[mickey100]

Originally Posted by MandoMan

Thank you for providing the link to the bill. Has this actually been passed and signed, or is it merely submitted but unlikely to be passed? Remember the Colorado case about the person who didn’t want to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple? According to Wikipedia, “In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips's rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.” A related case heard last year by the Supreme Court may provide more light on this when the ruling is released. I tend to think that if a business decides it doesn’t want certain kinds of customers, it should be allowed to do so, understanding that this may lead to a loss of many clients, protests, etc. Let people decide how deeply into their wallets their conscience can creep. Let people buy their wedding cakes elsewhere. But when it comes to medical care of any sort, there are reasons for allowing conscience to dictate what people will do, but reasons why this is a problematic route. Should a pharmacy be allowed to not carry the morning after pill or an early-pregnancy abortifacient? Perhaps, and let customers go elsewhere. But should the state be allowed to forbid customers from receiving the drug from an out-of-state pharmacy? NO! Should a pharmacist be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions? Well, actually, they do refuse if a prescription is at odds with other medications a patient is taking or is in error. But for conscience? I don’t know. It’s a problem.

Here is part of what the bill says:

“ 66 (b) “Conscience-based objection” means an objection based
67 on a sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical belief.
68 Conscience with respect to entities is determined by reference
69 to the entities’ governing documents; any published ethical,
70 moral, or religious guidelines or directives; mission
71 statements; constitutions; articles of incorporation; bylaws;
72 policies; or regulations.”

Should a doctor be allowed to refuse to provide an abortion? Of course! Should a surgeon be able to refuse to perform sex-change operations? Of course! Should a scrub nurse be allowed to refuse to scrub on such surgeries? The bill seems to allow that. That could lead to scheduling difficulties for the O.R. Supervisor, but I suppose hospitals would try to accommodate the employee’s beliefs if possible.

However, this reminds me of Germany in the early 1930s, when it became legal for doctors to refuse to accept Jewish patients. The next step was to prohibit “German doctors” from seeing Jewish doctors, then Jewish doctors were required to advertise themselves as “Jewish Doctors” and see only Jewish patients. We know where this ugly scenario led. So, what happens if a medical provider of any sort has a moral objection, say, to treating criminals, and considers illegal aliens as criminals? Or vagrants? Or ex-cons? Or drug-abusers. What if some some nurse takes the apostle Paul’s statement “Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers” seriously and refuses to work with or treat non-believers? Such as Jews, or Muslims, or Hindus, or Atheists. I have a deeply-Blue friend here who excludes as friends or members of book clubs, etc., Red supporters. What if we have a Blue ambulance driver who looks up people online according to their voting record (easily done) and refuses to pick up Red people in need of help? He does it because his conscience tells him Reds are wrong. Wouldn’t the law allow him to do that and forbid his employer from firing him because of his deeply-held beliefs? I know, it sounds extreme, but laws need to consider the extremes and rule them out.

The bill worries me. I can see why the legislature could argue that it is simply safeguarding the freedom to refuse to do what people consider wrong, but it seems there is a motive, an agenda, behind the bill that is dangerous and could easily end up stripping citizens of important freedoms and access to medical care.

The bill was signed into last week. .Senate bill 1580.