Ohio Allows Doctors to Deny LGBTQ Health Care on Moral Grounds

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Now, it should not be a blanket refusal to refuse to treat LBGTQ people for other kinds of conditions.  If a woman who wants an abortion also needs treatment for bronchitis, or a trans person is in need of having a cancerous patch of skin removed from their neck for instance, you treat them. 

Isn’t this the intent of the Conscience Clause?

[aubiefifty 16,757]

so an obvious gay couple is brought in after a bad car wreck. one of them has just a few moments to be stabilized or he or she  dies. the doc comes over and says it's not happening because he or she  is gay. what if it is at night with one doc on board? that person dies and it goes completely against their oath that they swore to uphold. what is so hard to understand about that?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

On 7/12/2021 at 7:41 PM, aubiefifty said:

i am only gay for you sugar. you get my organs pumping girlie boy and i cherish our few times together................

 

On 7/13/2021 at 10:20 AM, DKW 86 said:

Can anyone else get in on the "FULLY BLOWN" action around here. 

 

7 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

you sound like you have worn a dress or two there buster..............lol

 

7 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Becoming a tranny or not does not put one’s life at stake.

Damn, a hell of a conversation I choose to check back in on…….😂😂😂😂

[jj3jordan 2,051]

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

so an obvious gay couple is brought in after a bad car wreck. one of them has just a few moments to be stabilized or he or she  dies. the doc comes over and says it's not happening because he or she  is gay. what if it is at night with one doc on board? that person dies and it goes completely against their oath that they swore to uphold. what is so hard to understand about that?

Apparently it’s hard for you. This bill would not even apply in this situation. The doctor would definitely have to provide life saving care to the accident victim. Stop trying to make this bill seem to allow any doctor to refuse care at any time. It doesn’t. 

[aubiefifty 16,757]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Apparently it’s hard for you. This bill would not even apply in this situation. The doctor would definitely have to provide life saving care to the accident victim. Stop trying to make this bill seem to allow any doctor to refuse care at any time. It doesn’t. 

i am gonna need a link for that. i mean you been kissing trumps ass for so long and lying and covering for him i do not believe you. you are better served to just let me alone and i will do you the same.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

i am gonna need a link for that. i mean you been kissing trumps ass for so long and lying and covering for him i do not believe you. you are better served to just let me alone and i will do you the same.

Copied from the OP. Maybe you should read it.

The bill does not allow medical professionals to deny LGBTQ people care, carte blanche; the exemption “is limited to conscience-based objections to a particular health care service.” It goes on to say that the provider is “responsible for providing all appropriate health care services, other than the particular health care service that conflicts with the medical practitioner’s beliefs or convictions, until another medical practitioner or facility is available.”

Also never kissed anyone’s ass. See fiddy when I engage you in debate I dispute your statements or opinion but from you I just get insults.  It basically proves that you can’t support your argument so you attack me personally.  Even about God. All that you have said to me you will be obliged to say to God in person when it is your turn in the judgement seat. I am not the judge and have never claimed to be. You think I am judging you but I’m not. That comes from inside your soul.

[aubiefifty 16,757]

pretty sure you inferred i was godless or not a christian. so go screw yourself about the insults buddy.

[Grumps 3,704]

So does anyone know of any situation(s) where a physician would not treat a patient for religious reasons and the patient suffered as a result? I still think the liberals are proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Put a Muslim DR in the ER. Is he going to give maximum care to a gay couple? His religion has taught him to throw them off a building, we are talking devout Muslim here. Halal and Sharia practices would tell him to do minimal at best. Is this law just a cover for the reality that exists? What is the answer? Read the article below. IN the UK< they are finding that it is relatively easy to radicalize Doctors, not so much in religious terms but in fundamentalist culturalist terms. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292336/

Edited July 16, 2021 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,362]

10 hours ago, Grumps said:

So does anyone know of any situation(s) where a physician would not treat a patient for religious reasons and the patient suffered as a result? I still think the liberals are proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Actually it's the conservatives who are proposing a "solution to a problem that doesn't exist".

A physician can already decide he/she won't perform certain procedures - with no reasons given, especially "moral ones".   This law is totally unnecessary.  It's entire purpose is to stoke the political culture war by pandering to religious fundamentalists.

Edited July 16, 2021 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

A physician can already decide he/she won't perform certain procedures - with no reasons given, especially "moral ones".   This bill is totally unnecessary.  It's entire purpose is to stoke the culture war.

