Healthcare at Risk

[mickey100]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.

[fishon]

I’m not horrified. Sounds good to me.

[Caymus]

Move to one of the states that is losing population.

[RICH1]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.
Being Denied Health-care at The Villages Hospital May save your Life..,

[mickey100]

Being Denied Health-care at The Villages Hospital May save your Life..,

That could be true! :BigApplause:

[Boomer]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.



“Healthcare at Risk”? This hate-based horror, including misogyny, goes well beyond the potential for risk.

So life and death decisions can now be based on nothing more than the subjectivity of anyone working at any level of healthcare?

This looks to me like it grants a “License to Kill.”

Hmmm, for those who jump on this law’s bandwagon, ya know…..there could be some working in healthcare who decide it’s time for old, white people in the hospital to go see Jesus….

Think! Please think!

Boomer

[mickey100]

“Healthcare at Risk”? This hate-based horror, including misogyny, goes well beyond the potential for risk.

So life and death decisions can now be based on nothing more than the subjectivity of anyone working at any level of healthcare?

This looks to me like it grants a license to kill.

Boomer

Sadly, what you say is true. I would guess that this law will ultimately be challenged in court. Until that time, any moral person should be outraged.

[Boomer]

“Healthcare at Risk”? This hate-based horror, including misogyny, goes well beyond the potential for risk.

So life and death decisions can now be based on nothing more than the subjectivity of anyone working at any level of healthcare?

This looks to me like it grants a “License to Kill.”

Hmmm, for those who jump on this law’s bandwagon, ya know…..there could be some working in healthcare who decide it’s time for old, white people in the hospital to go see Jesus….

Think! Please think!

Boomer

Sadly, what you say is true. I would guess that this law will ultimately be challenged in court. Until that time, any moral person should be outraged.


Hi mickey100, thanks for quoting me and agreeing. You grabbed the quote though before I edited to add the last part to elaborate to try to encourage further thinking.

Boomer

[ThirdOfFive]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.
Sort of a reprise of "they're gonna throw grandmaw out into the street". "Over the top" scarcely begins to describe the multiple panic buttons being pushed in the OP.

And to what purpose? Merely as a way to justify (more or less) one's own beliefs as somehow better than the ones being castigated? We see all too much of this type of "reasoning", unfortunately.

[PugMom]

I’m not horrified. Sounds good to me.

yeah, just find another dr who doesn't have any issues with it

[PugMom]

Being Denied Health-care at The Villages Hospital May save your Life..,

:a20::a20::bowdown:

[CoachKandSportsguy]

“Healthcare at Risk”? This hate-based horror, including misogyny, goes well beyond the potential for risk.

So life and death decisions can now be based on nothing more than the subjectivity of anyone working at any level of healthcare?

This looks to me like it grants a “License to Kill.”

Hmmm, for those who jump on this law’s bandwagon, ya know…..there could be some working in healthcare who decide it’s time for old, white people in the hospital to go see Jesus….

Think! Please think!

Boomer

paging @golfingeagles
paging @golfingeagles

needed in the legal library STAT!

Slow down peeps!
CMS reimbursements for all kinds of healthcare activities is a large part of the operating revenue of most hospitals. Part of that reimbursement is the participation in all the CMS requirements and programs

Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) | CMS (https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/legislation/emtala)

EMTALA is one of them. A hospital with an emergency room and receiving medicare reimbursements, would be in violation and would risk jeopardizing their reimbursements and payments if they voluntarily turned away people for these arbitrary reasons. Most hospitals would not want to do that.

So, the effects of the little dictator are not currently clear in regards to different healthcare scenarios. Many hospital systems also have policies in place for health care workers to not work in areas which they have religious objections, such as an abortion clinic. However, a healthcare worker would not abstain from rending care in the case of the mother bleeding out afterwards. . .

So these statutes have just been past, and there will be time needed to determine if the governor is over reaching in his state's rights legislation.

advice from coachk who works with CMS, reimbursements, the state of MA and the electronic medical records system which is the basis for reporting and compliance.

and written by sportsguy

[Bjeanj]

I’m not horrified. Sounds good to me.

I am curious about your comment, and ask that you expand on it, please?

[John Mayes]

“Healthcare at Risk”? This hate-based horror, including misogyny, goes well beyond the potential for risk.

So life and death decisions can now be based on nothing more than the subjectivity of anyone working at any level of healthcare?

This looks to me like it grants a “License to Kill.”

Hmmm, for those who jump on this law’s bandwagon, ya know…..there could be some working in healthcare who decide it’s time for old, white people in the hospital to go see Jesus….

Think! Please think!

Boomer

Have you read the actual bill?

[John Mayes]

paging @golfingeagles
paging @golfingeagles

needed in the legal library STAT!

Slow down peeps!
CMS reimbursements for all kinds of healthcare activities is a large part of the operating revenue of most hospitals. Part of that reimbursement is the participation in all the CMS requirements and programs

Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) | CMS (https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/legislation/emtala)

EMTALA is one of them. A hospital with an emergency room and receiving medicare reimbursements, would be in violation and would risk jeopardizing their reimbursements and payments if they voluntarily turned away people for these arbitrary reasons. Most hospitals would not want to do that.

