WP: Health Workers' Choice Debated (Right Not to Treat)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900869.html

More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients' rights.

About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and "morning-after" pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians.

Because many legislatures have just convened, advocates on both sides are predicting that the number debating such proposals will increase. At least 18 states are already considering 36 bills.

"It's already a very hot issue," said Edward R. Martin Jr. of the Americans United for Life, who is advising legislators around the country pushing such bills. "I think it's going to get even hotter, for lots of reasons and in lots of places."

[Catt03]

1. I read this

When I read this stuff, I get depressed all over again.

What are they thinking? Do they hate women that much?

[Warpy]

3. They hate everybody that much

That's the problem. Women are easy, no money and therefore no power. So are children. So are black folks. So are old folks. So are sick folks. They really know how to hate us all.

[raccoon]

30. Well said, Warpy. nt

[rwheeler31]

5. Yes, They hate women so much they want to enslave them.

What is so awful is they hate kids too.

[Coastie for Truth]

2. What about protecting Rescue-Medics and Fire-Medics and 911 Dispatchers

who refuse to send patients to Frist's HCA Hospitals.

[BattyDem]

4. Here we go ...

Wrong skin color? No treatment for you.
Wrong nationality? No treatment for you.
Wrong gender? No treatment for you.
Wrong religion? No treatment for you.
Wrong sexual orientation? No treatment for you.
Wrong political party affiliation? No treatment for you.
Wrong age? No treatment for you.
Wrong profession? No treatment for you.
Wrong "moral values" (sexually active, divorced, single mother, adulterer, etc.)? No treatment for you.
Wrong disease, medical procedure, etc? No treatment for you.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

Tell me something ...
How can they possibly limit "choices" like this to the medical profession? How long before other professions demand the same "right" to discriminate? How long before employers and businesses demand the same right to discriminate?

WHAT THE FUCK GIVES "RELIGIOUS" PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE EVERY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW EVER WRITTEN?!?!? Why are they getting "special" exceptions? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[maxrandb]

61. W.W.J.D.T.T

Who Would Jesus Deny Treatment To??

Get used to it. It's just their way of being able to hate you, without actually have to say they hate you.

[Erika]

6. These religious zealots are so busy being victims

that they are guilty of taking attention away from the real victims of todays society; 45 million uninsured Americans, crumbling schools and infrastructure, increased poverty.

They they could move on to our horrible budget deficit, the insane war in Iraq, the world becoming more of a dangerous place.

If they don't want to take jobs that don't align perfectly with their narrow religious views, then don't take them. No one is forcing them to work at these jobs.

I think they know they've pushed the gay issue as far as they can, so they are now taking up such petty and bigoted matters as these. They are pathetic in every way.

[WinkyDink]

48. That's the Puritan heritage for ya.

Since 1620, the Pilgrims have been praised, when they were the same Puritans who hanged women as witches and hounded out Roger Williams.
Not even King James I of Bible fame could tolerate them.

[kenny blankenship]

7. So tell me again

how these people are not like Nazis????

[WinkyDink]

49. The Nazis had better beer?

[savemefromdumbya]

8. Protecting Health Workers' Choice (More Laws Back Right Not to Treat)

This bothers me - since when do we need laws for this? this is far reacing because this means it is part of the move to punish those who do not fall into line. for instance although it seems ridiculous now - but they could use your political affiliation or your religion, or sexual preference not to treat you. This country is 'going to the dogs'.

"More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients' rights.

About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900869.html

[justgamma]

9. And so it begins

Mark my words, first they'll go after choice. Next they will target birth control of any kind. It won't be all at once, but it'll happen gradually.

[Lorien]

12. Yes, and they are obviously also going after gays and lesbians

perhaps they'll target minorities next? Then those that practice other religions, then those with different political beliefs....this MUST be stopped!

