$30.00
Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Illinois governor and health conscience bill rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Conscience Protections For Health Care Personnel

In Illinois last week, Republican Governor Bruce Rauner signed SB 1564 (full text), amending the state's Health Care Right of Conscience Act. The new Act requires health care facilities to adopt written protocols that assure conscience-based objections by medical personnel will not impair patients' health. Among the minimum standards for these protocols are the following:

(1) The health care facility, physician, or health care personnel shall inform a patient of the patient's condition, prognosis, legal treatment options, and risks and benefits of the treatment options in a timely manner, consistent with current standards of medical practice or care.

(2) When a health care facility, physician, or health care personnel is unable to permit, perform, or participate in a health care service that is a diagnostic or treatment option requested by a patient because the health care service is contrary to the conscience of the health care facility, physician, or health care personnel, then the patient shall either be provided the requested health care service by others in the facility or be notified that the health care will not be provided and be referred, transferred, or given information in accordance with paragraph (3).

(3) If requested by the patient or the legal representative of the patient, the health care facility, physician, or health care personnel shall: (i) refer the patient to, or (ii) transfer the patient to, or (iii) provide in writing information to the patient about other health care providers who they reasonably believe may offer the health care service the health care facility, physician, or health personnel refuses to permit, perform, or participate in because of a conscience-based objection.

Reporting on the governor's action, the State Journal-Register says that the Illinois Catholic Health Association and Catholic Conference of Illinois took a neutral stand on the bill. However in a press release this week, Liberty Counsel complains that the new law forces "Christian and pro-life doctors and pregnancy centers to participate in human genocide."

They really keep trying to get all kinds of religious conscience clauses passed. I'd love to see Liberty Counsel's argument on exactly how those three conditions force people into committing human genocide ! I won't hold my breath on that one though.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fair enough but how about adding an ammendment - due to time taken for said referal or failure to act the patient then suffers adverse effect then the medical practioner should be struck off for professional misconduct.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


jonb wrote:
Quote:
Reporting on the governor's action, the State Journal-Register says that the Illinois Catholic Health Association and Catholic Conference of Illinois took a neutral stand on the bill. However in a press release this week, Liberty Counsel complains that the new law forces "Christian and pro-life doctors and pregnancy centers to participate in human genocide."

They really keep trying to get all kinds of religious conscience clauses passed. I'd love to see Liberty Counsel's argument on exactly how those three conditions force people into committing human genocide! I won't hold my breath on that one though.

The Liberty Council and other Dominionist legal organizations have already laid the groundwork to address matter more than a year ago. Indeed, look what the Family Research Council said about Illinois' new law.

Andrew Guernsey of the Family Research Council wrote:



Thankfully, there is meaningful legislation waiting for a vote in the U.S Senate, and has already passed the House of Representatives, which would provide Pro-Life health care providers relief from the new Illinois law: the Conscience Protection Act (S. 2927, “CPA”), introduced by Oklahoma Republican James Lankford. The Conscience Protection Act (CPA) would codify the Weldon Amendment and provide a critical private right of action so that health care providers and organizations facing discrimination in any state for refusing to participate in abortion can sue in court to protect their conscience rights. In light of the Department of Health & Human Services’ refusal to enforce the law in California and now Illinois, the Senate should follow the House’s example and pass the Conscience Protection Act (CPA). The Pro-Life doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and pregnancy centers of Illinois deserve to have their rights protected.



But here's the clincher: What conservatives and right-wing extremists today mean by invoking the word "Conscience" does not conform to the time-honored mainstream definition of the word.


> Excerpts from the July 26, 2016 Slate.com news story by Katy Waldman entitled:

What Conscience Means To A Conservative


Ted Cruz pointedly did not endorse Donald Trump on Day 3 of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

When Ted Cruz took the stage in Cleveland on Wednesday night, he shockingly offered an anti-endorsement of Donald Trump—and he used carefully calibrated language to do so. “Don’t stay home in November,” he implored the convention-goers, promoting time-tested ideals of civic engagement and responsibility. “Stand and speak and vote your conscience.”

That was it: no subsequent mention of the Republican Party’s official nominee, no rousing foretaste of the glorious changes Trump would enact in office. “Vote your conscience,” Cruz instructed, like a teacher urging students to adhere to the honor code while he stepped out of the room. The arena erupted in boos.

As my colleague Jim Newell noted, Cruz’s phrasing subtweeted a lot of the “Never Trump!” tumult that preceded his appearance. The senator’s supporters had attempted to slide a “conscience clause” into the party rule book that would unbind the delegates, relieving them of the obligation to vote Trump. The measure failed, and then a petition demanding a roll call vote on the rules got snuffed. In that context, “saying ‘Vote your conscience’ wasn’t just a non-endorsement of Trump,” Newell concluded, “it was a big kiss blown to the anti-Trumpers, thanking them for their service in Cleveland.”

