Announced last week by acting secretary of HHS Eric Hargan, the division's stated purpose is to protect health care providers who refuse to provide services that contradict their moral or religious beliefs—services that include, according to the division's new website, "abortion and assisted suicide."
Full story here (https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-religious-freedom-division-threatens-lgbt-healthand-science/?mbid=social_fb)
Robbie Gonzalez science 01.23.18 06:42 pm Wired.com
I hope this post stays up
I hope no one argues over it.
It is important that we all know this story.
Moni
Does this mean that if I'm bleeding out in an emergency room a health care provider can deny me care because they don't like transexuals?
I have read the announcement and the article linked along with some other things Jane. And to answer your question, That is a possibility and the new department is there to protect their rights to do it. It is so loosely worded that almost any refusal on religious ground will be protected. This is an important topic that affects all of us.
:police: As Moni asked .. Lets talk about this without any bashing or other TOS violations. If you can't make a civil post keep it to yourself.
Laurie
Global moderator
Quote from: Janes Groove on January 24, 2018, 08:15:17 PM
Does this mean that if I'm bleeding out in an emergency room a health care provider can deny me care because they don't like transexuals?
It's happened before right in Washington DC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter
MAGA
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Deborah on January 24, 2018, 10:44:19 PM
It's happened before right in Washington DC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter
MAGA
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What I find concerning is that health care providers and insurance companies tend to be more concerned for the almighty dollar (or pound) and if they can use this as an excuse to save money or in some cases make money they will.
This is my very real concern as I have already experienced discrimination and bigotry at the hands of health care providers just as, I believe, have many members of this site.
I think most of us have experienced medical discrimination in one form or another. What the current administration seeks to do, is make it law, so nobody can sue over it.
When living in North Carolina, medicaid patients were forced to go to the county medical clinic. On my first visit, a doctor told me to "get the hell out", and uttered several transphobic slurs at me. When I contacted medicaid and an attorney, the head doctor decided to make me his patient, and the others rs would not be permitted to treat me. Things went fine after that. Things were better in Mississippi.
I can imagine that the clinic in NC where this happened will embrace the excuse to tell all LGBTI folk to get out of Dodge, and don't even dream about coming back.
Quote from: Janes Groove on January 24, 2018, 08:15:17 PM
Does this mean that if I'm bleeding out in an emergency room a health care provider can deny me care because they don't like transexuals?
Unlikely. In accordance with EMTALA law (1986) we must post the following on the wall:
IT'S THE LAW
IF YOU HAVE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY OR ARE IN LABOR, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE, WITHIN THE CAPABILITIES OF THIS HOSPITAL'S STAFF AND FACILITIES
AN APPROPRIATE MEDICAL SCREENING EXAMINATION
NECESSARY STABILIZING TREATMENT
(INCLUDING TREATMENT FOR AN UNBORN CHILD) AND, IF NECESSARY
AN APPOPRIATE TRANSFER TO ANOTHER FACILITY EVEN IF YOU CANNOT PAY OR DO NOT HAVE MEDICAL INSURANCE
OR YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MEDICARE OR MEDICAID
This signage must be written in the languages of those served by the facility. In my department, we have an identical "ES LA LEY" sign affixed despite a fairly non-diverse patient population. Facilities can be fined if the signage is not prominently displayed according to law. It gets worse if one violates the words on the sign. Physicians and facilities can be held liable for up to $50K penalty
per case (imagine an audit finding that you had 100 such violations; you do the math) for each non-compliant denial or transfer. These penalties are not covered by malpractice insurance. EMTALA law is a really, really big deal. Whatever this new HHS division puts on paper will essentially be either regulation (subject to court review) or memorandum. I have a hard time believing that facilities or providers will see anything coming out of this division as superseding their responsibilities under EMTALA law. I am cautiously optimistic that this effort, which is red meat for the President's base, will collapse like a bad soufflé (two food metaphors in one sentence; you're welcome) after the first lawsuit.
On the brighter side, if you're bleeding out in my ER, you have the right to be seen by a transsexual, schedule permitting.