So, the effects of the little dictator are not currently clear in regards to different healthcare scenarios. Many hospital systems also have policies in place for health care workers to not work in areas which they have religious objections, such as an abortion clinic. However, a healthcare worker would not abstain from rending care in the case of the mother bleeding out afterwards. . .

So these statutes have just been past, and there will be time needed to determine if the governor is over reaching in his state's rights legislation.

advice from coachk who works with CMS, reimbursements, the state of MA and the electronic medical records system which is the basis for reporting and compliance.

and written by sportsguy

Have you read the actual bill?

[John Mayes]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.

Have you read the actual bill?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I’m not horrified. Sounds good to me.

So if you have a medical emergency, you're okay with the doctor saying "sorry but you offend me, my god is against [insert some feature you have, such as eye color or height] so you'll just have to leave the hospital now. You are not welcome here."

[JMintzer]

Have you read the actual bill?

Don't be silly... Of course they haven't...

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Have you read the actual bill?

Don't need to read a states' right bill to discuss the federal implications, when the feds funding is important to the survival of most hospitals.

but you I guess you didn't read nor understand the point of our post on the federal revenue implications of certain behaviors. . nor understand the complexities of the health care revenue landscape.

[JMintzer]

paging @golfingeagles
paging @golfingeagles

needed in the legal library STAT!

Slow down peeps!
CMS reimbursements for all kinds of healthcare activities is a large part of the operating revenue of most hospitals. Part of that reimbursement is the participation in all the CMS requirements and programs

Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) | CMS (https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/legislation/emtala)

EMTALA is one of them. A hospital with an emergency room and receiving medicare reimbursements, would be in violation and would risk jeopardizing their reimbursements and payments if they voluntarily turned away people for these arbitrary reasons. Most hospitals would not want to do that.

So, the effects of the little dictator are not currently clear in regards to different healthcare scenarios. Many hospital systems also have policies in place for health care workers to not work in areas which they have religious objections, such as an abortion clinic. However, a healthcare worker would not abstain from rending care in the case of the mother bleeding out afterwards. . .

So these statutes have just been past, and there will be time needed to determine if the governor is over reaching in his state's rights legislation.

advice from coachk who works with CMS, reimbursements, the state of MA and the electronic medical records system which is the basis for reporting and compliance.

and written by sportsguy

Silly facts...

[Trayderjoe]

So if you have a medical emergency, you're okay with the doctor saying "sorry but you offend me, my god is against [insert some feature you have, such as eye color or height] so you'll just have to leave the hospital now. You are not welcome here."

Yeah……not true. The bill (link (https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1580/BillText/er/HTML)) includes: “ (6)REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT.
This section may not be construed to override any requirement to provide emergency medical treatment in accordance with state law or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. s. 1395dd.”

Based upon reading this bill, it would appear to provide protection from HAVING to conduct gender altering surgery on minors for example, or HAVING to abort a fetus regardless of the period of gestation if there is a conscious based objection to those procedures.

The bill provides requirements for a health care provider’s notice and documentation of such objection; requiring health care providers to notify patients or potential patients seeking a specific health care service of any such objection BEFORE scheduling an appointment.

If the procedures are necessary due to a MEDICAL EMERGENCY, then circle back to the medical emergency requirement.

There will be those in the medical field who do not have a conscious objection and will perform such procedures since this bill does NOT BAN the procedures.

I remember a commercial when I was a kid about RIF. Remember it? RIF = Reading is Fundamental

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Yeah……not true. The bill (link (https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1580/BillText/er/HTML)) includes: “ (6)REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT.
This section may not be construed to override any requirement to provide emergency medical treatment in accordance with state law or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. s. 1395dd.”

Based upon reading this bill, it would appear to provide protection from HAVING to conduct gender altering surgery on minors for example, or HAVING to abort a fetus regardless of the period of gestation if there is a conscious based objection to those procedures.

The bill provides requirements for a health care provider’s notice and documentation of such objection; requiring health care providers to notify patients or potential patients seeking a specific health care service of any such objection BEFORE scheduling an appointment.

If the procedures are necessary due to a MEDICAL EMERGENCY, then circle back to the medical emergency requirement.

There will be those in the medical field who do not have a conscious objection and will perform such procedures since this bill does NOT BAN the procedures.

I remember a commercial when I was a kid about RIF. Remember it? RIF = Reading is Fundamental

Its always very considerate and helpful to post the actual link, especially when headlines and advertising selling MSM, whose job is to sell advertisements or page reads, and to provide an accurate summary

Thank you!

[Toymeister]

So if you have a medical emergency, you're okay with the doctor saying "sorry but you offend me, my god is against [insert some feature you have, such as eye color or height] so you'll just have to leave the hospital now. You are not welcome here."
Have you read the actual bill?

[Pairadocs]

I’m not horrified. Sounds good to me.