[LibertyLover]

45. There is a new book

which I just got today called How the Pro Choice Movement Saved America by Christina Page. I haven't had a chance to read move than the introduction but the author's thesis is just that - that the so-called "pro-life" movement is not only anti-abortion, but anti-birth control and, when you get right down to it, anti-sex. Page describes how she, a pro-choice advocate, started a dialog with a woman in the anti-choice movement, who was roughly her age and pregnant just as she was. Together on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade they published an editorial in the NY Times that found common ground - the desire to reduce the number of abortions. Page said that what shocked her was the anti-choice's vitriolic response - to their call for more access to and better types of birth control. It was then that she realized that the anti-choice movement was not only about restricting choice regarding abortion but also sexual activity in general. I am looking forward to reading the whole book.

[maxrandb]

63. I Think You're Wrong

It's not about choice, or birth control, or stem cell research. It's about widening the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots". Do you really think that if Tom Delay's mistress wanted, or needed an abortion that she wouldn't be able to get one??

Do you really think if Mr and Mrs millionaire wanted stem-cell treatment, they wouldn't get it???

C'mon. This is about making us all lemmings who will salivate at the small crumbs of freedom they leave for us. It ain't going to affect the wealthy, it ain't going to affect the well-connected, and it sure as hell ain't going to affect the politicians.

It's about the "haves" controlling what the "have nots" have access to.

[maxrandb]

64. How will they enforce this??

Do I have to fill out a questionaire?

Do you enjoy anal sex?

a. yes, with sweaty hairy men
b. maybe, but I've never tried it
c. Only with woman, and she plays the man
d. Only with woman, but I'm still the Alpha dog
e. Never. That's a one way road

Do you engage in premarital sex?

a. yes, with your sister
b. would that be "pre my first marriage, or fourth"
c. with as many partners as possible
d. only with virgins
e. no. I'm saving myself for marriage

Do you go to church?

a. yes, every Sunday
b. What's church?
c. That's where all the hot woman are
d. Only to play Bingo
e. I go to 50 churches a day. They have the best wine

[Gloria]

10. If these "professionals" go to school on scholarships from

public colleges....then they should be stripped of their licenses if they fail to serve ALL the public!!

This is real bullshit, it really is. "protecting health workers" from what?? being offended by another human beings attempt to get medical care of their choice??

FUCK THEM ALL.....

[prolesunited]

11. This is absolutely insane!

People could DIE as a result of such legislation.

So, people could refuse to treat homosexuals? Can they refuse to treat African-Americans, too? What about Muslims or Jews?

They have absolutely NO right to force their beliefs on people. Can we get legislation protecting pagans and atheists rights not to treat Christians, especially those who believe in the power of prayer? They might be offended by prayers taking place before surgery.

Oh, those poor, persecuted Christians! I would feel so put upon to if I had laws passed to cater to my beliefs as well.

Perhaps they can open Christian-only hospitals and pharmacies and spare the rest of us.

[savemefromdumbya]

13. I'm surprised there is no fuss about this?

[hughee99]

14. I may be wrong but...

It looks like they can refuse to provide a treatment, based on the treatment, not the client. They couldn't refuse to provide treatment X for a gay person (for example) and yet provide the same treatment for a straight person. I don't like the law, but I think that's what it's all about.

[donkeyotay]

59. I appreciate the distinction that you've made here, but...

These pharmacists aren't refusing to fill birth control prescriptions for men, so the treatment they withhold makes it inherently sexist.

Also, in rural areas this does remove choice for some women. In urban areas, pharmacies who want to keep customers wouldn't dream of offending half of their clientele, so it is clever of these activist pharmacists to hide it behind the skirts of law. However, if such a law stands as Constitutional, then shouldn't pharmacies be able to inquire before hiring as to the religious beliefs of their employees? After all, the owners of the pharmacy might have different beliefs... and on and on.

[free4now]

52. After this

Look for pickit lines and protest at all the places who dare to treat the people and diseases they dont like.:scared:

[donkeyotay]

58. Poor downtrodden, victimized Christians and Republicans

The Gingrich revolt of the oppressed Moral Majority centered around a perceived discrimination against them and their ideology. That was 1994, only a dozen years later and the allegedly-oppressed have become the oppressors.