The more I see, the more I'm glad I live in Canada. The governments here are worked to improve things for the LGBQT community, with the Prime Minister openly supporting us and the Premier of Ontario is a lesbian. This is on top of universal health care for everyone. Compare this with what I read recently about Kentucky, where people may have to do 80 hours of work etc. to qualify for Medicaid.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/01/22/trump-let-states-make-poor-people-work-for-their-health-care-in-kentucky-many-say-theyre-now-facing-a-dead-end.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/01/22/trump-let-states-make-poor-people-work-for-their-health-care-in-kentucky-many-say-theyre-now-facing-a-dead-end.html)
It seems to me that it would be efficient, in non-emergency cases, to know ahead of time where we were welcome and where we weren't. Local LGBT organizations should be encouraged to keep rosters of businesses -- not just medical, either -- that welcome our patronage, and keep them up-to-date. When I needed the name of a trans-friendly physician in my area, I got one from my local support group; but, especially when almost everyone has an on-line presence and access to information on-line, this seems more efficient than trying to bring about political change, which takes a lot of time and energy for uncertain results.
So, I hope that, much the way the NCAA took action against North Carolina and removed the men's bball tournament from the state over their bathroom law, now corporations will take action with the insurance company contracts and vet out the in-network providers to ensure they will not have religious objections that this federal department is now trying to 'protect'. There are so many corporations in the US that have specific protections for many classes of peoples and also have very strong stances on equality, so this may be the heaviest leverage against people taking this stance based on religion. It is a capitalist society, so the market is the best recourse vector for this type of legislative action.
Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on January 25, 2018, 06:29:09 AM
It seems to me that it would be efficient, in non-emergency cases, to know ahead of time where we were welcome and where we weren't. Local LGBT organizations should be encouraged to keep rosters of businesses -- not just medical, either -- that welcome our patronage, and keep them up-to-date. When I needed the name of a trans-friendly physician in my area, I got one from my local support group; but, especially when almost everyone has an on-line presence and access to information on-line, this seems more efficient than trying to bring about political change, which takes a lot of time and energy for uncertain results.
That information, at least up to now, is only available anecdotally. No business these days wants to actually post a sign saying they discriminate. It might Chase away people they would be willing to serve.
The spy who came in from the cold in the War Between the Sexes.
Quote from: Dee Marshall on January 25, 2018, 07:37:09 AM
That information, at least up to now, is only available anecdotally. No business these days wants to actually post a sign saying they discriminate. It might Chase away people they would be willing to serve.
Well, that's OK. Actually, I kind of expect that to be the main way this information is collected -- by local LGBT people themselves. That's how I got the name of the doctor I mentioned.
I think the political approach is very problematical. It might be emotionally satisfying, but if we want results for our time, energy and money, it doesn't seem very practical. At least to me. There's too much uncertainty. And self-help is preferable for multiple reasons.
Quote from: Janes Groove on January 24, 2018, 08:15:17 PM
Does this mean that if I'm bleeding out in an emergency room a health care provider can deny me care because they don't like transexuals?
I wouldn't be surprised. Most of the people in my town treat trans people like they're freaks.
QuoteNo business these days wants to actually post a sign saying they discriminate. It might Chase away people they would be willing to serve.
There have been some that have wound up in the news because of that sort of thing. Here's a recent example.
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/01/17/gay-couple-suing-vistaprint-over-hateful-wedding-pamplets/ (http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/01/17/gay-couple-suing-vistaprint-over-hateful-wedding-pamplets/)
There was also the recent case of a baker in Colorado (IIRC) who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Quote from: Dee Marshall on January 25, 2018, 07:37:09 AM
No business these days wants to actually post a sign saying they discriminate. It might Chase away people they would be willing to serve.
Assuming they would be willing to serve. I recently ate in a West Texas cafe that posted a sign saying they reserved the right to deny service to anyone. My spouse urged me to find another place, but my curiosity got the better of me. It turned out well. The waitress was really quite nice. I'm not sure things would have gone as well if the owner were there.