Agree ! Not a "political" animal in regard to one party or the other, but I am a staunch supporter of our democratic republic (not a democracy), so would hate to see that kind of forcing of people, be they Muslims, Christians, Jews, or Buddhists to do things during the performance of their professions that causes them of loose their moral base. If a pharmacist refuses to fill a birth control Rx (don't know why, perhaps they are Catholic ?) I am sure there must be other pharmacists near enough that the customer would not be put out to any extent ! If a paramedic is a Christian scientist who happens to not believe in blood transfusions, I would not loose any sleep over worrying that if I needed blood at the scene of an accident there would not be an individual who was able to perform that procedure without personal guilt. I do NOT want to live in a country where people loose their jobs, or are FORCED to perform any acts that break their sacred spiritual bond with their God, who ever they may be.

[RayMan]

“Healthcare at Risk”? This hate-based horror, including misogyny, goes well beyond the potential for risk.

So life and death decisions can now be based on nothing more than the subjectivity of anyone working at any level of healthcare?

This looks to me like it grants a “License to Kill.”

Hmmm, for those who jump on this law’s bandwagon, ya know…..there could be some working in healthcare who decide it’s time for old, white people in the hospital to go see Jesus….

Think! Please think!

Boomer

True...this works both ways... The LGBTQ community or any others denied healthcare can start doing the same to the old, white, ignorant, hateful people. Live and Let Live!!

[banjobob]

The vast majority of doctors, emt’s and nurses do not care if you are a pervert or straight their goal is to help you, your comments seem to be just to create discord. So many laws are never enforced .

[huge-pigeons]

Of course the OP didn’t read the bill. They heard an interpretation of it on fake news and wanted to promote the false news.

[Worldseries27]

don't be silly... Of course they haven't...
just like the one's who voted it into law because the party whip told them to.

[Ellwoodrick]

There is always a price for freedom. Just as you may have the freedom to post your opinion on any given topic. You do not have to agree with the persons post or opinion but we are free to do so. No one should be legislated to go against their beliefs. Compassion should trump discrimination. We are far from Utopia but it is the best system around.

[GizmoWhiskers]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.
This thread would not last long in a world of equality. It is infraction clickbait for those who love G D and it is FULL OF misinformation!! If this post is allowed to gain momentum it will solely be to increase ad algorithms n $$ for TOTV.

[Lyarham]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies , can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.
This is evil

[BlueStarAirlines]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.

Tell me you haven't read the bill without telling me you haven't read it....

[kenpoboy]

Slow down folks…..do you believe everything you read. I’m sure the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is somehow violated by this so called bill that was signed into law. Also, the hippocratic oath (taken by doctors) doesn’t allow them to pick and choose who they will treat. “Utmost respect for life” is part of the oath and this doesn’t sound like that.

[Life as I know it]

You never know, could be right around the corner because of the high medical costs refuse to threat anyone over the age of 75. So much hatred here.

[bluecenturian]

Calm down chicken little. Stop trying to instigate divisiveness. The bill says no such thing. Is still requires medical professionals to provide life saving care. It is pretty well angled at professionals refusing to be involved in abortion and gender transition care. If you are not happy here in Florida feel free to go somewhere else, I hear Sodom and Gomorrah has plenty of room. We won’t miss you or you ideas.

[GATORBILL66]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.

Sounds good to me also!

[Notsocrates]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.


It's obvious you are very upset about this. It should offer you some comfort to know that almost everything you list will not happen.

[Joe C.]

True...this works both ways... The LGBTQ community or any others denied healthcare can start doing the same to the old, white, ignorant, hateful people. Live and Let Live!!
True. But if I don't approve of what you do or approve of your lifestyle, then get off my front lawn and go play in someone else's sandbox.

[Wondering]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.
Florida, the "Freedom" State - what a joke. This is going down a slippery slope, much like Germany in the early 30's. Pathetic!

[Cobullymom]

“Healthcare at Risk”? This hate-based horror, including misogyny, goes well beyond the potential for risk.

So life and death decisions can now be based on nothing more than the subjectivity of anyone working at any level of healthcare?

This looks to me like it grants a “License to Kill.”

Hmmm, for those who jump on this law’s bandwagon, ya know…..there could be some working in healthcare who decide it’s time for old, white people in the hospital to go see Jesus….

Think! Please think!

Boomer

Oh all the fake drama, give me a break.

[petiteone]

I’m not horrified. Sounds good to me.

As a retired physician, it sounds terrifying to me.

[Cobullymom]

Oh all the fake drama, give me a break.
You mean like the nation let millions die of COVID policies because of POLITICAL reasons? Firing Doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel because they refused a fake vaccine that didn't stop or prevent COVID, when most already had antibodies and worked through the worst days!! Forced to take a fake vaccine with known side effects that were covered up? Or maybe COVID treatments that were not allowed to be used or terrible medications that were given to people regardless of deadly side effects because it was the financial gain the hospitals were incentivised for, give me a break this drama is just absolutely Oscar nomination worthy...

[Cobullymom]

Have you read the actual bill?
Oh you can bet not, just watched msnbc

[ehonour]

TOTV clearly says at the top of each page:
NO POLITICAL REFERENCES ARE ALLOWED ON THE WEBSITE.

