![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsPage A8 of the Post today is an interesting study in contrasts. On one side is a continuation of a Rob Stein article from the front page, discussing the growing legislation on health care conscience rights vs patient rights to treatment. (Complete with map showing you where you can go to force your beliefs on your customers by law, or where you as a patient actually get to have the final say in your own meds and treatment.)
Gems buried on page 8 include the lawyer "who has represented an ambulance driver who was fired after she refused to take a patient to a hospital for an abortion." (Which makes me wonder - people don't call ambulances like taxies. What is the real story here?) But it also has these dark warning for everyone to keep their eyes on their local legislation, because this is NOT just pharmacists and birth control anymore: At least nine states are considering "right of refusal" bills that are far broader. Some would protect virtually any worker involved in health care; others would extend protection to hospitals, clinics and other health care facilities. Some would protect only workers who refuse to provide certain health services, but many would be far more expansive. At least five of the broad bills would allow insurance companies to opt out of covering services they find objectionable for religious reasons. A sixth state, Pennsylvania, is considering a bill designed for insurers.
The article ends with a quote making it clear that this isn't just about women and "unborn babies" anymore. "I already get calls all the time from people who have been turned away by their doctors," said Jennifer C. Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.
The argument is that making someone "act against their beliefs" is unConstitutional.
(And for the first person who jumps in here sniping that the Constitution doesn't include the words "separation of church and state" let me just preemptively point out that it doesn't include the words "right of refusal" either.)
Right next to that article is one in which several states are considering legislation that would, um, pre-empt other religiously-based contentious action, and directly make a group act against their beliefs. Namely, 5 States Consider Bans On Protests at Funerals: Proposals Aimed at Anti-Gay Demonstrations by Kari Lydersen. This is unsurprisingly aimed at Fred Phelps and his one-family church of hate, which apparently did go protest the miners' funerals and didn't get shot to pieces after all. (Rather to their disappointment, according to Senator Anita Bowser, who said she thinks the demonstrators are hoping to provoke a physical attack so they can file a lawsuit. "These people are not gainfully employed, so they're waiting for someone to do battle with them so they can go to court and win," said Bowser. "They want a big liability case to pursue.")
The Phelps side had this chilling quote. After denouncing as unConstitutional any attempts to let people bury their dead in peace, the Phelps daughter/attorney said: "These aren't private funerals; these are patriotic pep rallies.
The reason I find this juxtaposition so interesting is what is so clear between the lines - if these laws pass it will be perfectly legal in some places to let people die of medical neglect, as long as you don't protest at the funeral. Not even a codicil for separate-but-equal treatment; if the only doctor/pharmacist/insurer in town doesn't treat "your kind" because they don't believe in something you do, well then you're S.O.L. in the name of their Constitutional rights.
Last time I looked, what the Constitution promised us was equality, and the freedom to pursue our own beliefs in our own lives. Despite our history, it NEVER granted anyone the right to be "more equal than others" or to deny one group's freedom in the name of another group's beliefs. Yet the attitude now is that we're all to be held hostage to the private faith (and accompanying agenda) of our doctors, our pharmacists, our hospitals, our insurers, and a random group of wingnuts who likes to kick people when they're down and blame it on TEH GAYZ.
Amendment 14, people. If folks like that want to wave their Constitutional rights, remind 'em of Amendment 14, which is pretty damned clear and undeniably part of that Constitution:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Constitution. It's the law.
Gems buried on page 8 include the lawyer "who has represented an ambulance driver who was fired after she refused to take a patient to a hospital for an abortion." (Which makes me wonder - people don't call ambulances like taxies. What is the real story here?) But it also has these dark warning for everyone to keep their eyes on their local legislation, because this is NOT just pharmacists and birth control anymore: At least nine states are considering "right of refusal" bills that are far broader. Some would protect virtually any worker involved in health care; others would extend protection to hospitals, clinics and other health care facilities. Some would protect only workers who refuse to provide certain health services, but many would be far more expansive. At least five of the broad bills would allow insurance companies to opt out of covering services they find objectionable for religious reasons. A sixth state, Pennsylvania, is considering a bill designed for insurers.
