It seems instead, these days, that religious or moral beliefs are a way to avoid doing things — like provide contraceptive care, or, in this Michigan state bill, pretty much provide any service, medication, or care to whomever one wants, as long as you're willing to assert a "moral conviction" that your conscience would be offended to do so.
If your personal religious beliefs mean you can't provide all legal health care to all comers who are in need of it — then, honestly, I think you're in the wrong vocation.
Embedded Link
Michigan Senate Committee Advances ‘License To Discriminate’ Healthcare Bill
The Michigan Senate’s Committee on Health Policy has approved a bill that would protect health care professionals who wish to discriminate against the LGBT community. Under the guise of “religious lib…
Google+: View post on Google+
1. In the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus literally tells Christians not to discriminate — and in taking care of someone in need of medical aid, for that matter.
2. It is difficult to see this standing up to any serious court challenge.
From your mouth to God's ear, +Kit Malone.
One assumes that the “religious beliefs, moral convictions, or ethical principles” of the supporters of this bill are strong enough in their “faith” to answer the question, “Why, when I was sick, did you not take care of me” by saying, “It was against my religious beliefs, moral convictions, or ethical principles,” and strong enough to take the consequences.
"If your personal religious beliefs mean you can't provide all legal health care to all comers who are in need of it — then, honestly, I think you're in the wrong vocation."
Or, on the other hand, if a place of employment doesn't provide the benefits you're looking for….find employment elsewhere. I think it can work both ways.
I see the comparison you're making, Mark, but I don't think it quite fits. There is a difference between (a) it being expected that if you will not perform legal activities as part of your job that you should find other employment, and (b) it being expected that if your employer doesn't provide legally required services as an employer, that you should find other employment. The former is done by you, the latter to you.
The argument can be see in more highlight if we give a less socially acceptable example: if the religious belief is, for example, that God made the races to be separate, so any mingling of them is sinful. There is a difference between (a) requiring a doctor or pharmacist to provide medication to all customers, even if they are in a mixed-race relationship and therefore "sinful," and (b) telling someone they should just find a job elsewhere if their boss explicitly pays members of mixed race couples 50%.
Someone for whom the rights of free association and religion trump all other law would disagree, but I don't see that as a way we have a society, but a way we have a tyranny of the individual.
The problem, to my mind, is that a religious conscious exception provides for a remarkable slippery slope, as moral convictions are not only impossible to verify (they need not be institutional mandates; indeed, arguably they should be interrnal ones) but are of a wide variety. Giving legal license to each one and saying, "It's okay to discriminate in any particular way, so long as you can ostensibly connect it back to a personal, moral conviction" is, ultimately, destructive.
Good points (especially about the slippery slope), Dave, but the only thing is the only religious objections I've seen have been in the cases of the government trying to force employers to cover contraception costs. I mean, there could be other examples and I just haven't seen them….but, as far as I've heard/read it always boils down to contraception coverage. We could play "what if" all day…..what if the government mandated that business enforce a code of, for health insurance purposes, families could only have two children? If you were found to have more than two, you'd be fired.
For me, it boils down to more of a personal responsibility issue. If you don't like what your employer is doing….find employment elsewhere. I know it's greatly simplifying the issue but, sometimes, the simplest solutions are the best. I can't see how it's the government's job to step in and mandate what private sector employers should be doing because they think it's right.
First, the government has to step in and mandate what private sector employers should be doing because of they don't, then employers simply won't. We've been there. Corporations have no reason to offer things like vacation time, weekends, any benefits at all, such luxuries as fire exits or breathable air… business exists for business purposes. An individual's option to just go "get a job that does" offer those things implies that there are jobs that offer these things, and historically – indeed, currently, in countries without regulations – there aren't. The government exists of and for the people, and it is therefor specifically the government's job to step in and look after… people.
Secondly, this bill goes way past employers who don't want to buy insurance that covers birth control. This allows employers to only insure things they believe in, and hospitals to only provide services they believe in and to people they believe in, and individual doctors/nurses/etc. to only provide services and to only provide to people they believe in… And as Dave pointed out, "ethical objection" is something anybody can say, for pretty much any reason.
As written and applied…birth control is a tiny, tiny part of what this bill is about. As it's intended, it looks to be more about abortion, with birth control as a side-effect, but its implications go way past that, too.
Mark, you treat finding a job quite cavalierly. I’ve been stuck in a low-paying job with no benefits for years because I cannot find a better one. I’m now forced to find a roommate because I have to pay off a student loan that got me a bachelor’s degree that hasn’t helped me get a better job because any position that requires the degree also requires 2+ years of experience. Saying “find employment elsewhere” is really quite disingenuous when employers will only hire people that they won’t have to pay to train. Employment is high now not because people are too lazy to look for work but because employers are either not hiring or are hiring very narrow ranges of candidates.
Also, contraception is not the only service being denied on religious grounds. People around the world have died when hospitals have refused on religious grounds to grant abortions. Shall we now make that behavior ethical and legal in this country? Should doctors and hospitals really be able to sentence a patient to death because of their religious convictions and leave the victim’s relatives with no legal recourse? I think that’s a huge step backward for America. Of course, backward is the preferred direction for many conservatives in this country, for whom “progressive” (as opposed to “regressive”) is a dirty word.
Miscarrying mother dies after Irish doctors refuse abortion, saying: ‘This is a Catholic country’
The Rights of Pregnant Patients Carder Case Brings Bold Policy Initiatives
Pregnant Dominican Teen Dies of Complications of Cancer and Refusal of Abortion
Mark won’t see that, Avo, since he’s commenting on the G+ side of things. But well said, on all points.