"Moral Refusal" extends to healthcare in general
dogemperor printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 01:14:21 PM EST
In this previous article on Talk2Action I have reported on "moral refusal" clauses in general, and how they are being used increasingly not only to deny birth control to women (even if birth control is prescribed for medical reasons unrelated to contraception such as polycystic ovary disease) but even potentially lifesaving medication like antivirals--simply because those antivirals can be used to treat certain forms of STDs.

"Moral refusal" is now expanding to not only include telling women they cannot be treated for herpesvirus infections (including, notably, chickenpox) or use birth control, but it's now expanding to allow doctors to refuse treatment to entire classes of people--in particular, gay and lesbian individuals--simply because of their sexual orientation.

In a landmark case now in litigation in California, two lesbians are suing a clinic that has used the "moral refusal" clause to refuse to provide insemination services--because the clinic's employees feel lesbians are "living in sin".  If the clinic wins, this could have drastic--potentially deadly--consequences for pretty much all non-dominionists.

Per this article (mirrored via CourtTV here) the "moral refusal" movement in dominionist circles is now targeting reproductive services for gay/les/bi folks:
A lesbian woman will challenge an appeals court ruling that permitted two doctors to claim a religious defense in their refusal to artificially inseminate her.

A California appeals court last week sided with the doctors, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, saying they can claim religious liberty in refusing to treat a patient who was gay because it was against their Christian beliefs.

Guadalupe Benitez filed a sexual-orientation discrimination suit against the doctors at a San Diego women's clinic after they refused to artificially inseminate her in 2000.

Benitez claims that on her first visit, Brody informed her that while her religious principles precluded her from performing the procedure on a gay woman, another doctor in the clinic would.

Benitez says, however, that after 11 months of costly, painful tests and surgeries, when the time came for the insemination procedure, she was turned down and told that she "would not be treated fairly" or "get timely care" at the clinic because of Dr. Brody's and other staff members' religious beliefs.

The doctors' lawyer, Carlo Coppo, said his clients were committed to fair treatment of Benitez -- from fertilization to pregnancy and birth -- but that aiding the actual act of conception compromised their religious views.

"[Brody] believes that participating in the [fertilization procedure], she is acting as the male," Coppo said. "It is an elective, invasive procedure, and to be there for the moment of conception, she religiously can't participate."

Benitez's attorney, Jennifer Pizer, said the appeals court ruling was troubling because it opened the door to all kinds of discrimination.

"It certainly is a social problem and a legal problem if someone enters a commercial business and can be told they will not receive the same services that another person can," Pizer said.

Both attorneys agree the case is the first of its kind and tests whether a doctor can choose who to treat based on religious beliefs.

Coppo says denying doctors their religious rights is also a form of discrimination, and that the law allows doctors to choose who they treat consistent with their religious convictions as long as they offer alternative means for care.

Pizer says a doctor's religious freedoms should not come at the expense of a patient's care.


If the courts rule in favour of the clinic, this could open the floodgates to dominionist doctors flat out refusing to render any medical treatment--even lifesaving treatment--to people simply because they think they are gay or disagree with "lifestyle" of the person they're treating (even more so than they are open already--Mississippi's law, and proposed laws in two other states, are already so broad as to allow any medical professional to refuse to treat you simply because you may be gay or pagan and they feel treating you would "violate their morals").

I have previously reported here in regards to moral refusal, and had warned specifically that dominionists were working towards a "medical apartheid"--in that dominionists can refuse even lifesaving treatment to someone, simply because they are gay (or need a medical procedure they disagree with, or think someone is otherwise "living in sin").  

Presently California's refusal clause is for abortions only (per this site) and is one of four states that actually require pharmacies to fill prescriptions for birth control; California, however, has had proposals in its legislature to have broad refusal clauses passed.  

The ultimate goal for dominionists--and one they admit in their own churches--is "Convert or die"; that one could be refused even lifesaving medical treatment because a dominionist doctor doesn't agree with treating gays, or pagans, or people living together who are unmarried, etc.  