But conscience signified something to Republicans long before it joined the Cruz side of the Trump-Cruz tug-of-war. Since Arizona Republican U.S. Barry Goldwater’s seminal 1960 book "Conscience of a Conservative", the word has suggested a uniquely right-wing brand of protest, a principled and individualistic challenge to the status quo. Conscience is how Republicans defy the government — it’s their take on civil disobedience or conscientious objection (two concepts historically aligned with the left). And it has blended in fascinating ways with the Republican Party's Christianity, positing the idea that in each citizen thrums a kind of spiritual core that must remain unsullied by politics.

In 'Conscience of a Conservative', Arizona Republican Senator Barry Goldwater wrote:



The first principle of totalitarianism is that the State is competent to do all things and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the State. Meanwhile, the ideal government gets out of the way so that its citizens can follow their own lights. Goldwater felt that a person needed to lead a sacred portion of his life beyond the scope of the state in an autonomous, pristine space devoted to the cultivation of conscience: Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.



(One would wonder what Goldwater would make of Trump’s authoritarianism.)

So when conservative politicians invoke “Conscience,” that prize jewel of the individual psyche, they are often staking out a moral objection to something the “majority” — and especially the political majority — seems to support. For instance, John McCain broke ranks with much of his party when he condemned the practice of waterboarding in a 2014 speech on the Senate floor. Terrorists “act without conscience,” he said, “but we must not.”

Or consider Mitt Romney declaring last month that his “conscience” wouldn’t permit him to cast a ballot for either Clinton or Trump. “It’s a matter of personal conscience. I can’t vote for either of those two people,” he admitted to John Dickerson of CBS News' "Face The Nation" in an interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

Or think of the "Conscience Protection Act", a bill proposed by the Republican congresswoman Diane Black and lifted to prominence by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. The measure hits back at Roe v. Wade, offering cover to health care providers that refuse to perform abortions as “a matter of conscience.”

In all these cases, conscience is what one might call the personal —especially the spiritualized personal — when it clashes with the political. Even the alternative interpretations of Cruz’s non-endorsement are rooted in the senator’s individual psychology — they are intimate character judgments, not suppositions about his policy aims. “I think it was something selfish,” said Chris Christie after the speech. Meanwhile, radio host Laura Ingraham attributed the never-Trump crowd’s moral distaste for the nominee to “wounded feelings and bruised egos.”

But conscience as a political force is about more than that, and its early historical displays have an almost preternatural resonance with Cruz’s convention address. In 1844, troubled by the rise of the nativist, hate-fueled “Know Nothing” Party, Abraham Lincoln convened a gathering of fellow Whigs. “He did not believe the political ostracism of foreign-born voters was Christian,” writes John Wesley Hill in his 1920 book, "Abraham Lincoln, Man of God".

And so, with a xenophobic movement threatening “to sweep the country and place Proscriptionists in power,” Lincoln introduced a resolution defending his homeland against “intolerance and disorder.”


Abraham Lincoln wrote:



RESOLVED, that the guarantee of the rights of conscience, as found in our Constitution, is most sacred and inviolable … and that all attempts to abridge or interfere with these rights … directly or indirectly, have our decided disapprobation.




1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It doesn't matter what Rauner sends up, he's getting run out of town when the clock is out on his term.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Alexandria (temporarily)
Virginia
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Be interesting to see those provisions defended if a Hindu or Zoroastrian or atheist or whatever medical professional didn't want to do something due to their religious beliefs...

Though like most of these things, I'm pretty sure that's not the point.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If the governement wants to torture a suspect and a physician or pscychiatrist declines to assist due to reasons of conscience, is he/she obligated to refer the government to a physician or terrorist who will assist in torture?

Is there a conflict between this law and the Hippocratic Oath?
1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
actuaryesquire wrote:
If the governement wants to torture a suspect and a physician or pscychiatrist declines to assist due to reasons of conscience, is he/she obligated to refer the government to a physician or terrorist who will assist in torture?

Is there a conflict between this law and the Hippocratic Oath?


Torture isn't medical care. Your example is therefore inapposite. However, substitute in blood transfusion and you are closer to an analogous situation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This seems like a good compromise and a terrible law. The question will invariably turn to the extent of the burden placed on the patients. This won't be an issue if it applies rarely and easy alternatives are found. If it becomes widespread and patients can't get the care they need in a reasonable fashion then the whole law has to come tumbling down. It would be better as a policy that isn't completely law.

