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.

They only serve the blonde haired blue eyed male babies

Another nonreader convinced by another nonreader..

Hahahaha, this gets funnier by the post.. insert eye roll

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.

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.

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 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.

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!

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

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.

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

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

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

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...