Quote from: rmaddy on January 25, 2018, 03:19:12 PM
Assuming they would be willing to serve. I recently ate in a West Texas cafe that posted a sign saying they reserved the right to deny service to anyone. My spouse urged me to find another place, but my curiosity got the better of me. It turned out well. The waitress was really quite nice. I'm not sure things would have gone as well if the owner were there.
I was thinking more about allies. If they had a sign up that said "No Trannies" people might well avoid the place on principle. With no sign people might go in anyway. Plausible deniability.
The spy who came in from the cold in the War Between the Sexes.
Quote from: rmaddy on January 25, 2018, 03:19:12 PM
Assuming they would be willing to serve. I recently ate in a West Texas cafe that posted a sign saying they reserved the right to deny service to anyone. My spouse urged me to find another place, but my curiosity got the better of me. It turned out well. The waitress was really quite nice. I'm not sure things would have gone as well if the owner were there.
In the past, that sign indicated racial discrimination. Today it means they will not serve disruptive customers. A single person shouldn't be permitted to interfere with the dining experience of the rest of the customers.
Quote from: Dena on January 25, 2018, 07:01:55 PM
In the past, that sign indicated racial discrimination. Today it means they will not serve disruptive customers. A single person shouldn't be permitted to interfere with the dining experience of the rest of the customers.
Well stated big Sister!
Quote from: Dena on January 25, 2018, 07:01:55 PM
In the past, that sign indicated racial discrimination. Today it means they will not serve disruptive customers. A single person shouldn't be permitted to interfere with the dining experience of the rest of the customers.
Not buying it. No business will tolerate a disruptive client and the right of the business to protect the safety and experience of other clients is generally assumed by the public. Very few businesses post such a sign. It's still rooted in prejudice. Perhaps not directed toward my demographic, but all prejudice is one in my book.
QuoteIn the past, that sign indicated racial discrimination. Today it means they will not serve disruptive customers. A single person shouldn't be permitted to interfere with the dining experience of the rest of the customers.
What makes you so sure it will only be applied to "disruptive" customers? Will they consider gay or trans people disruptive? We already have examples of businesses refusing to serve gay or trans customers and this only makes things worse.
Were the students at this lunch counter "distruptive"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins)
This is legalized bigotry and nothing more.
:police:
No bashing please. Folks we can understand you hate this new policy. We get that, however ones strong dislike for the policy needs to be expressed without bashing or breaking other TOS. If what you need to express in regards to that policy is something not in line with the TOS then take it elsewhere please! Lets please keep in mind TOS 5, 10, 15. Thanks
Mariah
No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service.
Quote from: Cassi on January 27, 2018, 09:04:32 AM
No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service.
And we've all contemplated walking in in just a shirt and shoes.
The spy who came in from the cold in the War Between the Sexes.
:-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
Quote from: Dee Marshall on January 27, 2018, 09:13:35 AM
And we've all contemplated walking in in just a shirt and shoes.
The spy who came in from the cold in the War Between the Sexes.
I'm afraid I'm about to alienate forever people whose good opinion is important to me. And yet I must speak.
Trans women need each other, especially those of us who don't pass. I am hyper-conscious of this.
It is wrong to force other people to act in ways they don't want to. If someone hates us because we're trans, that's unfortunate (and stupid); but that's their prerogative. Just as we believe we should be left alone to live our lives according to our best lights, so must we acknowledge the rights of others to regard us as hopelessly gender-confused people. We must allow other people the same rights we demand for ourselves.
It is so very seductive to think of medical care, etc., as a given, such that we should have the same access as cis people. What's lost in the analysis is that medical care is often a matter of paying a private individual for his services – and he must be accorded the same latitude we demand for ourselves.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that you are a baker. One day, someone comes into your shop wanting a cake with writing on it that makes trans people look like crazed, deluded people.What would your course be?After all, most – if not all – of us would regard a fundamentalist as crazed and deluded; but, in a free country, that's par for the course.
