Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays. Are you fucking kidding me? No, seriously, are you kidding me?
The bill wouldn’t apply in emergency medical situations, but still, this is disgusting. Just plain disgusting, and the members of the Michigan Catholic Conference should be ashamed of themselves. “Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching,” according to Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference. If we’ve come to a point where religion trumps human health, for fuck’s sake, then we’re already back in the Dark Ages.
Between this and Virginia’s latest law suggesting that contractual agreements (like powers of attorney, wills, custody agreements) between two members of the same sex may be illegal, I no longer need the so-called Christians to tell me I’m going to Hell. I’m pretty sure that we’re already living there.
I have been trying to find confirmation of this story in another news source other 365, but have been unable to do so. Have you seen this anywhere else?
I can only find posts, like yours, referencing 365.
Yeah, I’m looking for the same thing.
The only place I saw it was on 365.
365 will not win a Pulitzer for reporting this story.
In the Detroit Free Press, the authors of “Conscience Clause” bills stated they were not targeting gays. They were focusing on medical procedures related to the abortifactant RU-486 and to stem cell research.
The article also points out that the Michigan civil rights law excludes discrimination based on sexual orientation.
As both 365 and the DFP report, Michigan’s only gay legislator seems correct in saying that the bills could be potentially be applied to gays. The bills are sufficiently vague that health care providers and institutions could theoretically object to treating gays whereas they could not refuse to treat people based on race or religion. (Note: the DFP reports the Michigan Medical Society opposes this legislation.)
In my ignorant view:
1. The gay legislator and Michigan’s gay advocacy group, the Triangle Foundation, seem to be using these bills to show the problems associated with the state not having sexual orientation antidiscrimination legislation. One year ago on May 8, 2003, a bill was introduced into the Michigan House to amend the state’s Elliot-Larson Civil Rights Act. The bill still has not come up for a vote.
2. The Michigan legislature — as well as the MCC’s lobbying — seem to be related to a March 2004 California Supreme Court case in which the justices stated a church-based charitable organization had to provide birth control coverage to its employees. The church-affliated charity stated such action is contrary to their religious beliefs. The Michigan bills seem to be an effort to preempt the Michigan judiciary from making similar decisions.
3. Before these bills go to the governor, the Michigan legislature will alter the language.
I cherish reading your viewpoints, Tin Man, and I love your writings. With trepidation, I respectfully say … While the MCC can be faulted for their policies related to gays, they are not responsible for this legislation. MCC is a political lobby. They did not pass the legislative bill. The Michigan legislators did. The elected representatives in the Michigan House are the ones who should be ashamed for not doing their jobs and researching the implications of this bill. And, the Michigan legislature should be ashamed for not including sexual orientation in its civil rights law.
But then so should 46 other state legislatures since only four states — California, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Rhode Island — have sexual orientation antidiscrimination legislation.
respectfully yours —
Pingback: elf-reflection :: living in changeling times
Pingback: elf-reflection :: living in changeling times