[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Wondering

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]

Originally Posted by petiteone

As a retired physician, it sounds terrifying to me.

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

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by mickey100

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]

Originally Posted by Boomer

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]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

FL is a third word country now. .

So where is everyone going to go to claim asylum?

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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]

Originally Posted by MandoMan

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]

Originally Posted by mickey100

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]

Originally Posted by MandoMan

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]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

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]

Originally Posted by mickey100

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!