Ohio to Allow Doctors to Refuse to Treat LGBTQ+ Over Religious Beliefs

[conehead433]

"Ohio will now allow medical providers to refuse treatment that violates their religious beliefs after conservatives snuck language into the state budget at the last minute. While supporters say the provision does not permit discrimination against marginalized populations, advocates believe that it will prevent LGBTQ+ people from receiving treatment for their particular health needs.
On Thursday, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine approved language in the 2022-2023 budget permitting doctors, nurses, and other health practitioners to “decline to perform, participate in, or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner’s, institution’s, or payer’s conscience."
So as far as I'm concerned if a doctor refuse to treat anyone for any reason they should quit their job. Providing medical care is not baking cakes, and by denying treatment they would be violating the Hippocratic Oath. This was signed into law by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. What Republicans in this country are doing with laws against LGBTQ as well as minority voters, among other things is appalling. I would hope this gets shot down in court as unconstitutional but who knows these days.
https://www.them.us/story/ohio-allo...hematic_spotlight&utm_term=Thematic_Spotlight

 

[brycejones]

Brave culture warriors. So brave they sneak it in at the last second instead of openly debating it.

 

[ivwshane]

How is this constitutional? If non religious organizations cannot discriminate and now religious organizations can, that's a law that is respecting religion. Clearly a first amendment violation.

Why does the GOP hate the constitution so much?

 

[brycejones]

How is this constitutional? If non religious organizations cannot discriminate and now religious organizations can, that's a law that is respecting religion. Clearly a first amendment violation.

Why does the GOP hate the constitution so much?

Unfortunately I have a feeling this falls into the same category as the laws that allow pharmacists to refuse to provide certain medications if they believe it violates their religious beliefs. I'm not aware of any of these laws being struck down by Federal courts.

 

[fskimospy]

How is this constitutional? If non religious organizations cannot discriminate and now religious organizations can, that's a law that is respecting religion. Clearly a first amendment violation.

Why does the GOP hate the constitution so much?

The same way all the rest of it is ‘constitutional’. Basically if you say it’s for religious reasons you can pick and choose what laws and regulations you want to follow. All this is doing is enshrining in state law what SCOTUS already did.

 

[solidsnake1298]

Why does the GOP hate the constitution so much?

They ignore it when it inconveniences their agenda then, almost in the same breath, praise it when it is convenient (2nd amendment, sometimes 1st).

 

[fskimospy]

It really is this simple:

Scenario 1: ‘I’m not serving this person.’ - you will be subject to the full force of the law and all penalties that come with it.

Scenario 2: ‘A magical person only I can hear said not to serve this person’ - you’re fine!

 

[ivwshane]

The same way all the rest of it is ‘constitutional’. Basically if you say it’s for religious reasons you can pick and choose what laws and regulations you want to follow. All this is doing is enshrining in state law what SCOTUS already did.

Is my logic correct though? Obviously the supreme federalist society court has ruled against that logic but they also ruled that laws that protect people from voter discrimination laws aren't necessary anymore because they worked, its also the same court that broke precedent and ruled the 2nd as an individual right. My point being is that just because that's how they ruled doesn't mean their logic is sound.

 

[MrSquished]

We should just start a religion that thinks Trumpies are the devil's spawn. Register it, make it tax exempt, etc.... Then we could reciprocate.

 

[fskimospy]

Is my logic correct though? Obviously the supreme federalist society court has ruled against that logic but they also ruled that laws that protect people from voter discrimination laws aren't necessary anymore because they worked, its also the same court that broke precedent and ruled the 2nd as an individual right. My point being is that just because that's how they ruled doesn't mean their logic is sound.

I mean in the same term arch federalist Scalia alone argued that:

1) It violates separation of powers for SCOTUS to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because those judgments are for Congress to make, not SCOTUS.
2) SCOTUS must strike down the Voting Rights Act because Congress cannot be trusted to make these judgments.

So no, their logic isn't sound but also they don't care.

 

[Moonbeam]

Damn, I wish my religious beliefs ran along the lines conservatives need shooting. Unfortunately, I can't see anything about such a belief being religious in any way. I guess refusing to treat certain kinds of people does because it's what Jesus would do.

Sadly when such people were Baptized they weren't held long enough under the water.