Ironically, those damned, immoral liberals got laws passed that would call it discrimination if someone asked one of these medical activists what their religion was before they hired them:

"More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients' rights."

Ethics are a judgment of one's own actions. You cannot practice ethics by controlling other people's actions. Republicans assume we are less moral, indeed unethical, and thus they are entitled to decide for us. And anyone that thinks this stops here is dreaming; they're just getting warmed up.

[anotherdrew]

15. Let's protect doctors right TO provide care, even when client is broke

"perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians." - wow, words fail...

[nemo137]

16. First off

That is as un-Christlike as you can get, and accorind this his own words, these bastards will not see heaven (they cry "Lord, Lord", but don't comfort the sick). Second, it's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, to do no harm.

I say strip the fuckers of their medical licences and then read them off the church roster.

[anitar1]

53. I say--find a way to close the damn churches! Instituational

religion has gone too far. It sounds like Jim Jones time all over again.Lead me to the koolade.

[tsuki]

17. I suggest we call this the "Bessie Smith Law."

[salin]

18. So pass a law outlawing birth control

oh... that would never pass... so instead pass this and make it have the same effect if the only pharmacy in a rural area refused to fill birthcontrol prescriptions.

[depakid]

19. Oh don't worry, they will

I can think of half a dozen states where that'll be a very real possibility once Griswold is overruled.

Personally, I think any pharmacist who won't dispense birth control or Plan B because they think it induces abortion should have their licenses revoked outright for incompetence.

(that's not how either of them work, scientifically).

Anyone who doesn't believe in evidence based medicine is NOT fit to practice. Period.

[salin]

21. I seriously doubt that states, even wildly religious right states

would pass a law preventing birth control. There is always a line that crosses too many in the population (eg encroaches upon them) and that defies common sense. If pushed too hard there will be a payback in terms of loss of support for their movement, and therein their "power." That is why moves will be done covertly - like this - make it impossible for some to get birth control prescriptions - but don't overtly make birth control illegal. Sadly, for some, the result will be the same (loss of access) but the political fall back - due to its cloaked nature - will take longer to well up and bite the talibornagain in the behind. Eventually they will push hard enough that they will push themselves back into the marginalized status of past eras... sadly it may take a long time for that to happen.

[Boredtodeath]

20. Yet, Democrats are willing to let smokers die

and support companies who refuse to insure smokers.

Aren't you proud of what you started? Did you think your pet cause would be omitted because you held all the power?

Another one of those "be careful what you wish for because you might GET it" moments.

[GOPFighter]

24. Huh?

That's a pretty strong accusation. You better be prepared to give example of instances where Democrats have advocated letting smokers die.

[anitar1]

54. Scat, flame person. n/t

[0007]

22. I can't believe what I've just read! I'd like to know what states

are considering these changes. Because I certainly don't want to visit them on any terms.

"This goes to the core of what it means to be an American," said David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. "Conscience is the most sacred of all property. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care workers should not be forced to violate their consciences."

Hypocrisy, has just been taken to its highest level.

[donkeyotay]

60. Here's a translation for you

"This goes to the core of what it means to be a Republican," said David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Meddling Medical & Dental Associations. "Our right to exercise your conscience is the most sacred of all property. Patients should not expect either science or the law to protect them from doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care workers who wish to force their violations of the separation of church and state onto others."

Good grief. Next we'll have to have Christian and non Christian pharmacies... and why stop there. Why not separate schools, too? Boy, we sure have persecuted these Christians!

[GOPFighter]

23. Just when you thought they couldn't get more disgusting...

...they prove you wrong. We've got to make this a national issue. This is a back door way of introducing discrimination. What if you're a Christian and believe treating Muslims is morally wrong? What if you're a white supremist and object to treating African-Americans?

My advice to pharmacists and health care workers: if you can't treat everyone equally, if you can't bring yourself to put your frickin' biases aside, if your feel so fricken' superior, GET ANOTHER F*CKIN' JOB!!!!!!

