_ people, rather than _all_ forms of care to _certain_ people.
The title and article aren't quite telling you the truth. The bill allows providers to decline to provide specific services where those services are in opposition to their beliefs. It does not allow them to deny all health care, just those specific services they are opposed to. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.
My beliefs are that felons are unredeemable and undeserving of any care provision whatsoever. Hence, "just those specific services" becomes all health care. One should always imagine the worst case when writing good laws. Unfortunately, we all know this law is not meant to be good, it's meant to be a wedge.
Things that can go very wrong, but which in practice we may expect to be extremely rare are not necessarily large problems.
[flagged]
What this does is eliminate a particular contractual compulsion.
So, if I was a Dr., and a supporter of this law came under my care for a serious condition, could I throw him out of my office because of my religious beliefs
The title and article aren't quite telling you the truth. The bill allows providers to decline to provide specific services where those services are in opposition to their beliefs. It does not allow them to deny all health care, just those specific services they are opposed to. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.
My beliefs are that felons are unredeemable and undeserving of any care provision whatsoever. Hence, "just those specific services" becomes all health care. One should always imagine the worst case when writing good laws. Unfortunately, we all know this law is not meant to be good, it's meant to be a wedge.
[It is deeply weird how uncurious the comments on this particular article are.]
So does this mean you can deny medical care to those who support this bill? [That feels like that would be in the spirit of this bill]
I suppose if: 1. your sincere religious beliefs impelled you to deny all medical care to people based on their beliefs - in other words your religion establishes that certain beliefs make you an unperson. AND 2. This bill were written saying anything at all about denying all medical care, which it is not, since the provider would be forced to identify specific forms of care that they were unwilling to provide to _all…
Not an unperson, but equivalent to supporting the enemy. Would you be comfortable saving the life of a person you know is a mass murderer, who hasn't yet been arrested of charged, and thus would be free to murder again after you save their life, for instance?
[flagged]
It is a human. They should be all treated the same unless the patient requests.
To do anything else is immoral rot.
What next, denial of treatment to someone you don't like? Or someone who committed a crime?
Sorry, I don't treat shoplifters, your cancer is God telling you that you did wrong
America has gone loony.
[flagged]