Ethics laws are not a major protection--technically refusing to render medical aid is an ethics violation per most professional medical groups, but dominionists have simply set up parallel certification boards when medical associations have come out against dominionist practices.  For example, when the American Academy of Pediatrics (the main certification board in the US for pediatricians) issued a formal  ruling condemning "de-gaying" or "reparative" therapy as harmful, dominionist pediatricians set up a "parallel economy" certification board called the American College of Pediatricians and are now pushing to have that recognised by state medical licensing boards as an alternative to the AAP for certification for licensing.  NARTH has been pushed, as well as smaller "psychoanalysis" groups, in similar fashion in states relying on certification from mainstream psychiatric and social work certification groups (nearly all of which have not only condemned it but several consider its practice an ethics violation)--partly so that they can avoid license revocation procedures in states that use the ethics guidelines of mainstream medical professional organisations.




Display:
You would think that people would be able to see the logical relation between saying you are religiously opposed to providing services to homosexuals, and saying you are religiously opposed to providing services to blacks.

-Emily
emilywynn.blogspot.com

by EmilyWynn8 on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:19:10 PM EST


That a "religiously based" refusal to treat Irish might be necessary to blow this open.

by Bruce Wilson on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 11:17:23 PM EST
As I've noted in a companion thread on Dark Christianity...

Actually, if a proposed bill that died in Indiana's legislature but is expected to be possibly brought up again in the 2006 early session is any clue:
(from this link)

It defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

The bill then requires "intended parents" to be married to each other and specifically says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor can't begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child's being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill.

The assessment is very similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.

Some of the required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, hobbies, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans, letter of reference and criminal history checks.

A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents is also required, including individual participation in faith-based or church activities.

The legislation appears to affect some married couples, although the rough draft is unclear at times. Miller said the draft will be cleaned up before a vote.

The bill does not apply to assisted reproduction in which the child is the genetic child of both of the intended parents - i.e., the sperm is from the father and the egg is from the mother.

But married couples that need one or the other would still have to go through an assessment process and establish parentage in a court.

A judge couldn't establish parentage of a child born through assisted reproduction without the assessment certificate and a separate certificate from the physician involved.

A court would also be prohibited from granting a petition to establish parentage if the parents have been convicted of several specific crimes listed, such as murder, reckless homicide and neglect of a dependent.

Others include felony battery, arson and any felony drug conviction, although if the offense were committed more than five years before the petition, the judge could choose to grant the petition.

The bill would also establish criminal penalties for those participating in artificial reproductive procedures without following the process. The maximum charge is a misdemeanor.

Indiana Civil Liberties Union Attorney Ken Falk said his office began hearing about the bill Friday - one day after the rough draft was discussed by the Health Finance Commission.

He has not read it fully but said it sets up a clear discrimination that would be difficult to uphold. He considers the bill to be unique nationally.

"My question is `What is the danger that we are legislating against?' Are we saying that only married persons should be able to be parents, which is certainly a slap in the face to many same-sex couples but also to many who don't have a partner but have undertaken being a parent," he said.

Miller said the state often reacts to problems and she instead wants to be proactive on this issue.

"We're not trying to stop people from having kids; we're just trying to find some guidelines," she said.

She did concede it would stop single people from using methods other than sexual intercourse but said "all the studies indicate the best environment for a child is to have a two-parent family - a mother and a father."

In other words, if you are gay or even in any kind of relationship that dominionists disapprove of (many dominionists consider single parents and even divorcees to be "living in sin") it'd be flatly illegal.