[loyalsister]

25. I see exactly where this is going

Put this in context and the picture becomes much clearer. Do other states have laws like this one? Combine this with the article and we have a sick sick way to stop AIDS from spreading.

Missouri House of Representatives

HB 1404
Makes it a crime for a patient, or the patient's parents or legal guardian if a minor, to fail to disclose to a health care professional that he or she is infected with human immunodeficiency virus
http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills061/bills/HB1404.HTM

[Bridget Burke]

26. Doctors & nurses who object to in vitro fertilization, assisted suicide...

Or some other specific treatment--should go into another field of medicine. Perhaps dermatology?

Pharmacists should have their feet held to the fire. Or get hired as "assistants" to real pharmacists--who should always be on duty. Nobody should have to wait for morning after pills.

There's no excuse whatsoever for refusing to treat gays & lesbians. Is there a higher rate of HIV in the (male) gay population? Perhaps. But ANYONE who handles blood products must be trained to follow safe procedures. Even "non-high-risk" folks could have blood-borne pathogens.

[Hestia]

27. Health Workers' Choice Debated - Proposals Back Right Not to Treat

Health Workers' Choice Debated
Proposals Back Right Not to Treat

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 30, 2006; A01



More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients' rights.

About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and "morning-after" pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians.

Because many legislatures have just convened, advocates on both sides are predicting that the number debating such proposals will increase. At least 18 states are already considering 36 bills.

"It's already a very hot issue," said Edward R. Martin Jr. of the Americans United for Life, who is advising legislators around the country pushing such bills. "I think it's going to get even hotter, for lots of reasons and in lots of places."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900869_pf.html

[LizW]

28. Ah, the irony.

"Americans United for Life" pushing the "right not to treat".

:crazy:

[savemefromdumbya]

31. it's bizarre but people have been warned

[anitar1]

55. IMHO, One of the things they are targeting is Oregon's

Assisted Suicide Law. This law has worked very well. there are actually very few people who have used it, in the end. I am comfortable knowing that it is available to me if I should need it. As a former nurse, I have seen many painful deaths, mostly women, btw, suffering from breast cancer ect.The religious cannot stand the idea of people being in charge of their own end. We are here to suffer for for our sins, in their eyes. The Feds have targeted our state law before and they will not give up on it.

[Occulus]

29. Well, in that case, here's a legal question

I'm sorry if this question seems out of line, but............ this is what we've come to.

Suppose I'm gay and on heart medication which must be regularly taken or I could die. Suppose my medication is about to run out.

Now suppose there's only one pharmacy near me, and the pharmacists that work there are known to be virulently anti-gay, and further that they know I'm gay.

No. Wait. We all know how bad these people really are. So let's suppose (and this really is not all that far-fetched) that there's a network of pharmacists in my area who have circulated a list of suspected homosexuals among themselves, and I'm on it.

Now: Knowing these facts, and knowing I very well could die without my medication, am I within my legal rights to defend my own life to go the the pharmacy armed and force the medication, fully paid for, out of the pharmacist at gunpoint? And, knowing I very well could die without my medication, am I within my legal rights to defend my own life to take the life of the pharmacist or at the least for my way behind the counter to get the medication myself if he refuses?

Like it or not, someone, somewhere, may have to face that situation. We all know there are plenty of people out there who hate gays enough to kill them off when they see us (yes, I'm gay, and I live in Michigan, which has One Of Those Amendments, so this happening here as well is a very real possibility)... so what if those people get the bright idea to put themselves into professions where they have a chance to help it happen "legally"?

Basically... we all know we have the right to take a life to save our own- say, in a case where we are being assaulted by someone with a gun, and we kill them in the process of defending our own life.

Is the pharmacist, in the scenario I outlined above, threatening my life, or the life of someone similar?

If it's a medication necessary to keep me alive.... how are they not threatening my life, especially if they decided to network together and keep lists? And with the existence of the no-fly list, well... that's only a little bit paranoid.

