Religious wrongs

January 30, 2006

Oy. This Washington Post article details some of the pending legislation (36 bills in 18 states) that would allow care providers, and in light of this article I use that term very loosely, to refuse to provide care to someone because of their religious beliefs.

For example, say that you, like me, are gay. Say it out loud, you’ll feel better. Okay, now imagine that you’ve just been beat up by one person because you’re gay, which offended them (or maybe it was your shoes) and you appear in a waiting room bleeding all over your new Dior shirt and when a doctor appears, and you tell him forlornly and probably hoping for a little sympathy, that you were gay bashed and, golly, how about a few stitches?

Under pending legislation, he can refuse to do so. Because you’re gay. Or because you want birth control. Or seek AIDS prevention. Or for any number of reasons that this particular doctor finds “morally repugnant,” they can legally refuse to help you. At least five of the pending bills reach even further, allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for services they deem objectionable based on religious reasons.

Of course, the gay thing is far-featched. For now. The real threat would be to those seeking abortions or morning after pills, and those requesting to have feeding tubes removed or wishing to have some control over the quality of their life — or death.

And another step backwards we go!

“

”

Steve added:

Uunngghhh how useless, doesn’t this contradict the… Essence of… Care? Should care giving be biased? What kind of little shit initiates this sort of concept to begin with? I want to FIGHT, I wish I was optimus prime kicking some government ass. Don’t become a care giver if you might have to do something against your will, bitches!

Posted on January 30, 2006 7:38 PM

“

”

Gord Fynes added:

As a Canadian, I used to be able to watch what was going on in the US with the current administration and just shake my head. Roe v Wade II is coming soon, now that Alito has been confirmed. It’ll just be a matter of time before women’s right to vote is “re-considered”. To top it off, I read earlier this week (via Mr. Ford’s Harper’s weekly e-mail update) that: “it was reported that one quarter of the Bush Administration’s $15 billion in AIDS-fighting money had been given to religious groups”. Again, here in “socialist” Canada, I used to just shake my head and say “America, America…” Of course, we now have a Conservative government (patooh) that looks at George with that “hey there, big brother” (pun intended) type of appeal. It’s only a matter of time before we’re all kvetching about the same goings-on in our respective homelands. Fuuuck!

Posted on February 1, 2006 3:28 AM

“

”

Alexis Allen added:

Roe v. Wade II doesn’t need to happen and wont happen, because the pro-life lobbies have been chipping away at the ability for clinics and doctors to do their jobs with zero controversy. Why escalate when you can get the job done quietly?

I don’t know how I feel about the idea that a doctor is required to treat someone under any circumstances. One a gut level, of course I think they should because it’d be nice if they did. But as a matter of principle, do we want to get into the business of legally compelling people to do something they don’t wish to do? Slippery slope, is all I’m saying.

Posted on February 7, 2006 1:56 PM

“

”

Rainbow added:

We are not “free” anymore. That stopped years ago.

Posted on February 11, 2006 8:18 AM