Well friends, it has been a good run the last few years. The fight to be the most intolerant state in the US has really been heating up. Sure, Texas has always been a perennial front runner, but Colorado recently pulled up to number 1 after US Rep Musgrave (r) suggested we change the constitution to have gay specific language. Just recently, though, Michigan passed a bill that said doctors do not have to provide services if it conflicts with their religious philosophy. Read this, and tell me if your next thought isn't 'what the fuck?'
The bill would allow health care workers, facilities and insurers to refuse to perform a procedure, fill a prescription or cover treatment they object to for moral, ethical or religious reasons
Here, I crib the rest of my rant from a memo to my mentor Roy-
Roy, have you seen this little gem? In Michigan a doctor could say such fun things as:
I won't treat you for a bullet wound Rev Lono because my chart says you are an atheist. I won't fill that birth control prescription for you Mrs. Lono because my chart says you are married... so you don't need birth control. I can't treat you for A.I.D.S., because it means you're probably gay and that is against my religion.
Now, though these are extreme examples... this is the direction our country will go with a new Bush term. I just can't believe I haven't titled this whole piece 'what the fuck'. Listen you guys, I don't ever swear here. Well, once on the scientologist piece... but let's see you get through 500 words on scietologists without uttering the 'F' bomb. You know what, I even understand what the argument would be that supports this. If you were smart and clever like me... that argument would mention Thoreau and civil disobedience and being moral being more important that 'laws'. Yes, and if you were great like me, your argument would also say something about Hitler and how what he did was technically legal... but if good Christians were empowered bla bla bla and then something about 'only following orders'. Guess what though, you'd still be SO very wrong. I don't even wanna hear it. I am freaked out and terribly offended by the whole concept of this law. Wanna know something ironic? I am not only a true atheist... but I am a legally ordained minister. By Michigan law that means I can refuse myself my own services. Wow, this is going to put a mondo ding in my masturbation schedule, because it is an immoral service I provide myself.
Article comments
1 - RJ Elliott
I'm pretty sure the intent of this bill was to ensure that doctors who are morally opposed to such procedures as late-term abortions (where the mother's health is not in danger), and other such controvesrial practices would not be legally bound to do so. Sounds like a good idea to me. I would hate being legally-coerced into doing something I was morally opposed to. (Think: Conscientious Objectors)
However, this law could be misapplied if it is too broadly-worded. But I'm sure the courts will knock it down if the wording isn't fairly narrow.
2 - Lono
To be fair, I agree 100%. However, we already have a very conserative leaning supreme court (remember they stopped ballot counting to proclaim Bush president). Also, it is likely at least 1 of the 2 democrats on the Supreme Court may retire in the next few years. If that happens, and Bush is re-elected... one can only imagine the full scale back of all rights that will begin with the reversal of Roe v Wade and end with... god knows what
3 - bhw
Why should an insurance company be able to discriminate on the procedures it covers on *moral* reasons, rather than medical ones? It's taking the decision for a medical procedure out of the patient and doctor's hands and once again, giving it to the insurance companies.
Also, doctors don't HAVE to perform procedures that they don't agree with. They can avoid them by referring a patient to another doctor, or the doctor can choose another medical specialty or another field altogether.
On any other subject relating to workers' rights, the Right would be against a "protectionist" law. They'd say to choose another job if you didn't like what comes with the territory.
On this thinly veiled attack on the abortion rights of patients, another story, right? Once again, rights are created for companies [did the Constitution and Bill of Rights mention companies?] and taken away from individiuals.
4 - Dawn Real
Wake up people! This bill is backed to the hilt by the conservative Catholic hierarchy in Michigan and is SO aimed at gay lesbian trans folks. Read the Michigan news coverage. This is about homophobia, not abortion.
5 - Mac Diva
I can see such legislation having numerous discriminatory applications, Dawn. Not that it is going anywhere. Has 'I violate the Equal Protection Clause' written all over it in not so invisible ink.
The extremely rare incidence of late term abortion has become grounds for various kinds of mischief, including the laws that treat fetuses harmed during assaults or homicides as separate persons.
6 - RJ Elliott
I REALLY don't want to get into an abortion debate here, but I think it is only fair that a "fetus" is considered a human being, at least in the third trimester.
If a pregant woman (in her seventh or eighth month) is punched in the stomach by an attacker and loses the child, this is pretty obviously a homicide. The "fetus" could have survived outside the womb in this example, so it was rather more than a glob of undifferentiated cells at this stage...
And It ain't only anti-abortion folks who agree with me, either...