[savemefromdumbya]

32. I really think this country is going to get very messy

with the no fly lists, gay lists, pro choice lists obtained by Bush's NSA spying one will not be able to move let alone be treated. We are not going to stand for this!

[BattyDem]

33. So what happens if someone needs to see a specialist ...

but only one specialist in the area (in a particular field) accepts the patient's HMO ... and that specialist REFUSES to treat the patient and/or prescribe needed medication because of his/her religious beliefs? What if the patient can't travel and/or doesn't have a car or the money for a bus ticket? WHAT IF THAT PATIENT ENDS UP PERMANENTLY DAMAGED OR DIES BECAUSE OF A DOCTOR'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS???

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[iverglas]

36. that's no "what if"

http://www.catholicvote.net/about/catholics_for_choice.htm

CFFC has been tracking the effects of mergers between Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals on reproductive health services at a local level since the early 1980s. The high-quality research and analysis has received much praise and proved a valuable tool for communities facing similar consolidations, as well as for policy makers and hospital administrators.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

Lots of studies about denial of care in RC healthcare facilities, and especially the effect of consolidations/takeovers of secular facilities:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/healthcare/keypubs.asp#complying

[MountainLaurel]

38. Thank you for that info, iverglas

I read an article several years ago about the topic but wasn't sure what the current status is.

[Zhade]

34. To the idiots here who defended the pharmacists...

...thanks for encouraging the bigots, fundies, and homophobes.

This is the result.

[iverglas]

35. "That might include in-vitro fertilization ..."

Yeah, and it might include blood transfusions in hospital emergency rooms.

And it might include the medication I am on for hypertension, which comes with an insert that very clearly states that it may harm a fetus:

http://www.drugs.com/PDR/Altace_Capsules.html

When used in pregnancy during the second and third trimesters, ACE inhibitors can cause injury and even death to the developing fetus. When pregnancy is detected, ALTACE should be discontinued as soon as possible.

I have no idea how an ethical pharmacist could possibly dispense this to any woman of child-bearing age without first administering a pregnancy test.

Of course, with that drug, the problem comes when a woman is actually pregnant. With the drugs the fascist pharmacists object to dispensing, the woman is not pregnant when it is dispensed. Odd.

Pharmacists are members of self-governing professions -- occupations which the state (i.e. the public) permits to police itself in the public interest. Anyone who feels incapable of behaving in a manner that is in the public interest in respect of something that is none of his/her business and causes no hardship to him/her (nobody expects professionals to provide services for free, e.g.) should pick up a community college course guide and find another line of work. Period.

Well, not quite period. Any professional who behaves in this manner should be ousted from the profession if s/he hasn't the decency to leave voluntarily.

[UncleSepp]

37. Transgendered care... people will die because of this

Way before even this, most insurance policies did not cover transgendered care - specifically meaning hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery expenses. It wasn't and still isn't unheard of for a transgendered person to be unable to get care for anything.

http://www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/tlchealth.htm

"Health care providers often have refused to treat transgender people, solely because they are transgender. For instance, Robert Eads, a female to male transperson who developed ovarian cancer, was denied treatment by over twenty doctors who did not approve of him and his trans body. He eventually died, untreated.<5> Transgender people have also died because emergency response teams have stopped treatment when they realized that the person they were treating did not have the genitals that they expected or have entirely refused treatment because of the gender androgyny of their patient."

Transgendered people have been suffering and dying because of socially and legally acceptable bigotry much like what is advocated in this bill. When it becomes acceptable to deny lifesaving care to a patient based on the bigotry of the provider, care will be denied, and people will die. It really will be that bad.

[Zhade]

43. Agreed.

It's fucklng shameful!

[Miss Chybil]

39. If they can't do the job, they need to find another. nt

[Zenlitened]

40. Let's make it a federal bill, call it The "I Don't Like Your Kind" Act

That way it's all wide open, no one has to live up to any sort of professional responsibility, and everyone knows it's a roll of the dice as to whether they'll get treated, seen, served, etc.