Would an admin please remove this post? Thank you.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

The following scenario is a futuristic scenario for debate purposes, the future is uncertain and this scenario may or may not play out in the future:

So, lets think about the execution implications of how the future might play out:

*Non emergency doctors have an option. .
OK, seems reasonable . .
*The assumption behind the bill is that there will always be someone willing to perform the desired service.
OK, maybe BUT if there is now only a LIMITED number of doctors performing the services, the price might rise, giving access ONLY to more affluent folks or the line could get very long for the service. .
OK, maybe, and then the only services available to you are ethnic services?

Since many objections are faith or religious based, will the questionable services become ethnic/religious only services? Will the ethnic services be of the same quality as the non discriminatory services? I have a florida colleague from south america, who doesn't trust any south florida hispanic/south american doctors, for their affinity to fraud.

I am not advocating any outcome, but thinking about future outcomes, could these outcomes or similar outcomes be the result? and is this the outcome you would like to see for grandchildren, and your great grandchildren?

[mickey100]

Slow down folks…..do you believe everything you read. I’m sure the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is somehow violated by this so called bill that was signed into law. Also, the hippocratic oath (taken by doctors) doesn’t allow them to pick and choose who they will treat. “Utmost respect for life” is part of the oath and this doesn’t sound like that.

The law goes beyond hospitals, doctors and their hippocratic oath. It applies to any health care providers and payors which would include nursing homes, ambulance staff, pharmacies etc.

From the actual bill: "providing that health care providers and health care payors have the right to opt out of participation in or payment for certain health care services on the basis of conscience-based objections." The bill goes on to say these providers are immune from civil liability for declining to participate. The bill also prohibits discrimination against these health care providers who decline to participate in these health services.

[Skunky1]

They only serve the blonde haired blue eyed male babies

[Cobullymom]

This is evil
Another nonreader convinced by another nonreader..

[Cobullymom]

You never know, could be right around the corner because of the high medical costs refuse to threat anyone over the age of 75. So much hatred here.
Hahahaha, this gets funnier by the post.. insert eye roll

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Based upon reading this bill, it would appear to provide protection from HAVING to conduct gender altering surgery on minors for example, or HAVING to abort a fetus regardless of the period of gestation if there is a conscious based objection to those procedures.


Abortion is already illegal in Florida after the 6th week of pregnancy. Most women don't know they're pregnant until around that time, or later. Many teenage girls who are still in the throes of puberty, are so irregular they might not realize they're pregnant until they're in their second trimester. Currently, a doctor who objects to NOT giving an abortion to a woman who is in her 2nd trimester and discovers an underlying problem that will cause her baby to be born dead, or significantly increase the risk to her own life, is not ALLOWED to provide that abortion.

The exceptions are only to rape, incest, and imminent risk of life to the mother. Meaning - she's already bleeding to death or turning blue, for example.

This is a draconian new law, that makes absolutely sure that a woman who might die giving birth to a baby who doesn't live more than a few hours, will be required to carry that baby until it can be removed by c-section. And she will have to pay the price - financially, emotionally, physically.

[golfing eagles]

The law goes beyond hospitals, doctors and their hippocratic oath. It applies to any health care providers and payors which would include nursing homes, ambulance staff, pharmacies etc.

From the actual bill: "providing that health care providers and health care payors have the right to opt out of participation in or payment for certain health care services on the basis of conscience-based objections." The bill goes on to say these providers are immune from civil liability for declining to participate. The bill also prohibits discrimination against these health care providers who decline to participate in these health services.

Yes, SO WHAT?????? Are you suggesting that a healthcare provider be required to perform a specific service despite objecting to it????? Personally, if I were a woman seeking an abortion, I would prefer to have the provider believe in the procedure, not one that has been forced into it.

[golfing eagles]

Abortion is already illegal in Florida after the 6th week of pregnancy. Most women don't know they're pregnant until around that time, or later. Many teenage girls who are still in the throes of puberty, are so irregular they might not realize they're pregnant until they're in their second trimester. Currently, a doctor who objects to NOT giving an abortion to a woman who is in her 2nd trimester and discovers an underlying problem that will cause her baby to be born dead, or significantly increase the risk to her own life, is not ALLOWED to provide that abortion.

The exceptions are only to rape, incest, and imminent risk of life to the mother. Meaning - she's already bleeding to death or turning blue, for example.

This is a draconian new law, that makes absolutely sure that a woman who might die giving birth to a baby who doesn't live more than a few hours, will be required to carry that baby until it can be removed by c-section. And she will have to pay the price - financially, emotionally, physically.

Absolutely! 6 weeks is a ridiculous time frame. We both know that many women aren't aware they are even pregnant at that point. In addition, it's too early to perform amniocentesis or CVS to determine fetal viability. 16 weeks would be much more reasonable.

[golfing eagles]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.

paging @golfingeagles
paging @golfingeagles

needed in the legal library STAT!