Very good point. “ not my expertise but we can refer you to Dr. Jones “. I think the bill goes farther than the doctor. Nurses, staff, insurance, …. Also protect from possible liability based on service refusal.

[homersapien 11,362]

10 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Very good point. “ not my expertise but we can refer you to Dr. Jones “. I think the bill goes farther than the doctor. Nurses, staff, insurance, …. Also protect from possible liability based on service refusal.

Presumably any doctor willing to perform the service will have nurses who will facilitate, or can easily find ones who will.  Insurance can decide to cover or not regardless of reason.

Again, this law is meant to promote cultural division, not solve a problem.

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Presumably any doctor willing to perform the service will have nurses who will facilitate, or can easily find ones who will.  Insurance can decide to cover or not regardless of reason.

Again, this law is meant to promote cultural division, not solve a problem.

My exact thoughts after looking into it…..much ado about nothing. 

[homersapien 11,362]

16 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

My exact thoughts after looking into it…..much ado about nothing. 

Well, only if one considers promoting social division "nothing". 

I don't.  But the only remedy for that in this case is the ballot box. (If you can find one, it being Texas and all....) 

Edited July 16, 2021 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,051]

If you can sue a cake maker because he will sell you a cake but won't create a special one for your occasion then perhaps a doctor and others need protection against  lawsuits. I know you can say that there are plenty of doctors that would perform the addadicktome surgery but for some reason an alternate cake maker option was not sufficient relief for some litigants. They just had to have THAT baker, and no other baker would suffice.

Same for doctors? Can't blame somebody for acknowledging that possibility.

Nod to homer.🤨

[homersapien 11,362]

15 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

If you can sue a cake maker because he will sell you a cake but won't create a special one for your occasion then perhaps a doctor and others need protection against  lawsuits. I know you can say that there are plenty of doctors that would perform the addadicktome surgery but for some reason an alternate cake maker option was not sufficient relief for some litigants. They just had to have THAT baker, and no other baker would suffice.

Same for doctors? Can't blame somebody for acknowledging that possibility.

Nod to homer.🤨

I don't disagree.  Such claims are a little premature IMO.

  But let's at least wait for a lawsuit before stoking the cultural wars with state legislation.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Well, only if one considers promoting social division "nothing". 

I don't.  But the only remedy for that in this case is the ballot box. (If you can find one.)

I am at a loss. What is so difficult about finding a ballot box? 

[homersapien 11,362]

8 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I am at a loss. What is so difficult about finding a ballot box? 

 

I've noticed you are frequently "at a loss". 

 

Ohio Republicans Propose First Major Voter Suppression Bill

May 6, 2021

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Ohio Republicans finally introduced their first major voter suppression legislation of 2021 on Thursday. Reps. Bill Seitz (R) and Sharon Ray (R) sponsored HB 294, which would limit the number of drop boxes to one location per county, and only allow drop boxes to be used in the 10 days leading up to Election Day—a significant decrease from 2020, when voters had 30 days to return their ballot via drop box. Boxes would also only be allowed outside of the county Board of Elections offices—voters living far from these offices would have to find another way to return their ballots. The bill also proposes new restrictions on registration and absentee voting, including limits on the types of absentee ballots that can be “cured” (the process of fixing small mistakes made by voters so they can have their vote count). HB 294 would also move the absentee ballot request deadline up by 7 days, and eliminate in-person absentee voting on the Monday before Election Day.

Ohio Democrats have been expecting the legislation after a draft was leaked in mid-April. The Chair of the Ohio Democratic Party Liz Walters said in a statement that “GOP politicians in Columbus are ignoring concerns from voting rights experts and plowing ahead with the most regressive measures we’ve seen yet. This bill has nothing to do with modernization, it only serves to take Ohio further back in the fight for voting rights in our state.”

 

https://www.democracydocket.com/2021/05/ohio-republicans-propose-first-major-voter-suppression-bill/

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

50 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

I've noticed you are frequently "at a loss". 

