Doctors Cannot Withold Care Based on Religious Belief

[db]

I was thinking the same thing. So much hate.

Politics aside, you should see a professional about that.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: db
To get back on topic for a moment:

"Doctors Cannot Withold Care Based on Religious Belief"

Is a pretty smart decision, b/c if we continue the religious refusal line of
reasoning, pretty soon a cashier can refuse to sell you that porno mag
b/c it's against their religion, same thing with selling you rubbers, a
Harry Potter book (witchcraft!), etc etc.

Should it be ok for a photo developer tell a client that they will not develop photographs if they pornographic, because they find it morally offensive?

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: db
To get back on topic for a moment:

"Doctors Cannot Withold Care Based on Religious Belief"

Is a pretty smart decision, b/c if we continue the religious refusal line of
reasoning, pretty soon a cashier can refuse to sell you that porno mag
b/c it's against their religion, same thing with selling you rubbers, a
Harry Potter book (witchcraft!), etc etc.

Should it be ok for a photo developer tell a client that they will not develop photographs if they pornographic, because they find it morally offensive?

Depends, its ok only if the customer is straight white

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Another warped decision from a warped court in a warped location. Forcing docs to make turkey baster babies for the identity disorderd. This would never holg up in highger court thats half normal. In the meantime its another step closer to waking people up to the insanity thats afoot. Go creepy Cali court : )

you listen to a lot of radio, right?

I'm guessing you haven't stepped more than 10 miles from an Iowa corn field your entire life.

That's an insult to the great state of Iowa. Try West Virginia. 😉

no, no, no. Them West Virginians are too busy in-breeding to even care about corn. 😉

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I see this case making its way to the USSC over the next decade.

Indeed, only a creepy court in Cali could force people to inseminate lesbians with a turkey baster. Rather sick on the face of it.

You know they artificially inseminated her the same way they artificially inseminate straight women, right? Do you find that 'rather sick on the face of it'?

Butterbean, I'm just wondering what you think about this. Did you know that right now... right this minute... hundreds of thousands of gay people around the world are having fabulous gay sex as I type this? That they're raising kids, they're having families, and above all else... the straight people are starting to love them for it. All your future holds is more and more fags having more and more i love you sex, raising more and more children, and having more and more people approve of it. It's only going to get worse from here for you. This thought makes me happy.


(or better I guess... a lot of people with your degree of homophobia are just repressed homosexuals. don't hate yourself!)

Actually the number of homosexuals is not as large the media (homosexual controlled) pre-occupation can make it seem. I wouldn't know about fabulous gay sex is anymore than I would know about fabulous coprophilia or fabulous klismaphilia. My future hold less homosexuals because they are already breeding the new diseases due to their often compulsive unhygenic lifestyle. Unfortunately they will cause innocent people to get sick too - but therre is nothing new about that. Clock is ticking...

"With every turn, the aggressive and persistent bug keeps getting worse.

Now, a new variant of that strain, resistant to six major kinds of antibiotics, is spreading among gay men in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles...

If USA300 were to acquire vancomycin resistance from VRE, the result would be a virulent new form of staph, which would spread readily outside the medical setting and be nearly impossible to treat.

Perdreau-Remington believes there's an urgent need for new drugs to combat such a monster.

"This is the horror scenario," she said. "We have very little time left."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...08/01/15/MNUKUDB6D.DTL

Jesus


Christ.

 

[Moonbeam]

Atreus: He's almost like the anti-Moonbeam.

I rather agree. It's like I was born straight in a relatively permissive society and he was born gay in a concentration camp of gay haters. The issue is huge with him and nonexistent with me. It's so sad. What a waste of emotional energy.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern
Those here thinking that the intent behind governments issuing medical or other licenses for the benefit of the physician (or other professional) are wrong.

States step in and regulate this area for the benefit of their citizens, not the doctor. The state(s) want certain standards met for the protection of the patients, it's not a benefit for the doctor. And it costs the doctors a fair amount of money to comply with and support this government regulation.

