|
|
Sunday, May 16, 2004
|
|
WHAT THE FUCK?
I was doing a little blog surfing and found this on Rowan's blog.
I have a very hard time believing that this isn't a fucking joke. Let's reprint the article in full, shall we? I think you'll know which are my comments.
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.
As I remember it, the medical profession has its own canon of ethics. Ironically, its called The Canon of Ethics!
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
Wow. Whod've thought that the fucking Catholics would be involved? Go figure. This bill is so incandesently evil that, of course the Church was behind it. The fact that the Republicans were stupid enough to be suckered in sponsoring and passing the thing makes it a classic case of "Dumb and Dumberer." And about as funny.
The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
Here's hoping they kill it. I doubt they will, though.
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.
The name of this act is priceless, in and of itself. Was a time when "conscienious objectors" used to mean something silly, like not killing people. Now it means not providing them health-care because you don't like them. Hey, I loathe Catholics and stupid, demagogic cocksuckers. If say they...get run over by a gas truck and drown in their own blood, can I dance on their corpses?
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.
And who in their mission statement doesn't have "God hates Fags" included?
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.
Or how about a Muslim doctor refusing a Jewish patient? Or vice versa? Maybe a hillbilly doctor with a black patient? The list is potentially endless. If I went to medical school, I could go with, "because I just don't like the looks of you" or, "I object to treating her because she refused to give me a handjob at the prom." Okay, the last example is ridiculous. I didn't go to the prom.
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.
That would probably because Federal law prohibits discrimination in public accomodations on the basis of race under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Which poses an interesting question. That question would be, "So federal law trumps the consience, does it?"
"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.
No, we're not. And don't go feeling all special, Homo Boy! God isn't especially fond of women, either. So get used to having LOTS of kids, girls.
"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.
I think Rep. Minroe is best described with the adjective, "understated."
Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.
Mr. Long is obviously a fucking moron who doesn't understand the Constitution very well. While there is (arguably)a constitutional right to object to (receiving) medical procedures, there decidely isn't a constitutional right to be a fucking doctor. I look at it this way; I used to be a security guard. But if I took the posture that I conscienciously object to guarding stuff....guess what? I get fired. So should they.
"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.
Sure they should. They should do it on their fucking dime, too if they're going to take that attitude. Oh, and by the way, if the Catholic Church is going to get such a big voice in public policy, shouldn't those evil motherfuckers pay taxes? Come to think of it, they should pay taxes as disproportionate as their actual influence.
I never, never thought I would ever in my life say this, but to my Michigan readers (and I know there at least three of you), in the next statehouse election, vote Democrat. Oh, and refuse to give money to any charity even remotely associated with the Catholic Church. I might feel differently if the money were going to worthy cause like settling molestation lawsuits, but apparently they have more important things to do so FUCK THEM!
|
|
|
| |