Slow down peeps!
CMS reimbursements for all kinds of healthcare activities is a large part of the operating revenue of most hospitals. Part of that reimbursement is the participation in all the CMS requirements and programs

Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) | CMS (https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/legislation/emtala)

EMTALA is one of them. A hospital with an emergency room and receiving medicare reimbursements, would be in violation and would risk jeopardizing their reimbursements and payments if they voluntarily turned away people for these arbitrary reasons. Most hospitals would not want to do that.

So, the effects of the little dictator are not currently clear in regards to different healthcare scenarios. Many hospital systems also have policies in place for health care workers to not work in areas which they have religious objections, such as an abortion clinic. However, a healthcare worker would not abstain from rending care in the case of the mother bleeding out afterwards. . .

So these statutes have just been past, and there will be time needed to determine if the governor is over reaching in his state's rights legislation.

advice from coachk who works with CMS, reimbursements, the state of MA and the electronic medical records system which is the basis for reporting and compliance.

and written by sportsguy

As a retired physician, it sounds terrifying to me.

I might just take the time to read the bill, I highly doubt it states anything like the OP claims it does. And the second post is correct about EMTALA laws.

But I don't think it is "terrifying", since I doubt it will impact much at all. Physicians all have their personal opinions and beliefs, but that all stops at the door of the examining room. All patients are treated professionally and with respect, regardless of personal beliefs or biases. I have heard practices from members of the LGTBQ community that would make me vomit in the street, but inside the exam room, in the confines of a doctor-patient relationship, that doesn't matter.

[maistocars]

Florida is "free" for a reason. People are moving here in droves for a reason. Folks don't like having all that stuff force-fed down their throats as they do elsewhere. We love Florida!

[Boomer]

The law goes beyond hospitals, doctors and their hippocratic oath. It applies to any health care providers and payors which would include nursing homes, ambulance staff, pharmacies etc.

From the actual bill: "providing that health care providers and health care payors have the right to opt out of participation in or payment for certain health care services on the basis of conscience-based objections." The bill goes on to say these providers are immune from civil liability for declining to participate. The bill also prohibits discrimination against these health care providers who decline to participate in these health services.

Good morning, mickey100,

There it is…….but many here do not want to give this distortion of Freedom of Religion any further thought and can see only that this law (for now) appears to target the same people they are obsessed with targeting.

This law looks like a bastardization of Separation of Church and State, and I can see how it could (will) blow up down the road. There is nothing pure about the motivation behind it.

But (sigh) pre-programmed verbiage, knee-jerk reactions, name-calling, head-up-azz responses, and even a resident “mean girl,” are pretty much it here. A worthy opponent is not to be found in this thread.

There is highly dangerous subjectivity in this law. There will be those who will think they have been given the right to play God. That slippery slope should be obvious to anyone willing to take the time to remember how to think.

I’ve wasted enough time with this thread.

Boomer

[MandoMan]

Yeah……not true. The bill (link (https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1580/BillText/er/HTML)) includes: “ (6)REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT.
This section may not be construed to override any requirement to provide emergency medical treatment in accordance with state law or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. s. 1395dd.”

Based upon reading this bill, it would appear to provide protection from HAVING to conduct gender altering surgery on minors for example, or HAVING to abort a fetus regardless of the period of gestation if there is a conscious based objection to those procedures.

The bill provides requirements for a health care provider’s notice and documentation of such objection; requiring health care providers to notify patients or potential patients seeking a specific health care service of any such objection BEFORE scheduling an appointment.

If the procedures are necessary due to a MEDICAL EMERGENCY, then circle back to the medical emergency requirement.

There will be those in the medical field who do not have a conscious objection and will perform such procedures since this bill does NOT BAN the procedures.

I remember a commercial when I was a kid about RIF. Remember it? RIF = Reading is Fundamental

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.

[MikeMVOH]

Have you personally read the bill, or is you information from newspapers? I read it and it’s not what you described.

[JMintzer]

True...this works both ways... The LGBTQ community or any others denied healthcare can start doing the same to the old, white, ignorant, hateful people. Live and Let Live!!

Sounds great! Except for the part of anyone being denied healthcare... Since that's not gonna' happen...

[JMintzer]

This is evil

I agree... Good thing it's not true...

[Johnsocat]

Florida, the "Freedom" State - what a joke. This is going down a slippery slope, much like Germany in the early 30's. Pathetic!

Before you jump on this posters boat, you need to read the actual bill. It does not say what they say it does.
It's always better to base your opinion on facts and not heresay...

[JMintzer]

Florida, the "Freedom" State - what a joke. This is going down a slippery slope, much like Germany in the early 30's. Pathetic!

LOL! When you don't have an argument, "Germany in the '30s" fits the bill!

[JMintzer]

As a retired physician, it sounds terrifying to me.

As a retired physician, I would expect you to know it's not true...

[JMintzer]

TOTV clearly says at the top of each page:
NO POLITICAL REFERENCES ARE ALLOWED ON THE WEBSITE.

Would an admin please remove this post? Thank you.

They won't respond to your request in a thread. They'll probably never see it. You have to report the post...

[JMintzer]

The law goes beyond hospitals, doctors and their hippocratic oath. It applies to any health care providers and payors which would include nursing homes, ambulance staff, pharmacies etc.