As an aside, yes, this counts out gay/les/bi/trans people entirely:

a) in many states gays are not only not allowed to marry but (thanks to FotF and AFA state affiliate lobbying) states cannot even legally recognise domestic partnerships, legal contracts giving "similar status" to adoption, or adult adoption; in Texas the law may be so overbroad as to have outlawed straight, conventional marriage)

b) in at least six states gays cannot legally adopt (two states ban it outright, and four others automatically consider gays as "unfit parents"--meaning even in custody cases they can lose the kid just by virtue of who they are)

Dominionist groups usually promote two separate procedures as alternatives for parents who can't have kids:

a) "Adoption" of "snowflake babies" (extra embryos from embryo transfer programs that have been stored to guard against failure of an embryo transplant procedure)--this is increasingly promoted in the dominionist community, including by the President and by Focus on the Family, and several different groups exist promoting zygote "adoption".

b) Conventional adoption of a child by dominionist parents; these are frequently kids of teenage moms who have either been tricked into dominionist "halfway houses" by dominionist-operated "crisis pregnancy centers"--which force kids to essentially sign themselves over to the agency, live in a dominionist household for nine months, and then either raise the kid in a dominionist home or turn it over to a private adoption agency that only adopts to dominionists--or are committed involuntarily by parents of dominionists

Needless to say, the "adoption agencies" (either zygote "adoption" or the dominionist "halfway-house" adoption agencies) do NOT let single parents adopt, would never consider allowing gays to adopt, and require religious questionaires--occasionally requiring a statement from a minister as to your religious life. Non-dominionist Christians have been documented as being refused adoption by these agencies (including Catholics refused by dominionist adoption agencies; notably, the adoption agency in question was receiving state funding).

by dogemperor on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:30:32 AM EST
Parent



The Catholic Church denounces IVF and has tried to make it illegal wherever it has authority.  It's ironic that the church will block people from having children, as well as blocking those who need to terminate a pregnancy.  

Here is an article about the church standing in the way of IVF for ANYone in Costa Rica.

The big picture is about controlling women's reproduction from top to bottom.  Where are Feminists for Life?


by cyncooper on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 10:56:35 AM EST



WWW Talk To Action


Cognitive Dissonance & Dominionism Denial
There is new research on why people are averse to hearing or learning about the views of ideological opponents. Based on evaluation of five......
By Frederick Clarkson (374 comments)
Will the Air Force Do Anything To Rein In Its Dynamic Duo of Gay-Bashing, Misogynistic Bloggers?
"I always get nervous when I see female pastors/chaplains. Here is why everyone should as well: "First, women are not called to be pastors,......
By Chris Rodda (195 comments)
The Legacy of Big Oil
The media is ablaze with the upcoming publication of David Grann's book, Killers of the Flower Moon. The shocking non fiction account of the......
By wilkyjr (110 comments)
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial
Over the years, I have written a great deal here and in other venues about the explicitly theocratic movement called dominionism -- which has......
By Frederick Clarkson (101 comments)
History Advisor to Members of Congress Completely Twists Jefferson's Words to Support Muslim Ban
Pseudo-historian David Barton, best known for his misquoting of our country's founders to promote the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation,......
By Chris Rodda (113 comments)
"Christian Fighter Pilot" Calls First Lesbian Air Force Academy Commandant a Liar
In a new post on his "Christian Fighter Pilot" blog titled "BGen Kristin Goodwin and the USAFA Honor Code," Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan......
By Chris Rodda (144 comments)
Catholic Right Leader Unapologetic about Call for 'Death to Liberal Professors' -- UPDATED
Today, Donald Trump appointed C-FAM Executive Vice President Lisa Correnti to the US Delegation To UN Commission On Status Of Women. (C-FAM is a......
By Frederick Clarkson (126 comments)
Controlling Information
     Yesterday I listened to Russ Limbaugh.  Rush advised listeners it would be best that they not listen to CNN,MSNBC, ABC, CBS and......
By wilkyjr (118 comments)
Is Bannon Fifth-Columning the Pope?
In December 2016 I wrote about how White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who likes to flash his Catholic credentials when it comes to......
By Frank Cocozzelli (250 comments)
Ross Douthat's Hackery on the Seemingly Incongruous Alliance of Bannon & Burke
Conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat has dissembled again. This time, in a February 15, 2017 New York Times op-ed titled The Trump Era's Catholic......
By Frank Cocozzelli (64 comments)
`So-Called Patriots' Attack The Rule Of Law
Every so often, right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan lurches out of the far-right fever swamp where he has resided for the past 50 years to......
By Rob Boston (161 comments)
Bad Faith from Focus on the Family
Here is one from the archives, Feb 12, 2011, that serves as a reminder of how deeply disingenuous people can be. Appeals to seek......
By Frederick Clarkson (176 comments)
The Legacy of George Wallace
"One need not accept any of those views to agree that they had appealed to real concerns of real people, not to mindless, unreasoning......
By wilkyjr (70 comments)
Betsy DeVos's Mudsill View of Public Education
My Talk to Action colleague Rachel Tabachnick has been doing yeoman's work in explaining Betsy DeVos's long-term strategy for decimating universal public education. If......
By Frank Cocozzelli (80 comments)
Prince and DeVos Families at Intersection of Radical Free Market Privatizers and Religious Right
This post from 2011 surfaces important information about President-Elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. -- FC Erik Prince, Brother of Betsy......
By Rachel Tabachnick (218 comments)

