Posted on 01/18/2018 5:47:55 AM PST by reaganaut1
The Trump administration is planning new exemptions for health-care practitioners with moral or religious objections to performing procedures such as gender-reassignment surgery and abortions.
The move is part of a broader White House effort to protect religious rights that critics say roll back anti-discrimination protections.
The Department of Health and Human Services sent the proposal on Friday to the White House for review, said a person on Capitol Hill familiar with the matter. The HHS will also establish a division of “conscience and religious freedom protections” within its Office for Civil Rights, people familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Trump might take the opportunity to tout the changes when he addresses the March for Life on the National Mall by satellite on Friday, the White House said. Friday’s march is this year’s version of an annual event by antiabortion activists to mark the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that broadly established a right to an abortion. If not Mr. Trump, acting HHS Secretary Eric Hargan may announce the new initiative on Thursday, officials said.
Abortion-rights groups criticized the Trump administration’s move on Wednesday. “For the past year, the Trump-Pence administration has been working to infringe on our freedoms and taking away the rights of people of color, LGBTQ people and women,” said Dana Singiser, vice president of public policy and government affairs at Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
The administration has already signaled it will rework a regulation, enacted by HHS under the Affordable Care Act, that prohibits discrimination in health care by all health care providers who get money from the federal government. That includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and in some cases, sexual orientation.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Yes.
Yes.
There is no “right” to abortion, because no person can have a right that totally negates another person’s rights.
And there is a serious issue with claiming that mental illness-driven mutilation of one’s body is a “right.”
This is slippery ground. Will Muslim male doctors be allowed to refuse treatment to a woman on religious grounds?
YEs it is. And in some more “progressive, enlightened” countries, they’re actually talking about preforming pap smears on “trans women” to help them feel more “included”.
HTF do you even DO that? There’s no functioning va jay jay, uterus or fallopian tubes. No girl parts in there what so ever.
These people are mentally ill.
Every little bit helps! MAGA! :)
Many trans men identify as women, want to get castrated so they can have a lesbian relationship. We must all accommodate them. The new normal.
Would be easier to just remove homosexuality from protected class category.
These people need a new gimmick. Three or four decades of this baseless nonsense is wearing very thin with more and more people.
No rights are being taken away. From anybody. This person and too many others however are demanding additional rights for being in a "minority" no matter how loony that minority is. How is using the large intestine as a sexual organ qualifying for more rights than those of any other citizen?
1A support = MAGA
Why not? There are plenty of other doctors to go to.
I certainly would not want to “force” a doctor to see me and then find out later that a few extra things had been left in me.
What a misleading headline.
It should read: “President Trump Respects the Constitution” (as well as the whole reason for founding the country in the first damn place).
I was about to say something similar.. There are problems with muslims refusing to uncover for examination, or for washing.
Good point IMO. I would like to think that in both cases, hospitals and clinics would become known for being, in these examples, anti-abortion or anti-women, and that people seeking elective surgery and treatment would have time to make an informed decision.
The difference of course is in emergency situations. Despite what the pro-abortion crowd wants us to believe, there are practically zero "emergency" abortions. A woman has time to find another one. (It's not a Masterpiece Bakeshop situation though.) I yield the floor to anybody who might be able to say that precedents arising from Jehovah's witnesses refusing blood transfusions might give us some guidance. (I realize that the roles are perfectly reversed -- willing patient + unwilling doctor vs unwilling patient + willing doctor.)
Doctors....sure. It’s not like they are cake bakers or anything!
“Will Muslim male doctors be allowed to refuse treatment to a woman on religious grounds?”
I’d argue yes. I’d also prefer my wife never SEE a hard-core Muslim doctor. I wouldn’t trust him to provide her with decent care.
Part of a free society that has been destroyed by anti-discrimination laws is the the right of free association. When the government says you cannot “discriminate”, and the government gets to define discrimination as “anything we dislike”, then the result is a totalitarian society.
The “right” to abortion is the “right” to murder.
That right there is the hard core truth. Government should not be in the business to dictate association. The free market will balance out those that discriminate on immoral/unethical grounds.
Have the leftists started screaming that it’s immoral to NOT to force medical workers to commit immoral acts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.