There is something profoundly, fundamentally, morally wrong with demanding that other people do our bidding,when it goes against their better judgment. Of course, it's stupid. Of course, it's inconvenient. But that's their right.
It is wrong to use "law" to force our neighbors to violate their consciences. It doesn't matter how stupid their ideas are; those are their ideas, and they have a rght to hold them and to respond accordingly.
We must take responsibility for our own lives, and situation. If one among us has a need – say, SRS surgery, or suicide – it is silly, stupid and deluded to demand that government provide. *We* should provide. *We* should care for our own. Should government help? Of course. But, if it chooses not to , where are our energies best spent?
I love and support my fellow trans women. Politics is not the answer.
In America equal protection is part of the Constitution so demanding that our constitutional rights are respected is certainly a political matter.
Christians would like to ignore the constitution and claim their faith requires them to deny equal protection. They did that before when they used their faith to justify slavery and again to justify all sorts of discriminatory laws against people of non-white races.
We either live in a nation defined by the constitution or we live in a medieval theocracy. Either way it is a political matter to decide which will define America into the future.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Deborah on January 27, 2018, 11:20:29 AM
In America equal protection is part of the Constitution so demanding that our constitutional rights are respected is certainly a political matter.
Christians would like to ignore the constitution and claim their faith requires them to deny equal protection. They did that before when they used their faith to justify slavery and again to justify all sorts of discriminatory laws against people of non-white races.
We either live in a nation defined by the constitution or we live in a medieval theocracy. Either way it is a political matter to decide which will define America into the future.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
God bless separation of Church & State!
Quote from: Deborah on January 27, 2018, 11:20:29 AM
In America equal protection is part of the Constitution so demanding that our constitutional rights are respected is certainly a political matter.
Christians would like to ignore the constitution and claim their faith requires them to deny equal protection.
Equal protection is an obligation that *government* owes to the citizenry -- *not* private individuals.
Quote from: Deborah on January 27, 2018, 11:20:29 AMThey did that before when they used their faith to justify slavery and again to justify all sorts of discriminatory laws against people of non-white races.
OMG. Slavery involves dominating people with whips and chains. Saying, "I don't want to do business with you," is on a completely different plane.
Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on January 27, 2018, 11:52:12 AM
Equal protection is an obligation that *government* owes to the citizenry -- *not* private individuals.
"The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
Many states are passing laws legalizing discrimination against LGBT people. Secondly, the USA decided in the 1960s that denying business to people just because they belong to a certain "class" is a violation of the 14th amendment. This is the same thing.
QuoteOMG. Slavery involves dominating people with whips and chains. Saying, "I don't want to do business with you," is on a completely different plane.
Defining a specific class of people as "lesser" and not worthy of equal protection is the issue. I suppose you were ok with miscegenation and other segregation laws though. Or did you just conveniently leave that out of your argument.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on January 27, 2018, 11:52:12 AM
Equal protection is an obligation that *government* owes to the citizenry -- *not* private individuals.
OMG. Slavery involves dominating people with whips and chains. Saying, "I don't want to do business with you," is on a completely different plane.
You might want to read up a little on the SCOTUS decisions having to do with
public accommodations. The meaning of the 14th amendment in the public sphere has been thoroughly adjudicated. We already know who gets to ride the bus, sit at the counter or use the bathroom, at least regarding race.
Masterpiece Cakeworks vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission broadens the conversation to include LGBT people, but it too will be interpreted in the context of precedent. I think many of the justices are sensitive to the conscience of the religion person, but I doubt there will be any appetite to become the court that gutted the 14th in service to irrational belief.
QuoteSaying, "I don't want to do business with you," is on a completely different plane.
You may want to read that link I provided about the Woolworths lunch counter.
While that was about African Americans, what happens if you replace them with gays or transgenders?
Quote from: AnneK on January 27, 2018, 02:01:02 PM
You may want to read that link I provided about the Woolworths lunch counter.
While that was about African Americans, what happens if you replace them with gays or transgenders?