Respect for Others? or Political Correctness?
The term "political correctness" as used by Conservatives and Republicans has often puzzled me: what exactly do they mean by it? After reading Chip Berlin's piece here-- http://www.talk2action.org/story/2016/7/21/04356/9417 I thought about what he explained......
MTOLincoln (253 comments)
Fear
What I'm feeling now is fear.  I swear that it seems my nightmares are coming true with this new "president".  I'm also frustrated because so many people are not connecting all the dots! I've......
ArchaeoBob (107 comments)
"America - love it or LEAVE!"
I've been hearing that and similar sentiments fairly frequently in the last few days - far FAR more often than ever before.  Hearing about "consequences for burning the flag (actions) from Trump is chilling!......
ArchaeoBob (211 comments)
"Faked!" Meme
Keep your eyes and ears open for a possible move to try to discredit the people openly opposing Trump and the bigots, especially people who have experienced terrorism from the "Right"  (Christian Terrorism is......
ArchaeoBob (165 comments)
More aggressive proselytizing
My wife told me today of an experience she had this last week, where she was proselytized by a McDonald's employee while in the store. ......
ArchaeoBob (163 comments)
See if you recognize names on this list
This comes from the local newspaper, which was conservative before and took a hard right turn after it was sold. Hint: Sarah Palin's name is on it!  (It's also connected to Trump.) ......
ArchaeoBob (169 comments)
Unions: A Labor Day Discussion
This is a revision of an article which I posted on my personal board and also on Dailykos. I had an interesting discussion on a discussion board concerning Unions. I tried to piece it......
Xulon (156 comments)
Extremely obnoxious protesters at WitchsFest NYC: connected to NAR?
In July of this year, some extremely loud, obnoxious Christian-identified protesters showed up at WitchsFest, an annual Pagan street fair here in NYC.  Here's an account of the protest by Pagan writer Heather Greene......
Diane Vera (130 comments)
Capitalism and the Attack on the Imago Dei
I joined this site today, having been linked here by Crooksandliars' Blog Roundup. I thought I'd put up something I put up previously on my Wordpress blog and also at the DailyKos. As will......
Xulon (329 comments)
History of attitudes towards poverty and the churches.
Jesus is said to have stated that "The Poor will always be with you" and some Christians have used that to refuse to try to help the poor, because "they will always be with......
ArchaeoBob (148 comments)
Alternate economy medical treatment
Dogemperor wrote several times about the alternate economy structure that dominionists have built.  Well, it's actually made the news.  Pretty good article, although it doesn't get into how bad people could be (have been)......
ArchaeoBob (90 comments)
Evidence violence is more common than believed
Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident?  I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......
ArchaeoBob (214 comments)

More Diaries...




All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else © 2005 Talk to Action, LLC.