GLR Forum

General Forum => GLBT General Topics => Topic started by: Mogul on Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 23:21

Title: The Oath of the Hypocrites?
Post by: Mogul on Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 23:21
I have stumbled over an older report (source ( about a disgusting legislation project from Michigan (USA). Does anyone know whether the legislation actually have been passed?

"Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays

(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.

The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.

Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.

"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.

Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.

"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement."
Title: Re: The Oath of the Hypocrites?
Post by: Feral on Tue, Apr 18, 2006, 00:15
This particular legislation is now known as Senate Bill 0938 (2005). After it was passed by the lower house of the Michigan legislature, the bill proceeded to the state senate. There it was referred to the Committee on Health Policy on 12/13/2005. That committee has several bills before it and they have not yet ( issued a report on SB 938.

The committee will then return the bill to the Senate for a vote, possibly with amendments or recommendations. I am unsure if Michigan's senate is still dominated by Republicans. Michigan's politics can be volatile, especially as concerns health care. Support for the rights of gays is thin in this state, so I would think that the fate of this bill rests upon how it might affect the health care of str8 people there, and upon how vigorously the gay community in Michigan can make the claim that it would negatively affect the health care of str8 people.

"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.

The bill, in omitting sexual orientation from it's list of prohibited discrimination does exactly that. It is an evil bill. That it should even have been proposed is shocking; that it actually passed the House is a nightmare. It does not speak well for the moral character of that place, but then I would never have argued strenuously that one could find many virtuous people in Michigan. I was born there. I went to school there. I left the state at my earliest opportunity. Had I remained, the legal penalty for my marriage to my husband would technically have been life imprisonment. While recent court decisions appear to have invalidated those laws, they remain on the books. I have not heard that there is significant support for repealing them officially. Michigan is not a nice place. Any gays with the misfortune to have been born there should move at once. Gays lucky enough to find themselves elsewhere are advised to avoid the place.

While looking for this information I came upon the claim that similar laws were being promoted in 15 other states (
Title: Re: The Oath of the Hypocrites?
Post by: Mogul on Tue, Apr 18, 2006, 03:25
The proposal that a doctor can refuse help to somebody because of the doctors belief's, is disgusting and shamefull for the people who proposed the legislation and have voted for it. The notion to leave a homosexual fellow citizen without medical treatment (which is guaranteed even for convicted murders and the defeated war enemies) says lots about the ranking of gays in that state.

The Oath of Hyppocrates abids any physician to treat every patient in need - though we all know the corruption that was caused by the greed for money among many doctors. Nevertheless, even the criminal legislation knows the crime of "refraine from assisting" (don't know exact the legal wording), which in case of subsequent health damages can entail severe punishments. It is a clear derision of justice, when a criminal code includes provisions on persecution of fellatio, but does not care about people leaving other people croacking "out of religious convictions".
Title: Re: The Oath of the Hypocrites?
Post by: Nozzer on Sun, Apr 15, 2007, 16:56
Could we have an update to this please and links to any reports by authoritative sources please?

I am interested in this because in Britain recently our Equality Act 2006 (, Part 3 (, made provision for passing legislation to outlaw antigay discrimination. The measure was introduced into Parliament through a procedural device called a Statutory Instrument (SI) whereby regulations may be made by a named government Minister subject to the provisions set out in the enabling Primary legislation. Evangelical & conservative Catholic Christians, conservative Imams and conservative Rabbis, whilst supporting their own protection against discrimination (Part 2 ( of the said Act), virulently opposed the proposals to outlaw similar practices which have occurred for decades in our state National Health Service (NHS), and elsewhere. Liberal religious groups however opposed special legal opt outs for the extremists. The Christian Institute (, a conservative, politically active charity which has been at the forefront of spreading misinformation about what the regulations entail, is challenging ( the application of this recently passed secondary legislation (having also challenged the original application of the Equality Act itself to gays) and seeking the right of those claiming an objection on religious grounds (regardless of whether this is the real reason for their prejudice) to opt out!

The case is due to be heard in the early Summer.
Title: Re: The Oath of the Hypocrites?
Post by: Feral on Sun, Apr 15, 2007, 22:16
According to a blog entry from late last year (, the specific set of proposed laws in Michigan under discussion were not passed. The author is the State Legislative Director of the Human Rights Campaign, so I have at least some confidence that her information is accurate (or was in September of 2006).

In opposing these bills the solidarity between choice and LGBT organizations at the state-level has been rekindled. Moreover, by highlighting the potentially severe negative consequences of these bills many legislators have agreed, that as written, these measures are mean-spirited and potentially devastating and, to date, have not passed one.

The Guttmacher Institute notes ( that "almost every state in the US has a policy explicitly allowing some health care professionals or certain institutions to refuse to provide or participate in abortion, contraceptive services or sterilization services."