The almighty dollar has replaced God in some peoples eyes. Back in the 70's or early 80's, a gay couple dancing at Disneyland were escorted off property and there was an uproar over even having let them dance to begin with. Disneyland went from an anti-gay position to a point where alot of the management and staff are gay. So things change.
I also feel the dollar will out weigh what someone's gender is or isn't.
Times do change and yes there are ignorant people.
Quote from: Deborah on January 27, 2018, 12:05:29 PM
"The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
Many states are passing laws legalizing discrimination against LGBT people. Secondly, the USA decided in the 1960s that denying business to people just because they belong to a certain "class" is a violation of the 14th amendment. This is the same thing.
Defining a specific class of people as "lesser" and not worthy of equal protection is the issue. I suppose you were ok with miscegenation and other segregation laws though. Or did you just conveniently leave that out of your argument.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which States are making it legal to discriminate?
There are many. Mississippi is the most egregious.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Deborah on January 27, 2018, 03:00:35 PM
There are many. Mississippi is the most egregious.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Educate me, please give examples.
Quote from: Cassi on January 27, 2018, 03:12:47 PM
Educate me, please give examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Liberty_Accommodations_Act
Quote from: rmaddy on January 27, 2018, 03:30:12 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Liberty_Accommodations_Act
Thank you. Well, No M I S S I P P I 4 M E.
Quote from: rmaddy on January 27, 2018, 01:53:33 PM
You might want to read up a little on the SCOTUS decisions having to do with public accommodations. The meaning of the 14th amendment in the public sphere has been thoroughly adjudicated.
I'm reasonably familiar with public accommodation theory; and that's what it is, a theory. Historically, it's an extension of the law of common carriers. Of course, that rationale no longer applies in the vast majority of cases; there are bakeries and flower shops everywhere today.
PA was and is a bad idea. And it's not settled law; I think the US Supreme Court has agreed to take one of the gay wedding cases that has been in the news in recent years. You never know which way the Court is going to rule in these highly-controversial cases; but I have a pretty good idea of how it
should rule.
The freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are not created by it; they are pre-existing. And they exist in hierarchy; they are not all of equal weight. Primary is the right to life, without which no other right has meaning; but, in my opinion, freedom to live according to one's own conscience -- of which religion is but one manifestation -- comes in a close second. The notion that someone is obligated to violate one's conscience to live, to continue owning and operating one's business, is a moral outrage of immense proportions. Think of how such a principle might be applied in a country with a less democratic tradition. The potential horrors boggle the mind.
PA flies in the face of the most fundamental of traditional American values. It's a bad patch job on a torn dress. The patch needs to be ripped out and the tear resewn properly.
I have so many things to say and that just makes me so mad.
but just
uGgGggghhhHhh
*insert 10,000 TOS violations here*
I'm just waiting for the complaints to start coming in from Buddhists refusing to sell someone meat, Muslims and Hindu people refusing to let someone purchase pork or beef, and a Jewish person refusing to sell a non Kosher product to a customer. Agreeing with my life is not a prerequisite to selling me something or providing me a service. If you don't want to provide me HRT, don't become an Endocrinologist; don't want to bake me a cake, don't become a baker.
Religious freedom in the USA only applies to one religion. I can't name it but it isn't Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, or Judaism.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Artesia on February 10, 2018, 09:36:25 PM
I'm just waiting for the complaints to start coming in from Buddhists refusing to sell someone meat, Muslims and Hindu people refusing to let someone purchase pork or beef, and a Jewish person refusing to sell a non Kosher product to a customer. Agreeing with my life is not a prerequisite to selling me something or providing me a service. If you don't want to provide me HRT, don't become an Endocrinologist; don't want to bake me a cake, don't become a baker.
I've got to agree, as my understanding is; that the number one imperative of any business is to make money. So how can you possibly call yourself a business person if you are turning away paying clients?
Quote from: Deborah on February 10, 2018, 09:48:06 PM
Religious freedom in the USA only applies to one religion. I can't name it but it isn't Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, or Judaism.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sad but true. Doesn't that make the law/ruling unconstitutional or something?