That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
https://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
https://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84463
/Cucker Tarlson
I think we are going to see a lot (more) farther right legislation being passed at the state level, and it seems to be in reaction to losing the Exec and Congress at the federal level. Almost a fervor.dbt1949 wrote:Arkansas has just made a new law that says doctors do not have to treat people if they don't want to. Mainly targeted at the LGBT community.
They're testing their bounds. They'll see what they can do to push regressively on civil rights and see where the lines are. They also want to do it in unison to make it look like there is consensus. This was why the geographical takeover versus the population takeover by the GOP was important. They'll get more and more states to pass laws like this and sign onto lawsuits to add more punching power to their arguments. These anti-LGBT attacks are also red meat for the base.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:33 amI think we are going to see a lot (more) farther right legislation being passed at the state level, and it seems to be in reaction to losing the Exec and Congress at the federal level. Almost a fervor.dbt1949 wrote:Arkansas has just made a new law that says doctors do not have to treat people if they don't want to. Mainly targeted at the LGBT community.
Happening here as well.
I wouldn't be too sure. The court is very conservative now - it even may be radically conservative. We don't know the extent yet. They may very well see this in some ways as an extension of their thinking in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby.
Doctor's refuse care all the time for all sorts of reasons. I would think it'd be hard to tie lack of access to 'acute outcomes' which would make it very difficult to sue for malpractice.And I can't imagine that the AMA would be very supportive of it, either. Doctors denying care because they dislike the patient's lifestyle? The first time they refuse a patient service because of their personal beliefs, the AMA should do whatever they can to have their licenses suspended (although I'm not sure what their power is, as licenses are issued a the state level.) And if someone is harmed because of it, I can't imagine it not being malpractice.
Sure, because they're not qualified to offer a type of care, or because the care being requested is harmful, or because the duty to provide care directly conflicts with another medical duty (see: objections to euthanasia.) There are a lot of legitimate reasons to deny care. But doing so because of personal disagreement with the patient or the treatment is crossing a huge, huge line, and a terrifying line.
I had the same thought but I was thinking it was the parents we needed to get on board the solution.
Oh totally. It was more qan observation that "mechanically" the Doctor's are getting the air cover from the law to refuse service. It'll short circuit the malpractice suits most likely.Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:02 amSure, because they're not qualified to offer a type of care, or because the care being requested is harmful, or because the duty to provide care directly conflicts with another medical duty (see: objections to euthanasia.) There are a lot of legitimate reasons to deny care. But doing so because of personal disagreement with the patient or the treatment is crossing a huge, huge line, and a terrifying line.
Right. And that becomes an access issue. We've already seen that there is potential that lack of access to abortion in some states is going to be shrugged off. You're getting to the heart of something that was crazy to me in Burwell. They said your employer can prohibit coverage for birth control which opens the door to all kinds of wackiness like this. When I recently changed jobs I specifically asked about coverage exclusions because I knew the employer makes decisions on my behalf and it isn't going to be obvious unless you dig in. Which is plainly dysfunctional when you think about it.LGBTQ keeps coming up (and was likely the main motivation), but this opens to door to denying birth control, refusing to treat sexual or fertility issues in unmarried couples, refusing to treat psychological issues arising from objectionable beliefs (could a Christian psychiatrist refuse to see a Muslim patient if their psychological issues touched on religion?), refusing to fill prescriptions for treatments they disagree with. What about refusing to give vaccinations where fetal cells derived indirectly from abortions were used in its development (including the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J COVID vaccines?)
Not just Arkansas. This is happening/happened/trying to pass in many states right now. Obviously a coordinated effort.
Let me introduce you to Alec backed by the Koch Brothers..well Koch Brother now. Another organization like this is the Heritage Foundation. Alec and Heritage write the laws and get them in front of legislators in Republican controlled states.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 2:23 pmNot just Arkansas. This is happening/happened/trying to pass in many states right now. Obviously a coordinated effort.
They can't refuse care based on protected class if they want money from Medicare, Medicaid, or pretty much any commerical insurer.Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:02 amSure, because they're not qualified to offer a type of care, or because the care being requested is harmful, or because the duty to provide care directly conflicts with another medical duty (see: objections to euthanasia.) There are a lot of legitimate reasons to deny care. But doing so because of personal disagreement with the patient or the treatment is crossing a huge, huge line, and a terrifying line.
LGBTQ keeps coming up (and was likely the main motivation), but this opens to door to denying birth control, refusing to treat sexual or fertility issues in unmarried couples, refusing to treat psychological issues arising from objectionable beliefs (could a Christian psychiatrist refuse to see a Muslim patient if their psychological issues touched on religion?), refusing to fill prescriptions for treatments they disagree with. What about refusing to give vaccinations where fetal cells derived indirectly from abortions were used in its development (including the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J COVID vaccines?)
Are LGBTQA a protected class federally? That'd be an interesting intersection.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:17 pmThey can't refuse care based on protected class if they want money from Medicare, Medicaid, or pretty much any commerical insurer.Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:02 amSure, because they're not qualified to offer a type of care, or because the care being requested is harmful, or because the duty to provide care directly conflicts with another medical duty (see: objections to euthanasia.) There are a lot of legitimate reasons to deny care. But doing so because of personal disagreement with the patient or the treatment is crossing a huge, huge line, and a terrifying line.