From the actual bill: "providing that health care providers and health care payors have the right to opt out of participation in or payment for certain health care services on the basis of conscience-based objections." The bill goes on to say these providers are immune from civil liability for declining to participate. The bill also prohibits discrimination against these health care providers who decline to participate in these health services.

And? Do you know what that means?

Here's an example: If an OB-GYN does not want to perform abortion services (in their private practice), they don't have to. Just like it always was...

[mickey100]

Good morning, mickey100,

There it is…….but many here do not want to give this distortion of Freedom of Religion any further thought and can see only that this law (for now) appears to target the same people they are obsessed with targeting.

This law looks like a bastardization of Separation of Church and State, and I can see how it could (will) blow up down the road. There is nothing pure about the motivation behind it.

But (sigh) pre-programmed verbiage, knee-jerk reactions, name-calling, head-up-azz responses, and even a resident “mean girl,” are pretty much it here. A worthy opponent is not to be found in this thread.

There is highly dangerous subjectivity in this law. There will be those who will think they have been given the right to play God. That slippery slope should be obvious to anyone willing to take the time to remember how to think.

I’ve wasted enough time with this thread.

Boomer

Agree. Basically there seem to be quite a few bigoted people on TOTV. Maybe because they can voice their views from behind the curtain of anonymity. But it's nice to hear from those who are not. Thanks for your reply.

[JMintzer]

Abortion is already illegal in Florida after the 6th week of pregnancy. Most women don't know they're pregnant until around that time, or later. Many teenage girls who are still in the throes of puberty, are so irregular they might not realize they're pregnant until they're in their second trimester. Currently, a doctor who objects to NOT giving an abortion to a woman who is in her 2nd trimester and discovers an underlying problem that will cause her baby to be born dead, or significantly increase the risk to her own life, is not ALLOWED to provide that abortion.

The exceptions are only to rape, incest, and imminent risk of life to the mother. Meaning - she's already bleeding to death or turning blue, for example.

This is a draconian new law, that makes absolutely sure that a woman who might die giving birth to a baby who doesn't live more than a few hours, will be required to carry that baby until it can be removed by c-section. And she will have to pay the price - financially, emotionally, physically.

Allow me to retort...

No it doesn't...

[JMintzer]

Absolutely! 6 weeks is a ridiculous time frame. We both know that many women aren't aware they are even pregnant at that point. In addition, it's too early to perform amniocentesis or CVS to determine fetal viability. 16 weeks would be much more reasonable.

I agree. Although many European countries (you know, the one's every claims are soooo progressive on this issue?) have an earlier cut-off date... Go figure...

[JMintzer]

I might just take the time to read the bill, I highly doubt it states anything like the OP claims it does. And the second post is correct about EMTALA laws.

But I don't think it is "terrifying", since I doubt it will impact much at all. Physicians all have their personal opinions and beliefs, but that all stops at the door of the examining room. All patients are treated professionally and with respect, regardless of personal beliefs or biases. I have heard practices from members of the LGTBQ community that would make me vomit in the street, but inside the exam room, in the confines of a doctor-patient relationship, that doesn't matter.

Prezactly...

I've have more than a few trans patients over the years... NOBODY CARES...

We call them what they want to be called. Treat them the same as any other patient...

That is what doctors do...

[JMintzer]

FL is a third word country now. .

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

So where is everyone going to go to claim asylum?

[mickey100]

Yes, SO WHAT?????? Are you suggesting that a healthcare provider be required to perform a specific service despite objecting to it????? Personally, if I were a woman seeking an abortion, I would prefer to have the provider believe in the procedure, not one that has been forced into it.

The new law allows insurance companies not to cover a procedure if it goes against their moral guidelines. Wouldn't it be in their best financial interest to do so? The less they cover, the more profitable for them. Nearly any medical procedure could be refused by a medical professional. Before this bill, between state and federal law, Florida medical providers already have conscience protections pertaining to abortions and contraception. But this bill goes way beyond that and is clearly not in the best interests of the patients. Someone's personal beliefs should not be the criteria by which to deny critical medical care. Sadly we know why this has occurred - pure political theater aimed at limiting the rights of gay people.

[JMintzer]

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 first part of your post is an insult to those who actually lived thru Nazi Germany...

The rest of it is fantasy...

[golfing eagles]

The new law allows insurance companies not to cover a procedure if it goes against their moral guidelines. Wouldn't it be in their best financial interest to do so? The less they cover, the more profitable for them. Nearly any medical procedure could be refused by a medical professional. Before this bill, between state and federal law, Florida medical providers already have conscience protections pertaining to abortions and contraception. But this bill goes way beyond that and is clearly not in the best interests of the patients. Someone's personal beliefs should not be the criteria by which to deny critical medical care. Sadly we know why this has occurred - pure political theater aimed at limiting the rights of gay people.

Nobody will be denied "critical medical care", there are laws against that

Nor is this law "targeting gay people"---If anything it targets women seeking an abortion.