You people have it backwards.

/narrows eyes accusingly: What do you mean "you people"?

Originally posted by: Fern
Let me ask, if a person seeking this service were to look up fertility clinics directory and saw one that espoused Christian (or some other) values, are they allowed to dismiss them from consideration on that basis? The answer, of course, is yes. So the person seeking the treatment may discriminate on some basis refused to the service provider themselves? How can that disparity be reconciled?

A black person can choose not to go to a restaurant if the owner is known to donate to the KKK. Yet the owner cannot deny a person admission to his restaurant because that person is black. The customer can choose whether or not to patronzie the restaurant because of racial issues, the restaurant gets no such choice on a racial basis. This disparity doesn't need reconciliation.

 

[Moonbeam]

"States step in and regulate this area for the benefit of their citizens, not the doctor. The state(s) want certain standards met for the protection of the patients, it's not a benefit for the doctor. And it costs the doctors a fair amount of money to comply with and support this government regulation.

You people have it backwards."

My ass. The supply of doctors is intentionally limited by the doctor community to keep there from being too much competition. If thinking citizens had any say in the matter medical school would be free for anybody who wanted to go. The whole world is upside down and run by greed.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"States step in and regulate this area for the benefit of their citizens, not the doctor. The state(s) want certain standards met for the protection of the patients, it's not a benefit for the doctor. And it costs the doctors a fair amount of money to comply with and support this government regulation.

You people have it backwards."

My ass. The supply of doctors is intentionally limited by the doctor community to keep there from being too much competition. If thinking citizens had any say in the matter medical school would be free for anybody who wanted to go. The whole world is upside down and run by greed.

You are confusing two different organizations.

The AMA is the one limiting physicians (and I agree with your complaint about that).

The state issues licenses. The state is not the AMA. The state licenses/controls doctors and other professions and industry for the protection of it's citizens.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"States step in and regulate this area for the benefit of their citizens, not the doctor. The state(s) want certain standards met for the protection of the patients, it's not a benefit for the doctor. And it costs the doctors a fair amount of money to comply with and support this government regulation.

You people have it backwards."

My ass. The supply of doctors is intentionally limited by the doctor community to keep there from being too much competition. If thinking citizens had any say in the matter medical school would be free for anybody who wanted to go. The whole world is upside down and run by greed.

You are confusing two different organizations.

The AMA is the one limiting physicians (and I agree with your complaint about that).

The state issues licenses. The state is not the AMA. The state licenses/controls doctors and other professions and industry for the protection of it's citizens.

Fern

Well maybe. bamacre has gotten me so mad at the state maybe I just can't see straight.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: Citrix
YEAaaaaa! more freedoms squashed by our courts! YIPPEEEEE lets all celebrate

Yup. Let's cram our beliefs down someone else's throat. Operation mind control. Where's the ACLU? Seriously...

Uh, no. If you believe that black people are dirty scum and shouldn't eat in your restaurant, but the gov't says you can't do that, are they "cramming" other people's beliefs down your throat?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: Citrix
YEAaaaaa! more freedoms squashed by our courts! YIPPEEEEE lets all celebrate

Yup. Let's cram our beliefs down someone else's throat. Operation mind control. Where's the ACLU? Seriously...

Uh, no. If you believe that black people are dirty scum and shouldn't eat in your restaurant, but the gov't says you can't do that, are they "cramming" other people's beliefs down your throat?

Forcing someone to do something that they don't want too, I'd say that is 'cramming.'

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: Citrix
YEAaaaaa! more freedoms squashed by our courts! YIPPEEEEE lets all celebrate

Yup. Let's cram our beliefs down someone else's throat. Operation mind control. Where's the ACLU? Seriously...

Uh, no. If you believe that black people are dirty scum and shouldn't eat in your restaurant, but the gov't says you can't do that, are they "cramming" other people's beliefs down your throat?

Forcing someone to do something that they don't want too, I'd say that is 'cramming.'