It highlights, however, that the ethical practice of medicine requires that patients first have access to their necessary care, and that provider issues like these must be a secondary concern.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
Be interesting to see those provisions defended if a Hindu or Zoroastrian or atheist or whatever medical professional didn't want to do something due to their religious beliefs...

Though like most of these things, I'm pretty sure that's not the point.


Do we have a case of any of the above refusing to perform a medical procedure do to their beliefs?

Otherwise it's akin to saying 'It'd be interesting to see shoplifting laws defended if a blind man steals reading glasses.'
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Alexandria (temporarily)
Virginia
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
Be interesting to see those provisions defended if a Hindu or Zoroastrian or atheist or whatever medical professional didn't want to do something due to their religious beliefs...

Though like most of these things, I'm pretty sure that's not the point.


Do we have a case of any of the above refusing to perform a medical procedure do to their beliefs?

Otherwise it's akin to saying 'It'd be interesting to see shoplifting laws defended if a blind man steals reading glasses.'


My point was that most of these things are being passed to allow Christians (in this case, medical professionals) to force their interpretations of Christian thought and morality upon others, and that I doubt those who pass such bills mean them to be used by members of other religious groups.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
wifwendell wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
Be interesting to see those provisions defended if a Hindu or Zoroastrian or atheist or whatever medical professional didn't want to do something due to their religious beliefs...

Though like most of these things, I'm pretty sure that's not the point.


Do we have a case of any of the above refusing to perform a medical procedure do to their beliefs?

Otherwise it's akin to saying 'It'd be interesting to see shoplifting laws defended if a blind man steals reading glasses.'


My point was that most of these things are being passed to allow Christians (in this case, medical professionals) to force their interpretations of Christian thought and morality upon others, and that I doubt those who pass such bills mean them to be used by members of other religious groups.

About 2 or 3 weeks ago there was a thread here about such a law in Mississippi. The law was struck down for 2 reasons [according to the link]. 1] Was because it violated the equal protection clause, and 2] Was because it listed certain religions as being allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs and this violated the non-establishment of religion clause.

I tried to point this out in that thread but nobody responded to my point, so I don't even know if anyone grokked the point.

If a law lists Christians as being the only ones who can use it then that establishes Christianity as being above all other religions. This is clearly unconstitutional to all but the most committed Christians.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


wifwendell wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
Be interesting to see those provisions defended if a Hindu or Zoroastrian or atheist or whatever medical professional didn't want to do something due to their religious beliefs...

Though like most of these things, I'm pretty sure that's not the point.

Do we have a case of any of the above refusing to perform a medical procedure do to their beliefs?

Otherwise it's akin to saying 'It'd be interesting to see shoplifting laws defended if a blind man steals reading glasses.'

My point was that most of these things are being passed to allow Christians (in this case, medical professionals) to force their interpretations of Christian thought and morality upon others, and that I doubt those who pass such bills mean them to be used by members of other religious groups.

At least, they're not counting on other religious groups to act on them with the same fervor because these extremists are only concerned about wielding their own Dominionist axes they have to grind against others they've targeted for discrimination.

As to the the "Conscience Protection Act" recently passed in Congress, its sponsor is Tennessee Republican U.S. Rep. Diane Black and it was fully intended to target and attack Roe v. Wade as well as to offer cover to health care providers that refuse to perform abortions as “a matter of conscience.”

Diane Black is a Tea Party Republican and might more accurately be called a Teavangelical Republican. When she was a state senator back in June 2009, her own aide posted the following racist picture of President Obama by email. Although the picture was of all the U.S. Presidents, the final picture depicting President Obama was only a black space occupied by two eyes wide open. (It was the pictorial equivalent of calling Obama a "darkie".)





Here's a close-up of the right-hand corner where Obama was depicted:





When Tennessee State Senator Diane Black only gave her aide a mild reprimand, it raised just as much of a furor as the revelation about the picture itself. (At the time, Obama had only been in office for 6 months.)











And now we come to an unusual juncture, because I've learned that U.S. Rep. Diane Black is considered to be a "ReBiblican".

Of the 435 members of the House of Representatives, the Crooked Crosses blog at https://crookedcrosses.wordpress.com/ has identified 217 of them who meet their criteria to be deemed “ReBiblican”, meaning that, while they might not be true Dominionists, they knowingly or unwittingly proffer, support, vote for, and promote legislation that infringes upon civil and human rights, and they pander to Dominionist groups and organizations. The criteria that Crooked Crosses used is as follows:

ReBiblicans perpetuate the war on women.
ReBiblicans are against Affirmative Action.
ReBiblicans are against same-sex marriage and adoptions.
ReBiblicans are against the Separation of Church and State.
ReBiblicans believe that the United States was founded as and is a Christian Nation.
ReBiblicans believe in faith-based initiatives over mainstream secular ones.
ReBiblicans believe in an absolute right to gun-ownership.
ReBiblicans believe in the privatization of public education and social services.
ReBiblicans are against providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers.
ReBiblicans believe in an expansion of the military and further insurgency.
ReBiblicans foster hatred toward Muslims.
ReBiblicans consistently vote in a manner that furthers the Dominionist agenda.

