Ohio Allows Doctors to Deny LGBTQ Health Care on Moral Grounds

[aubiefifty 16,822]

Ohio Allows Doctors to Deny LGBTQ Health Care on Moral Grounds

 

The new provision, snuck into a last-minute amendment to the budget, was signed by Gov. Mike DeWine

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, February 2020

AP/Tony Dejak

In the latest state-level swing at LGBTQ health care access, Ohio will now allow medical providers to refuse to administer any medical treatment that violates their moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.

The language was buried in a 700-page document of last-minute amendments to the state’s two-year budget bill, which Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine approved last Thursday. The provision allows anyone providing medical care — from doctors and nurses to researchers and lab techs – and anyone paying for that care (namely, insurance providers), “the freedom to decline to perform, participate in, or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner’s, institution’s, or payer’s conscience as informed by the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.” 

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.”

But the bill was overwhelmingly opposed by the state’s medical community. “The implications of this policy are immense and could lead to situations where patient care is unacceptably compromised,” read a letter to budget negotiators, signed by the Ohio Hospital Association, the Ohio Children’s Hospital Association, the Ohio State Medical Association, and the Ohio Association of Health Plans.

Gov. DeWine could have struck the language while signing the rest of the budget into law, but declined to do so, despite issuing 14 other line-item vetoes.

State and national LGBTQ advocates started sounding the alarm in June, when the language was introduced, saying that it will prevent LGBTQ people from accessing the health care they need. With this newly enacted language in place, a medical provider could refuse to prescribe PrEP to an LGBTQ patient looking to reduce their risk of contracting HIV, or refuse to provide gender-affirming care to trans and nonbinary patients, or puberty blockers to transgender minors. Equality Ohio called it a “license to discriminate,” and Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David said that it jeopardizes “the medical well being of more than 380,000 LGBTQ people in Ohio.” 

Gov. DeWine has insisted that this provision won’t change the standard of care in Ohio. “This is not a problem,” he told a local news station. “If there’s other things that maybe a doctor has a problem with, it’s worked out. Somebody else does those things” — referring to a loosely written clause that requires that the medical professional, when possible, “attempt to transfer the patient to a colleague who will provide the requested procedure,” as long as making that referral doesn’t violate their conscience as well. 

But even if the medical professional does attempt to make that referral, a quarter of Ohio’s population lives in rural counties, where LGBTQ-friendly medical care is sparse. And for queer elders living in long-term care facilities, options are even slimmer. 

Local advocates have also called foul on lawmakers’ move to insert the clause last-minute into the state’s massive two-year, 2,400-page budget bill. “They know that they couldn’t pass this on its merits as a standalone bill, because literally no one is asking for this to be passed,” Dominic Detwiler, a public policy strategist for Equality Ohio told the Columbus Dispatch. 

It’s a strategy that Ohio lawmakers have attempted more than once this year, but it’s the first time it’s paid off. Earlier in June, while writing a bill that allowed college athletes to profit off of their own image, lawmakers tried to add a provision banning trans athletes from school sports. DeWine did not sign that legislation and instead drafted an executive order that mimicked the original text of the bill but omitted the anti-trans portion. Then, just days later, he signed the budget bill into law with the new health care statute.

More than 250 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in state legislatures in 2021 — a trend that advocates have called an “unprecedented war on the LGBTQ community” — breaking the previous record in 2015. 

Newswire

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

Dangerous precedent that Republicans want to set. 

 

People can have whatever religious beliefs and morals that they want to have. There are a lot of different ones out there, and many of them include some beliefs that many people would find wild and crazy. I know if it was legal to do so, Republicans would set these restrictions to only apply to Christian beliefs and morals, but even within Christianity there are some unconventional anti-science/medicine beliefs and practices. 

I would prefer all my healthcare providers be willing and required to provide me the same level of services and care no matter what their or my religious beliefs may be. 

[aubiefifty 16,822]

8 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Dangerous precedent that Republicans want to set. 

 

People can have whatever religious beliefs and morals that they want to have. There are a lot of different ones out there, and many of them include some beliefs that many people would find wild and crazy. I know if it was legal to do so, Republicans would set these restrictions to only apply to Christian beliefs and morals, but even within Christianity there are some unconventional anti-science/medicine beliefs and practices. 

I would prefer all my healthcare providers be willing and required to provide me the same level of services and care no matter what their or my religious beliefs may be. 

can we start calling it the hypocrite oath?

[homersapien 11,393]

I am fine with it - as long as they publicize it with a sign on their office door or in physicians listings.

I can't imagine many doctors doing this.

[aubiefifty 16,822]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am fine with it - as long as they publicize it with a sign on their office door or in physicians listings.

I can't imagine many doctors doing this.

what about their oath? not me. i am tired of the religious right wanting to treat people like garbage.

[homersapien 11,393]

25 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

what about their oath? not me. i am tired of the religious right wanting to treat people like garbage.

Their lying hypocrites regarding their oath.

[Grumps 3,704]

Just so we are clear, are we saying it is a bad thing that physicians are not forced to perform work that violates their strongly held beliefs? Was there anything in the bill that even mentioned LGTBQ? Is there a problem with physicians not providing care to certain people? Do you have examples?

It sounds like you folks are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

On 7/10/2021 at 10:35 AM, Grumps said:

Just so we are clear, are we saying it is a bad thing that physicians are not forced to perform work that violates their strongly held beliefs? Was there anything in the bill that even mentioned LGTBQ? Is there a problem with physicians not providing care to certain people? Do you have examples?