And unless you subscribe to the theory that "corporations are people too", an insurance company is unlike to have "moral guidelines" unless it is a specific religious group's insurance offered to members of that religion, in which case I doubt those that you consider "targeted" would be enrolled in that type of insurance.

[JMintzer]

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 first part of your post is an insult to those who actually lived thru Nazi Germany...

The rest of it is fantasy...

[golfing eagles]

Hopefully you’re female because most hospital workers in FL can’t stand old white American men.

Wow. Quite an assertion. 40+ years experience tells me that "most hospital workers" are color blind.

[JMintzer]

Agree. Basically there seem to be quite a few bigoted people on TOTV. Maybe because they can voice their views from behind the curtain of anonymity. But it's nice to hear from those who are not. Thanks for your reply.

Yup, if they disagree with you, they're a bigot!

[CoachKandSportsguy]

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

So where is everyone going to go to claim asylum?

FL has been renamed from "Fantasy Island" to "Asylum Island"

I actually listened to an ex convict relay his story to a woman in rural VA restaurant during a NE to FL transit, about how he left TX prior to his court date to get to FL to find work. . He was in TX after escaping from VA somehow and he was arrested in TX for some very good reason . . I was eaves dropping so only got part of the story, but the determination to get to FL was unmistakeable . .

[JMintzer]

The new law allows insurance companies not to cover a procedure if it goes against their moral guidelines. Wouldn't it be in their best financial interest to do so? The less they cover, the more profitable for them. Nearly any medical procedure could be refused by a medical professional. Before this bill, between state and federal law, Florida medical providers already have conscience protections pertaining to abortions and contraception. But this bill goes way beyond that and is clearly not in the best interests of the patients. Someone's personal beliefs should not be the criteria by which to deny critical medical care. Sadly we know why this has occurred - pure political theater aimed at limiting the rights of gay people.

"Gay People"???

Wait, I thought it was about abortion...

Wait, I thought it was about gender reassignment surgery...

Now it's "Gay People"???

I'm sooo confused...

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Wow. Quite an assertion. 40+ years experience tells me that "most hospital workers" are color blind.

And hospitals with certain CMS reimbursements require all kinds of "blindness" in giving care . but unless you actually work within a hospital system, you can get a different view from a single interaction. . or you also might want to be a troll

[mickey100]

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.

[JMintzer]

FL has been renamed from "Fantasy Island" to "Asylum Island"

I actually listened to an ex convict relay his story to a woman in rural VA restaurant during a NE to FL transit, about how he left TX prior to his court date to get to FL to find work. . He was in TX after escaping from VA somehow. . . I was eaves dropping so only got part of the story, but the determination to get to FL was unmistakeable . .

"I only got part of the story"...

[mickey100]

Nobody will be denied "critical medical care", there are laws against that

Nor is this law "targeting gay people"---If anything it targets women seeking an abortion.

And unless you subscribe to the theory that "corporations are people too", an insurance company is unlike to have "moral guidelines" unless it is a specific religious group's insurance offered to members of that religion, in which case I doubt those that you consider "targeted" would be enrolled in that type of insurance.

That is just not true. We already have laws on the books regarding abortion and contraception. This law is specifically aimed at the LGBTQ community, but can have repercussions in other sectors as well. Remember the other law - "Don't Say Gay"? You surely don't think this isn't an extension of that? And don't get me going on insurance companies. They have a history of denying payment and rejecting services. They don't have a conscience, but I can see them claiming to have one if it will benefit them financially. The bottom line is, medical standards should guide medical treatment. Period.

[golfing eagles]

That is just not true. We already have laws on the books regarding abortion and contraception. This law is specifically aimed at the LGBTQ community, but can have repercussions in other sectors as well. Remember the other law - "Don't Say Gay"? You surely don't think this isn't an extension of that? And don't get me going on insurance companies. They have a history of denying payment and rejecting services. They don't have a conscience, but I can see them claiming to have one if it will benefit them financially. The bottom line is, medical standards should guide medical treatment. Period.

OK, I take a stab at setting you straight, but I'm afraid I may be writing to a brick wall.

Please show me the text of the bill that is specifically aimed at the LGBTQ community.

For that matter, show me anything in the Parental Rights in Education bill that specifically single out gays. The law prohibits discussions of sex and gender of all types, including heterosexuals, in grades K-3. It was only the gay community that labelled it the "Don't say Gay" bill. Paranoid much??????

Then, just because there are other laws about abortion and contraception DOES NOT make the provisos of this bill aimed at the LGBTQ by default. Again, paranoid much???

Lastly, does anyone think that an insurance company is going to go through the sexual preferences of it's enrollees to deny claims specifically to a certain group???? Heck, corporations are doing the opposite---making their managerial staff sign papers that they support DIE and will practice it in hiring and promoting.

So, there are the FACTS. Any chance of changing someone's mind????? Doubt it, those who agree with the post I'm responding to already have had their talking points handed to them.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Only sounds good to those who are not affected. As soon as someone's friend or loved one is denied care because of someone else's beliefs, things being denied won't seem like such a good idea. People need to think past the end of their noses.

