Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2217915)

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

So where is everyone going to go to claim asylum?

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 2217918)

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.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2217924)

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

Originally Posted by MandoMan (Post 2217883)

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.

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy (Post 2217926)

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 . .

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2217922)

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.

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 2217948)

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.

Originally Posted by jmintzer (Post 2217895)

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

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2217955)

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.

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 2217994)

Oh brother. Naive much?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2217870)

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.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2218001)

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.