Crooked Crosses notes that embracing one or two of these beliefs does not make a Congressman a ReBiblican. Rather, they must consistently cling to at least 4 of those qualifying conditions and must either author or support legislation that furthers that agenda. That not only means that are some Congressmen who weren't added to the list because they were considered to be “marginal” at best. Crooked Crosses considers the Congressmen who made the list to constitute a clear and present danger to the American way of life.

You can check out the ReBiblican List at: https://crookedcrosses.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/united-state...

For Crooked Crosses' section on Dominionism, check out: https://crookedcrosses.wordpress.com/tag/dominionism/


So, now that I have gained some perspective on U.S. Rep. Diane Black's worldview, perhaps it's not so surprising that she would be advocating so strongly against abortion because outlawing abortion is one of the prime political goals of Dominionism.


> Excerpts from the June 9, 2016 Right Wing Watch news story by Miranda Blue entitled:

U.S. Rep. Diane Black Declares: "Investigate Planned Parenthood Just Because They Provide Abortions"


U.S. Rep. Dianne Black

Tennessee Republican U.S. Rep. Dianne Black spoke today at the Family Research Council about her work on the House’s “Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives” that House Republicans convened in response to the Center for Medical Progress’ smear of Planned Parenthood but that has a broad mandate to investigate basically anything involving abortion providers.

In her opening remarks, Black acknowledged that she saw the panel as an extension of her efforts to “go after” Planned Parenthood that began even before the Center for Medical Progress released its videos that claimed, falsely, that the women’s health organization illegally profits from the small amount of fetal tissue it donates to medical research. In fact, she said, the fact that Planned Parenthood provides abortion is evidence enough that “we must expose them.”

“Even before last summer’s videos were exposing Planned Parenthood and their role in the trafficking of aborted baby body parts,” she said, “their own annual report told us in black and white why we must expose them and go after what they stood for: They’re the largest abortion provider in this nation. They perform more than 320,000 abortions annually while they receive over $500,000.000.00 of taxpayer dollars to perform these abortions.” (This last figure is incorrect: Planned Parenthood is barred by federal law from using taxpayer funding on abortions except in very limited cases.)

Black recalled how the very first law she introduced in Congress was a 2011 measure to cut funding from Planned Parenthood in a short-term spending bill but that her project met with “tepid” reception on Capitol Hill until David Daleiden’s videos provided an “opportunity” to further that goal.

Earlier this year, President Obama vetoed legislation that would have cut all federal funds from Planned Parenthood, which Black said means “if we had a willing partner in the White House, this is possible, so we cannot give up.”

She said that the select panel was designed as an alternative to this legislation: “We wanted to focus, since this didn’t become law, on the first steps that we can take to hold the abortion industry accountable that don’t require the signature of a president. And that was the genesis, really, of the [committee.]”

Remarkably, after explicitly saying that the panel grew out of her years-long fight against Planned Parenthood, Black said that the panel is not actually meant to target Planned Parenthood.

“They’ve called us a witch hunt against Planned Parenthood, though Planned Parenthood is never named anywhere in the resolution that authorizes the panel’s formation and was not called to testify at either one of our two public hearings that we have head to this point,” she said.

Later in the speech, when asked by an audience member what medical providers can do to help prevent abortion, Black responded that doctors should “help to educate young women with prevention first, using healthy practices to prevent pregnancies before they’re ready for that family” — which is, incidentally, the exact kind of medical care that much of Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding goes toward.

Black’s full presentation is here:







Other Suggested Reading Via Clickable News-Story Links


Anti-Planned Parenthood Leaders Discuss Their Strategy To "Dismantle" The Women's Health Provider


House GOP Schedules Vote On 20-Week Abortion Ban That Still Includes Hurdles For Rape Survivors


Tea Party Senate Candidates Court Favor Of Extreme Anti-Immigrant Group ALIPAC


Anti-Abortion Activist Troy Newman Threatens Civil Disobedience To Counter Obama's "Totalitarian State"

Copy Of Tennessee Republican State Senator Diane Black’s "Strongly Worded Reprimand" To Aide For Racist E-mail Telling Her: "I Look Forward To Working Together"



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.