 

Ohio Republicans Propose First Major Voter Suppression Bill

May 6, 2021

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Ohio Republicans finally introduced their first major voter suppression legislation of 2021 on Thursday. Reps. Bill Seitz (R) and Sharon Ray (R) sponsored HB 294, which would limit the number of drop boxes to one location per county, and only allow drop boxes to be used in the 10 days leading up to Election Day—a significant decrease from 2020, when voters had 30 days to return their ballot via drop box. Boxes would also only be allowed outside of the county Board of Elections offices—voters living far from these offices would have to find another way to return their ballots. The bill also proposes new restrictions on registration and absentee voting, including limits on the types of absentee ballots that can be “cured” (the process of fixing small mistakes made by voters so they can have their vote count). HB 294 would also move the absentee ballot request deadline up by 7 days, and eliminate in-person absentee voting on the Monday before Election Day.

Ohio Democrats have been expecting the legislation after a draft was leaked in mid-April. The Chair of the Ohio Democratic Party Liz Walters said in a statement that “GOP politicians in Columbus are ignoring concerns from voting rights experts and plowing ahead with the most regressive measures we’ve seen yet. This bill has nothing to do with modernization, it only serves to take Ohio further back in the fight for voting rights in our state.”

 

https://www.democracydocket.com/2021/05/ohio-republicans-propose-first-major-voter-suppression-bill/

 

 

Blah, blah, blah with your voter "suppression" claims. 

What the House Democratic Caucus has chosen to do instead is prohibit its members from invoking the terms “fraud”, “secure”, “security”, and “easy” when involved in public discourse on election reform.  This authoritarian muzzling of free speech dismisses the legitimate concerns of Ohio voters who want assurance that their vote is protected and counted.  It speaks volumes that the Democratic caucus is so unconcerned with measures to promote election security that they won’t even allow their members to utter the word! 

https://ohiohouse.gov/members/bill-seitz/news/letter-house-bill-294-fact-sheet-106525

[aubiefifty 16,757]

On 7/13/2021 at 10:20 AM, DKW 86 said:

Can anyone else get in on the "FULLY BLOWN" action around here. 

talk to salty i do not do outties unless they are a belly button,lol

[aubiefifty 16,757]

24 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Blah, blah, blah with your voter "suppression" claims. 

What the House Democratic Caucus has chosen to do instead is prohibit its members from invoking the terms “fraud”, “secure”, “security”, and “easy” when involved in public discourse on election reform.  This authoritarian muzzling of free speech dismisses the legitimate concerns of Ohio voters who want assurance that their vote is protected and counted.  It speaks volumes that the Democratic caucus is so unconcerned with measures to promote election security that they won’t even allow their members to utter the word! 

https://ohiohouse.gov/members/bill-seitz/news/letter-house-bill-294-fact-sheet-106525

are you seriously saying there is no voter suppression in this country?

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

30 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

are you seriously saying there is no voter suppression in this country?

I simply posted the claim/fact sheet form the Ohio House majority

Edited July 16, 2021 by SaltyTiger

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Blah, blah, blah with your voter "suppression" claims. 

What the House Democratic Caucus has chosen to do instead is prohibit its members from invoking the terms “fraud”, “secure”, “security”, and “easy” when involved in public discourse on election reform.  This authoritarian muzzling of free speech dismisses the legitimate concerns of Ohio voters who want assurance that their vote is protected and counted.  It speaks volumes that the Democratic caucus is so unconcerned with measures to promote election security that they won’t even allow their members to utter the word! 

https://ohiohouse.gov/members/bill-seitz/news/letter-house-bill-294-fact-sheet-106525

BS.

Voters care more about voting convenience than the non-existent danger of fraud.  There's not a damn thing in these bills that increase convenience or make it easier to vote.  In fact, just the opposite.

Claims that voter fraud are a serious threat are directly linked to the claim that "Trump won".  Both are lies.  Don't be so gullible Salty.

Edited July 16, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,362]

37 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I simply posted the claim/fact sheet form the Ohio House majority

Starting with this lie:

What the House Democratic Caucus has chosen to do instead is prohibit its members from invoking the terms “fraud”, “secure”, “security”, and “easy” when involved in public discourse on election reform.  

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

BS.

Voters care more about voting convenience than the non-existent danger of fraud.  There's not a damn thing in these bills that increase convenience or make it easier to vote.  In fact, just the opposite.

Claims that voter fraud are a serious threat are directly linked to the claim that "Trump won".  Both are lies.  Don't be so gullible Salty.

Voting is a simple and relatively convenient process. Of course a little inconvenience comes with most privileges and it should. (ie, showing and ID when buying a twelve pack of beer)

I do not agree with "Trump won" claims so no need need to call me gullible. I understand that some fraud exist and small inconvenience may help in dispelling it.