And we can play some audio of a giant flushing sound when the "president" signs it -- signifying America going right down the toilet as the fundie moralizers cheer and congratulate each other.

:grr:

[Crowdance]

41. Pat Robertson shows up in my emergency room, having a heart attack

and, according to my religion, he is a very harmful person. And I decide, "Well, truly, the world would be much better off without him. I think this is the Goddess' doing. I think the Goddess is seeking to restore balance and justice in the world. I should just let him pass....."

So, everyone's "beliefs" are to be considered in the decision to provide medical care? I reckon we're going to need credentialed hospitals, pharmacies and clinics for every belief imaginable.

[JerseygirlCT]

42. It seems one way to attack this

is at the professional level.

The AMA should throw out any physician not providing care. Ditto to any pharmacist's organizations.

How can you be a care-provider, but deny someone medical attention?

This is nuts.

[ForPeace]

44. Let's try it in the military first

If someone in the military objects to killing innocents should they be allowed to claim that it is against their religious values? If the decision on that one becomes the precedent there'll be no more of this nonsense.

[HuffleClaw]

46. more slippery slope

and this has NOTHING to do with some bogus claim of 'religious freedom', it is about control and a lateral attempt to outlaw abortion. i doubt it would survive a court challenge. or at least i HOPE it wouldn't, but with alito now installed...

[WinkyDink]

47. They want money from the govt, not patients.

I was a teacher. Sure wish I could've refused to teach certain students!

[Horse with no Name]

50. As a nurse

I find this appalling.
However, be careful what you wish for.
I work in a very red state.
I may decide not to treat Republicans.

[radfringe]

51. I don't recall

ever reading anything about Jesus requiring a life history, political affiliation or "vetting" anyone before he would heal them...

Question: if I were in the medical field - could I refuse to treat someone or fill a prescription if I fell their "brand" of christianity is repugnant?

What if I'm driving down the road and there's an accident ahead. No one else is around. The vehicle has a "christian" bumpersticker and a few other stickers which I find offensive - do I have to stop and help, could I just refuse to even call 911?

There's an ongoing conflict with neighbors of mine - they often spew racial/ethnic slurs very loudly. I find this offensive. If their home was on fire - or some other emergency occurs - could I just walk away and refuse to help?

[WernhamHogg]

56. I wonder what would happen if

Ever since I first heard of these asinine bills to "protect" health care workers, I have wondered what would happen to a pharmacist who was also a Christian Scientist...

Hypothetically, wouldn't this Christian Scientist/pharmacist be allowed to refuse to fill ALL prescriptions and not face any kind of consequences because of these laws? Or would these new laws only apply to "accepted"/"established" religions (meaning the Dobson/Robertson/Fawell brands of "Christianity")???

[ed murrow]

57. Providing Less Healthcare

I don't understand how these groups focus on excluding more and more people from basic inclusion in our society. They are talking about ways to take away healthcare from people when we need to be talking about how to include more people.

It is insane. This is a fundamental question of whether we can let religious organizations be a primary medical provider in America. What if they refuse to treat anyone they disagree with: not straight...sorry, you have AIDS...sorry, you are not a Christian...sorry, not a Catholic...sorry

Not to mention no one in Congress seems to hold these non-profit faith based hospitals accountable. A couple of months ago several studies came out that revealed these hospitals had been overcharging uninsured patients and almost no one noticed.

In California it was big news
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/12881346.htm

[maxrandb]

62. Oh! I Just Thought of Something

How about a bill that exempts Public School teachers from teaching the children of wing-nut, mouth breathing, republican, neo-con, hate-mongering biggots???

They hate the Public Schools anyway, let them home-school, or pay massive sums for day-care.

Why don't we think of even more ways to divide our country???

This is when we need to fight with our pocketbooks. Used to be shame in discrimination, now it's the "in" thing to do. Don't like what someone does, let 'em die on the street. The only way to stop this crap is to take our money and I mean all or our money elsewhere.

[ekelly]

65. Of course they have the right not to treat!

It's called Quitting Your Job!