It sounds like you folks are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, we are saying it's a very bad thing to set a precedence to allow doctors to refuse treatment of patients based on personal religious beliefs. 

 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

On 7/10/2021 at 10:35 AM, Grumps said:

Is there a problem with physicians not providing care to certain people? Do you have examples?

Not what the bill is about Grumps

“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 “responsiblefor providing all appropriate health care services, other than the particular health care service that conflicts with themedical practitioner’s beliefs or convictions, until another medical practitioner or facility is available.” “

Example being if @aubiefifty decides he wants a sex change his doctor could refuse amputation, breast enhancement, hormone treatment…… ( if the doctor believes that such reversals are morally wrong )

Now if Fiddy is gay and comes in with a broken leg his doctor can not refuse treatment based on the gayness.

 

[DKW 86 7,431]

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Yes, we are saying it's a very bad thing to set a precedence to allow doctors to refuse treatment of patients based on personal SO-CALLED religious beliefs. 

Again we find that Darwin was wrong. We are not Progressing on all fronts, at least not voluntarily.

Edited July 12, 2021 by DKW 86

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Again we find that Darwin was wrong. We are not Progressing on all fronts, at least not voluntarily.

 

By George, I can't treat this young lady for she be a witch. 

[auburn41 492]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

By George, I can't treat this young lady for she be a witch. 

But what if the young lady that is a witch has precedence over the one who is not a witch?  That would be setting quite a precedent, don't you think?

[aubiefifty 16,822]

5 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Not what the bill is about Grumps

“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 “responsiblefor providing all appropriate health care services, other than the particular health care service that conflicts with themedical practitioner’s beliefs or convictions, until another medical practitioner or facility is available.” “

Example being if @aubiefifty decides he wants a sex change his doctor could refuse amputation, breast enhancement, hormone treatment…… ( if the doctor believes that such reversals are morally wrong )

Now if Fiddy is gay and comes in with a broken leg his doctor can not refuse treatment based on the gayness.

 

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

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

12 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

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

 

[aubiefifty 16,822]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

 

you are full blow slow aren't ya? lol

[DKW 86 7,431]

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

[Grumps 3,704]

So why should doctors be forced to provide service if such service goes against their beliefs but Facebook and Twitter can refuse to provide services to people whose opinions go against their beliefs????

[Grumps 3,704]

On 7/12/2021 at 2:28 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

 

By George, I can't treat this young lady for she be a witch. 

By George, I can't treat this young lady because I don't want to.

[Grumps 3,704]

On 7/12/2021 at 10:13 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

Yes, we are saying it's a very bad thing to set a precedence to allow doctors to refuse treatment of patients based on personal religious beliefs. 

 

 

Are there any criteria where a physician SHOULD get to choose for whom he/she provides care?

[aubiefifty 16,822]

7 minutes ago, Grumps said:

So why should doctors be forced to provide service if such service goes against their beliefs but Facebook and Twitter can refuse to provide services to people whose opinions go against their beliefs????

maybe because someones life is at stake. really? lol

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

So why should doctors be forced to provide service if such service goes against their beliefs but Facebook and Twitter can refuse to provide services to people whose opinions go against their beliefs????

This doesn’t even make sense. Facebook and twitter don’t have ‘beliefs’ they are companies that provide a service that come with a terms of service. They will ban or block people who don’t follow the terms of service for their product no matter your politics or beliefs. 

 

I don’t know is there are any situations where a doctor should be able to choose who they do and do not treat, but I DO know they shouldn’t be allowed to make those decisions based on discrimination and/or religion. 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

13 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

maybe because someones life is at stake. really? lol

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

[aubiefifty 16,822]

1 minute ago, jj3jordan said:

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

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

[TitanTiger 20,499]

On 7/9/2021 at 11:18 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

Dangerous precedent that Republicans want to set. 

 

People can have whatever religious beliefs and morals that they want to have. There are a lot of different ones out there, and many of them include some beliefs that many people would find wild and crazy. I know if it was legal to do so, Republicans would set these restrictions to only apply to Christian beliefs and morals, but even within Christianity there are some unconventional anti-science/medicine beliefs and practices. 

I would prefer all my healthcare providers be willing and required to provide me the same level of services and care no matter what their or my religious beliefs may be. 

I disagree, so long as the doctor doesn't prevent or hinder the person from pursuing those procedures or courses of treatment elsewhere.  They should refer them to another doctor or facility that can accommodate them or something.  For instance, an OBGYN should not be forced to perform abortions, either personally or within their private practice.  They can make the patient aware of other options where that can be done.  If a family comes in that wants to eschew proven medical treatment for deadly and debilitating conditions in favor of "natural" remedies only, and the doctor believes that it will result in lasting or permanent damage or death to the patient, they should not have to go along with the treatment course and have the option to ask them to find another doctor.  And if someone wants you to start dosing them with hormones or perform surgical procedures to alter their bodies because of some perceived feeling or internal sense of gender, you should be able to refuse to provide such services and let them know there are plenty of other practices out there in the area that will do that for them.

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. 

Liberty at its core is not the ability to get to do or act however one wishes.  Such an understanding of liberty is deficient at best.  At its core, liberty is freedom from being compelled to do or act.  If you don't have the freedom from coercion or compulsion to say or do things that violate your conscience, then in a sense you are never truly free.  This applies to doctors too.  It's what living in a pluralistic society means.  You have to give other people the space and the freedom to be left alone and not be forced into your way of thinking and acting.  

[DKW 86 7,431]

its just the wind blowing up his skirt…