I don't think this law is quite as alarming as the Rolling Stone Headline but it does sound like a mess. My guess is DeWine is trying to shore up his standing with social conservatives after many criticized him for his response to COVID-19. https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ePQZAumsQ0HonVgizv8pcyKPJJoauUhhO6y608OfqItYk Ohio Allows Doctors to Deny LGBTQ Health Care on Moral Grounds The new provision, snuck into a last-minute amendment to the budget, was signed by Gov. Mike DeWine In the latest state-level swing at LGBTQ health care access, Ohio will now allow medical providers to refuse to administer any medical treatment that violates their moral, ethical, or religious beliefs. The language was buried in a 700-page document of last-minute amendments to the state’s two-year budget bill, which Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine approved last Thursday. The provision allows anyone providing medical care — from doctors and nurses to researchers and lab techs – and anyone paying for that care (namely, insurance providers), “the freedom to decline to perform, participate in, or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner’s, institution’s, or payer’s conscience as informed by the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.” The bill does not allow medical professionals to deny LGBTQ people care, carte blanche; the exemption “is limited to conscience-based objections to a particular health care service.” It goes on to say that the provider is “responsible for providing all appropriate health care services, other than the particular health care service that conflicts with the medical practitioner’s beliefs or convictions, until another medical practitioner or facility is available.” But the bill was overwhelmingly opposed by the state’s medical community. “The implications of this policy are immense and could lead to situations where patient care is unacceptably compromised,” read a letter to budget negotiators, signed by the Ohio Hospital Association, the Ohio Children’s Hospital Association, the Ohio State Medical Association, and the Ohio Association of Health Plans. Gov. DeWine could have struck the language while signing the rest of the budget into law, but declined to do so, despite issuing 14 other line-item vetoes. State and national LGBTQ advocates started sounding the alarm in June, when the language was introduced, saying that it will prevent LGBTQ people from accessing the health care they need. With this newly enacted language in place, a medical provider could refuse to prescribe PrEP to an LGBTQ patient looking to reduce their risk of contracting HIV, or refuse to provide gender-affirming care to trans and nonbinary patients, or puberty blockers to transgender minors. Equality Ohio called it a “license to discriminate,” and Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David said that it jeopardizes “the medical well being of more than 380,000 LGBTQ people in Ohio.” Gov. DeWine has insisted that this provision won’t change the standard of care in Ohio. “This is not a problem,” he told a local news station. “If there’s other things that maybe a doctor has a problem with, it’s worked out. Somebody else does those things” — referring to a loosely written clause that requires that the medical professional, when possible, “attempt to transfer the patient to a colleague who will provide the requested procedure,” as long as making that referral doesn’t violate their conscience as well. But even if the medical professional does attempt to make that referral, a quarter of Ohio’s population lives in rural counties, where LGBTQ-friendly medical care is sparse. And for queer elders living in long-term care facilities, options are even slimmer. Local advocates have also called foul on lawmakers’ move to insert the clause last-minute into the state’s massive two-year, 2,400-page budget bill. “They know that they couldn’t pass this on its merits as a standalone bill, because literally no one is asking for this to be passed,” Dominic Detwiler, a public policy strategist for Equality Ohio told the Columbus Dispatch. It’s a strategy that Ohio lawmakers have attempted more than once this year, but it’s the first time it’s paid off. Earlier in June, while writing a bill that allowed college athletes to profit off of their own image, lawmakers tried to add a provision banning trans athletes from school sports. DeWine did not sign that legislation and instead drafted an executive order that mimicked the original text of the bill but omitted the anti-trans portion. Then, just days later, he signed the budget bill into law with the new health care statute. More than 250 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in state legislatures in 2021 — a trend that advocates have called an “unprecedented war on the LGBTQ community” — breaking the previous record in 2015.
When I asked for the GOP to have some sort of healthcare policy to actually pretend they care about policy issues rather than just culture war issues this isn't what I was hoping for... They literally are even turning healthcare access into a culture wars issue. For **** sakes.
Why stop there? Lets not treat criminals. And if not criminals, not the poor either. Also Democrats, because I don't agree with them and think they are immoral Also Muslims, its a violent religion, I don't agree with that.
So can a gay doctor refuse to treat straight people if he disagrees with their “immoral” lifestyle? What if a Doctor is a member of the church of Anti-Karen and refuses to treat middle aged white women? That cool based on his religious beliefs? Just ****ing lunacy. There is a reason we have protected classes in this country to prevent this type of ****. Otherwise it becomes a country of tribes. Why can’t Republicans just come out and say it? They only want freedom for white, heterosexual, church going hypocrites. Everyone else can get out!
Just to be clear, if someone that is LGBTQ comes in with a broken arm, a doctor in Ohio can deny them service? It looks like they could deny them services that relate to being LGBTQ not services that they could come across just by being human.
And what does that exactly mean? If a LGBTQ person is suffering ailments from HIV because of it being sexually transmitted by homosexual activity, a doctor can refuse to treat their disease?
Um, The Supreme Court just denied to take up a case for a bakery denying services to a gay couple. This will be struck down as well.
Does the law allow that? I don't know. All the article says about HIV is doctors being able to refuse to prescribe PrEP. Says nothing about them being able to deny treatment to someone with HIV.
The law says that it can deny service for ailments related to activity the medical care proffesional finds immoral based on their religous conviction. Denying PrEP is merely an example so yes based on the wording treatment of HIV can be legally denied by the statute.
If you're a Doctor and can't provide care unconditionally for a person regardless of who they love, worship, or the color of their skin... then you shouldn't be a doctor.
Please quote where the law says "ailment" or "activity." What I read in the article is this:. the freedom to decline to perform, participate in, or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner’s, institution’s, or payer’s conscience as informed by the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.” The bill does not allow medical professionals to deny LGBTQ people care, carte blanche; the exemption “is limited to conscience-based objections to a particular health care service.” It goes on to say that the provider is “responsible for providing all appropriate health care services, other than the particular health care service that conflicts with the medical practitioner’s beliefs or convictions, until another medical practitioner or facility is available.” From that, I don't get them being able to deny HIV treatment.
I don't know what to say dude. It's pretty clear. If the HIV came from a homosexual relationship than any ailment from that can be denied treatment based on objections to said homosexual activity. That's what the wording suggests. In fact the wording of the bill suggests a doctor can refuse service for any sexually transmitted disease not only if the person is homosexual but even if the person isn't married and is having sexual intercourse outside of marriage. I assume the underprivileged poor in rural communities will be effected the most due to the sparse density of places that provide medical services and poorer people having less means to travel far to find a place that will not deny them service.
From the article it sounds like they couldn’t deny them emergency services but could deny them services such as HPV vaccination. They would have to then see if they can find a colleague who would provide the service. As I said it sounds like a mess. It doesn’t mean that LGBTQ won’t get medical care just that for certain things it won’t be provided everywhere or quickly. All of this strikes me as a complete half assed plan that both is discriminatory but will also be a mess to implement
I’m also not sure how this works with the Hippocratic Oath. If someone was dying of HIV complications that oath would still mandate treatment. My guess is that is what the “all appropriate health care services” line is for.
Tbh if my doctor was willing to deny me treatment based on my sexual orientation or gender then I'd probably be way, way better off finding a new doctor rather than having the government force them to treat me.
Effectively, no one would deny any service nor anyone would be denied service because of their personal views or being. Just stupid overall to waste time on this.