 

[Sunburn74]

Doctors can already refuse treatment based on religious beliefs. This has been standard of care for a long time. They however have an obligation to refer the patient to another provider who will offer the service needed. This has been the standard of care for along time and it mostly involves abortion. Pretty much no where else has it ever come into play.

However, this is particularly narrow in how it targets the LGBTQ community so precisely. In addition, there are communities where there aren't enough doctors and referrals to another physician might mean driving 5 or 6 hours. However, I think the likelihood of anyone actually being refused care because they are gay is next to zero because doctors don't really do that sort of thing. Doctors take care of drug addicts, criminals, liars, thieves, adulterers, and hide their secrets as well and have been doing so for decades without issue. Even the most ardently religious doctor or nurse still takes care of LGBTQ patients without blinking an eye.

Honestly, it reeks and probably will get shot down under sex discrimination laws I think because at the heart of the issue that's what it is: a doctor refusing to take care of a patient for doing something someone of the opposite sex can do.

 

[mect]

We should just start a religion that thinks Trumpies are the devil's spawn. Register it, make it tax exempt, etc.... Then we could reciprocate.

I mean, based on the basic teachings of Christ, one could contend Christianity would fit the bill.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Wouldn’t/doesn’t the Hippocratic Oath and the Doctors Society which I forgot the name of prevent this?

 

[HomerJS]

We need to require people show exactly their religion via text where it forbids them to treat or serve someone else.

If I recall didn't Jesus talk to prostitutes?

 

[brycejones]

We need to require people show exactly their religion via text where it forbids them to treat or serve someone else.

If I recall didn't Jesus talk to prostitutes?

Sorry that was liberal commie Jesus. Republican Jesus fucked the shit out of them and then kicked them to the curb.

 

[outriding]

Wouldn’t/doesn’t the Hippocratic Oath and the Doctors Society which I forgot the name of prevent this?

I was thinking the same thing. But it does not have punishment from what I read if you violate it.

But it seem to open the doors if not followed for malpractice

 

[Fanatical Meat]

We need to require people show exactly their religion via text where it forbids them to treat or serve someone else.

If I recall didn't Jesus talk to prostitutes?

More or less yes.
There is the whole foot washing thing which fun fact in early Europe that was a subservient thing to do as in someone of low class would wash the Kings feet but there was some respect in being the person to have the kings trust.
I have also hear foot was old Hebrew slang for penis hair was slang for vag.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Again I just don’t see how medical ethics would allow this practice.
I totally understand if a Dr chooses not to do abortions or sex reassignment or whatever specific non emergency thing. I fail to see how any Dr could be consistent with ethics regarding emergency treatment.

 

[outriding]

Seems about right

 

[MrSquished]

A majority of the GQP and its supporters are straight up evil human beings.

 

[ch33zw1z]

GOP is scared, shocker.

 

[interchange]

I'm not sure this law would absolve someone from malpractice claims surrounding patient abandonment where applicable. Additionally, it could be countered in part by board certification requirements, hospital privilege requirements, insurance panel requirements, etc., although I'm not really sure how easily they would be enforceable.

Separately, there are situations where as a physician you really are not equipped to treat a patient on a more personal level, though they aren't very common in most practice settings. Of course, you could only be liable for patient abandonment if you've established a treatment relationship with them. This becomes a more practical problem in emergency and hospital settings as well as areas where access to treatment is low esp. for subspecialty care.

 

[hal2kilo]

"Ohio will now allow medical providers to refuse treatment that violates their religious beliefs after conservatives snuck language into the state budget at the last minute. While supporters say the provision does not permit discrimination against marginalized populations, advocates believe that it will prevent LGBTQ+ people from receiving treatment for their particular health needs.
On Thursday, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine approved language in the 2022-2023 budget permitting doctors, nurses, and other health practitioners to “decline to perform, participate in, or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner’s, institution’s, or payer’s conscience."
So as far as I'm concerned if a doctor refuse to treat anyone for any reason they should quit their job. Providing medical care is not baking cakes, and by denying treatment they would be violating the Hippocratic Oath. This was signed into law by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. What Republicans in this country are doing with laws against LGBTQ as well as minority voters, among other things is appalling. I would hope this gets shot down in court as unconstitutional but who knows these days.
https://www.them.us/story/ohio-allo...hematic_spotlight&utm_term=Thematic_Spotlight

So much for the Hippocratic oath.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This is what Jesus would do.