The article ends with a quote making it clear that this isn't just about women and "unborn babies" anymore. "I already get calls all the time from people who have been turned away by their doctors," said Jennifer C. Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.
The argument is that making someone "act against their beliefs" is unConstitutional.
(And for the first person who jumps in here sniping that the Constitution doesn't include the words "separation of church and state" let me just preemptively point out that it doesn't include the words "right of refusal" either.)
Right next to that article is one in which several states are considering legislation that would, um, pre-empt other religiously-based contentious action, and directly make a group act against their beliefs. Namely, 5 States Consider Bans On Protests at Funerals: Proposals Aimed at Anti-Gay Demonstrations by Kari Lydersen. This is unsurprisingly aimed at Fred Phelps and his one-family church of hate, which apparently did go protest the miners' funerals and didn't get shot to pieces after all. (Rather to their disappointment, according to Senator Anita Bowser, who said she thinks the demonstrators are hoping to provoke a physical attack so they can file a lawsuit. "These people are not gainfully employed, so they're waiting for someone to do battle with them so they can go to court and win," said Bowser. "They want a big liability case to pursue.")
The Phelps side had this chilling quote. After denouncing as unConstitutional any attempts to let people bury their dead in peace, the Phelps daughter/attorney said: "These aren't private funerals; these are patriotic pep rallies.
The reason I find this juxtaposition so interesting is what is so clear between the lines - if these laws pass it will be perfectly legal in some places to let people die of medical neglect, as long as you don't protest at the funeral. Not even a codicil for separate-but-equal treatment; if the only doctor/pharmacist/insurer in town doesn't treat "your kind" because they don't believe in something you do, well then you're S.O.L. in the name of their Constitutional rights.
Last time I looked, what the Constitution promised us was equality, and the freedom to pursue our own beliefs in our own lives. Despite our history, it NEVER granted anyone the right to be "more equal than others" or to deny one group's freedom in the name of another group's beliefs. Yet the attitude now is that we're all to be held hostage to the private faith (and accompanying agenda) of our doctors, our pharmacists, our hospitals, our insurers, and a random group of wingnuts who likes to kick people when they're down and blame it on TEH GAYZ.
Amendment 14, people. If folks like that want to wave their Constitutional rights, remind 'em of Amendment 14, which is pretty damned clear and undeniably part of that Constitution:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Constitution. It's the law.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 02:47 pm (UTC)Ha. My dad's been a paramedic for going on 30 years. They SO do.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 03:01 pm (UTC)I'd still like to know the details of that case, but I can't find any references to it.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 03:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 03:32 pm (UTC)VERY valid point!
(Total side point - I know one paramedic who refers to his ambulance stint as "driving the short bus" on account of most of the stunts that put people in the ambulance being worthy of taking the short bus to school.)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 03:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 03:33 pm (UTC)Well, most people don't. I want to know the story too, because if you need to take an ambulance to an abortion, it suggests to me that it's got to be pretty nasty medically. The first thing that sprang to mind was an incomplete miscarriage as the problem, which isn't the same thing as an elective abortion -- you have one of *those* on your hand, you have to get to work ASAP.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 05:33 pm (UTC)At least five of the broad bills would allow insurance companies to opt out of covering services they find objectionable for religious reasons.
Companies with religious beliefs?? What the hell is this? Is the Allstate shareholders' meeting going to turn into the Coucil of Nicea? Will a minister have to officiate corporate mergers, and will multiple mergers be considered polygamy? Will filing Chapter 7 be considered suicide or euthanasia?
Jesus H., the only way to recognize corporate religious beliefs is to say that corporations have souls. And I think we all realize that absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 05:43 pm (UTC)Amen!
(I couldn't resist that.)
I think what they're discussing is things like Catholic hospitals, which are sort of religious corporations. But anyone would know that the only thing that companies like Exxon and Microsoft worship are the almighty dollar. And adding "corporate beliefs" allows someone to get on a board and then insist that the company follow his/her beliefs - y'know, like the folks on the school board in Dover tried to get their faith onto the curriculum.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 07:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 08:32 pm (UTC)I've read about this happening to a women who planned on being sterilized - the newly bought-by-Catholics insurance plan told her they wouldn't do it and wouldn't help her go elsewhere.