LGBTQ keeps coming up (and was likely the main motivation), but this opens to door to denying birth control, refusing to treat sexual or fertility issues in unmarried couples, refusing to treat psychological issues arising from objectionable beliefs (could a Christian psychiatrist refuse to see a Muslim patient if their psychological issues touched on religion?), refusing to fill prescriptions for treatments they disagree with. What about refusing to give vaccinations where fetal cells derived indirectly from abortions were used in its development (including the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J COVID vaccines?)
Trump's Section 1557 final rule attempted to remove the ACA prohibition on gender Identity discrimination in 2020 but I would not recommend being on the wrong side of it under this Administration.malchior wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:44 pmAre LGBTQA a protected class federally? That'd be an interesting intersection.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:17 pmThey can't refuse care based on protected class if they want money from Medicare, Medicaid, or pretty much any commerical insurer.Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:02 amSure, because they're not qualified to offer a type of care, or because the care being requested is harmful, or because the duty to provide care directly conflicts with another medical duty (see: objections to euthanasia.) There are a lot of legitimate reasons to deny care. But doing so because of personal disagreement with the patient or the treatment is crossing a huge, huge line, and a terrifying line.
LGBTQ keeps coming up (and was likely the main motivation), but this opens to door to denying birth control, refusing to treat sexual or fertility issues in unmarried couples, refusing to treat psychological issues arising from objectionable beliefs (could a Christian psychiatrist refuse to see a Muslim patient if their psychological issues touched on religion?), refusing to fill prescriptions for treatments they disagree with. What about refusing to give vaccinations where fetal cells derived indirectly from abortions were used in its development (including the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J COVID vaccines?)
Edit: Topically there was a WaPo article about this last week.
Under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (Section 1557), "covered entities," which were defined as health programs or activities that receive "federal funding" from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age or sex. Beginning in 2010, "sex" in this context included protections on the basis of gender identity – meaning that covered entities could not discriminate against transgender patients.
These protections based on gender identity were challenged in 2016. In May 2019, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on Section 1557, and in June 2019, it began accepting public comment on its proposed rule, which excluded protections based on gender identity.
On June 12, 2020, HHS issued its final rule, which removed healthcare protections based on gender identity from Section 1557. In short, the HHS said that gender identity is not captured within Title IX's prohibition against discrimination "on the basis of sex."
I say "attempted" because most providers and insurers haven't dropped anti-discrimination in practice. It's still in contracts too.malchior wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:34 pm Unless I'm misinterpreting I see that as more than an attempt since they went through the rule making process. Unless they shortcut it - such as what happened with the DACA change - you'd think it would be binding. Wouldn't this administration need to go through the rule process again to re-establish the protection?
I just did some reading. The whole thing is a shit show like everything in the federal government. Just last year there were several conflicting decisions about this. There is a decision in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas saying the 2016 rule change that added gender identity was improper. There is a Eastern NY decision saying the 2020 rule change should be enjoined. The DC court also enjoined the 2020 rule in part.
Ah got it. So big picture everyone is all over the board on this. The federal government rules aren't clear cut with the courts hip deep sorting that out, the providers and insurers are mostly aligned, and the states have different positions trending towards more disagreement. That sounds like a whole lot of the good fight ahead for folks out there.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:49 amI say "attempted" because most providers and insurers haven't dropped anti-discrimination in practice. It's still in contracts too.
I would think not. If that was the case, why wouldn't they be doing that right now to work around the filibuster?
They should just do a quick gene test and change the certificate to have a "Chromosome" check box for 2X, XY, X2Y, 2X2Y, 3XY, 4X, 4XY, or 5X
That's the same thing they're doing now, just with different phrasing. It's still just designating a biological sex (although it leaves room for more of them.) The problem is that too many people don't know (or won't accept) that sex and gender aren't the same thing, so they insist on assigning gender based on sex.Paingod wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:39 amThey should just do a quick gene test and change the certificate to have a "Chromosome" check box for 2X, XY, X2Y, 2X2Y, 3XY, 4X, 4XY, or 5X
Someone, somewhere, will still be offended at being called XX or XY, though, despite it being the literal truth that never changes based on gender identity. It's just a baseline that determines the way your body is prone to developing without intervention, and that development is substantially different between the two.
We have 3 different sections in the medical record:Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:29 amThat's the same thing they're doing now, just with different phrasing. It's still just designating a biological sex (although it leaves room for more of them.) The problem is that too many people don't know (or won't accept) that sex and gender aren't the same thing, so they insist on assigning gender based on sex.Paingod wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:39 amThey should just do a quick gene test and change the certificate to have a "Chromosome" check box for 2X, XY, X2Y, 2X2Y, 3XY, 4X, 4XY, or 5X
Someone, somewhere, will still be offended at being called XX or XY, though, despite it being the literal truth that never changes based on gender identity. It's just a baseline that determines the way your body is prone to developing without intervention, and that development is substantially different between the two.
Physical competition is one place where we're hitting a roadblock, as it's almost entirely physical (which is affected by sex) vs social (which is affected by gender), but tying it to sex creates a social issue that I can 100% understand. It's a tough one to work around, and it's one of the few issues of this sort where there will have to be some sort of compromise from both sides.
Minnesota Supreme Court rules that a person who is sexually assaulted while intoxicated does not fit the designation for a more serious charge if he or she consumed the alcohol or drugs voluntarily.