So our constitution and the judges in this land for the last 50 or so yrs are "controling" our minds. I see.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: Citrix
YEAaaaaa! more freedoms squashed by our courts! YIPPEEEEE lets all celebrate

Yup. Let's cram our beliefs down someone else's throat. Operation mind control. Where's the ACLU? Seriously...

Uh, no. If you believe that black people are dirty scum and shouldn't eat in your restaurant, but the gov't says you can't do that, are they "cramming" other people's beliefs down your throat?

Forcing someone to do something that they don't want too, I'd say that is 'cramming.'

So our constitution and the judges in this land for the last 50 or so yrs are "controling" our minds. I see.

Really? the courts practice mind control? I did not know this.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: Citrix
YEAaaaaa! more freedoms squashed by our courts! YIPPEEEEE lets all celebrate

Yup. Let's cram our beliefs down someone else's throat. Operation mind control. Where's the ACLU? Seriously...

Uh, no. If you believe that black people are dirty scum and shouldn't eat in your restaurant, but the gov't says you can't do that, are they "cramming" other people's beliefs down your throat?

Forcing someone to do something that they don't want too, I'd say that is 'cramming.'

Don't be silly, there are many things you have to do that you may not want to do if you want to live in a civilized society. Some mornings I don't feel like stopping at a red light or driving the speed limit, does that mean I should be allowed to drive any way I like?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"States step in and regulate this area for the benefit of their citizens, not the doctor. The state(s) want certain standards met for the protection of the patients, it's not a benefit for the doctor. And it costs the doctors a fair amount of money to comply with and support this government regulation.

You people have it backwards."

My ass. The supply of doctors is intentionally limited by the doctor community to keep there from being too much competition. If thinking citizens had any say in the matter medical school would be free for anybody who wanted to go. The whole world is upside down and run by greed.

You are confusing two different organizations.

The AMA is the one limiting physicians (and I agree with your complaint about that).

The state issues licenses. The state is not the AMA. The state licenses/controls doctors and other professions and industry for the protection of it's citizens.

Fern

Well maybe. bamacre has gotten me so mad at the state maybe I just can't see straight.

:thumbsup: 😎

 

[First]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Those who discriminate against homosexuals today will be looked back at 60 years from now the way we look back at guys like Strom Thurmond, who 60 years ago ran for president on a segregationist platform, the worst form of discrimination. One word; pathetic.

That interesting, but isn't this issue about a doctor not wanting to provide fertility treatment to an unmarried woman?

Absolutely, I wasn't commenting on that (and I'm not sure I really believe that excuse anyway, frankly).

I do.

I can understand why a doctor would not want to help unmarried person get pregnant and something like would come out very early in the interview process.

An unmarried 18 year old girl walks in and demands to be artificially inseminated, it should not be against the law for that doctor to say "i am uncomfortable with doing this procedure for you, here is a list of other doctors who will provide what you are requesting."

If this was a life threating issue that required immediate medical attention, then the doctor SHOULD help said person. The same way we have laws requiring people to continue CPR in till a person is declared dead, or a medical professional arrives. But something that is completely optional and arguably unnecessary.

I see this case making its way to the USSC over the next decade.

Please. The woman was 36 and couldn't get legally married even if she wanted to. The doctor's own reasoning doesn't even apply to her, the doctor knew that, but still denied treatment. And further still (and this really nails it for me), his lawyer is quoted as saying "The Supreme Court's desire to promote the homosexual lifestyle at the risk of infringing upon the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is what the public needs to learn about". His own lawyer freely admits he's against gay marriage, yet we're supposed to believe this Christian doctor wouldn't give a pass to, say, a Christian couple incapable of having children and incapable of affording a wedding in the near future? I'd bet several thousand dollars not a chance in hell that doctor wouldn't artificially inseminate under those special circumstances.

I would find it hard to believe a couple claiming to be Christian, yet advertise the fact the are not only engaged in premarital sex, but are attempting to have a child before they are married.

You can't know very many Christians then. It happens all the time.