[Lindsyburnsy]

People don't like their rights taken away or curtailed either! Florida is far from free and closer to authoritarianism than one might want to admit.

[Worldseries27]

oh, now you want to play that game?

I remember someone saying, "we have to pass this bill so we can see what's in it..."


hmmm... Who could that have been?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/777aby0zetye8/giphy.gif
my point exactly

[Merrillyn]

I hope someone sees the hate spewing out of you and refuses to work on you because you offend their way of thinking. Karma baby!

[mickey100]

OK, I take a stab at setting you straight, but I'm afraid I may be writing to a brick wall.

Please show me the text of the bill that is specifically aimed at the LGBTQ community.

For that matter, show me anything in the Parental Rights in Education bill that specifically single out gays. The law prohibits discussions of sex and gender of all types, including heterosexuals, in grades K-3. It was only the gay community that labelled it the "Don't say Gay" bill. Paranoid much??????

Then, just because there are other laws about abortion and contraception DOES NOT make the provisos of this bill aimed at the LGBTQ by default. Again, paranoid much???

Lastly, does anyone think that an insurance company is going to go through the sexual preferences of it's enrollees to deny claims specifically to a certain group???? Heck, corporations are doing the opposite---making their managerial staff sign papers that they support DIE and will practice it in hiring and promoting.

So, there are the FACTS. Any chance of changing someone's mind????? Doubt it, those who agree with the post I'm responding to already have had their talking points handed to them.

Oh brother. Naive much?

[golfing eagles]

Oh brother. Naive much?

Yes, frequently.

I'm naive enough to believe that someone, when confronted with the facts, would abandon their partisan talking points and see the reality of the situation. But, alas, the truly indoctrinated will never see things the way they are. I pity them.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Absolutely! 6 weeks is a ridiculous time frame. We both know that many women aren't aware they are even pregnant at that point. In addition, it's too early to perform amniocentesis or CVS to determine fetal viability. 16 weeks would be much more reasonable.

The government needs to get their claws out of a woman's womb, period. It's none of their business. You know as well (or better) than most, that no woman who is 25, 26, 27 weeks pregnant, is going to say "Hey doc - I changed my mind. Make me not pregnant, please and thank you."

It just flat out doesn't happen that way. A woman whose child is aborted during the third trimester has some kind of medical situation going on where either the child will be born dead/have no chance to thrive, or the mother is at high risk of death or in the process of dying already.

[mickey100]

Yes, frequently.

I'm naive enough to believe that someone, when confronted with the facts, would abandon their partisan talking points and see the reality of the situation. But, alas, the truly indoctrinated will never see things the way they are. I pity them.

Well I'd like to see people get their heads out of the sand and face reality instead of believing all the drivel they watch on conservative news channels. There is a teacher now under investigation for indoctrination for showing a Disney movie to her class that had a gay character in it. The school administration said that even though it just involves minor parts of the story, it involves a male character having and expressing feelings for another male character, therefore in the future, the movie will not be shown. The movie was tied to a lesson plan on the environment. Interestingly, the one parent who complained, was on the school board, and proclaimed that she is a Christian and that “God appointed her to the Board”. So you really think its not about gays? Seriously? Get with the program.

[allsport]

I’m not horrified. Sounds good to me.

We will tag you when you need an ambulance and make sure they leave you.

[cjrjck]

A bill was was recently signed into law by the governor of Florida which states healthcare professionals, including insurance companies, can't be forced to violate their religious and moral/conscience convictions in order to treat a patient. Florida healthcare can now be denied based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.Its not just doctors, its ambulance drivers, hospitals, nurses, insurance companies, etc. So a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control. A doctor or nurse could refuse to help deliver the baby of a single woman, due to her lifestyle choice. An ambulance driver could refuse to pick up a gay person with Aids. The law is extremely discriminatory against LGBTQ people. A gay person in a nursing home could find themselves at risk of losing health care services, for example. I find this absolutely horrifying that it is now legal in Florida for doctors and other health care professionals to deny health care to anyone simply because they feel like it. We should be increasing access to medical care, not giving these companies and providers the right to discriminate and opt out.

You are clearly very passionate about this issue. I respect that. I think your outrage may be misdirected. The state legislature made up of those persons representing the people of Florida passed this bill believing that that is what the people they represent wanted. I do not know where you live, but if you live anywhere near The Villages, chances are the persons representing you in the Florida House and Senate supported this bill. Perhaps you should direct your concerns to them also. Or you can just continue to vent here. As you seem to do quite often. Your call.

[Andyb]

You have misinterpreted the bill.

[dfortier]

What if a gay ambulance driver refused service to a straight person! What say you?

[JMintzer]

What if a gay ambulance driver refused service to a straight person! What say you?

Who are all of these people checking people's sexual orientation before rendering emergency care?

Is it in some database? On their driver's license? Do they wear a Sexual Preference ID Bracelet like diabetics and people with allergies do? :loco:

[Steve315]

I’m not horrified. Sounds good to me.

Must be you’re not on the list. What happens when that changes?

[JMintzer]

Must be you’re not on the list. What happens when that changes?

Where is this "list" kept?