From: ArienhEternal

This article greatly disturbed me...I thought I should share...
http://http://www.365gay&#46...ichMed.htm

in case the link is broken...
Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: April 21, 2004 8:14 p.m. ET

(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.

©365Gay.com® 2004

..Got this off a site I belonged to, here are some of the responses :(

From: Grympen©

Arienh,

Ok, here is what I have found out so far...I am still looking for more information, because if I am reading this right, this will not only hurt those who are gay, but it will also hurt those who could be of a different "belief" than the medical staff that is treating them. What the hell happened to the Medical Oath that they all have sworn to uphold is my question? I am also looking for petitions to sign against this, because if this becomes a trend among the rest of the states, we are all in big trouble!

~Grymps


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



EALTH SERVICES: ALLOW

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

House Bill 5006 (Substitute H-3)

Sponsor: Rep. Randy Richardville

House Bill 5276 (Substitute H-2)

Sponsor: Rep. John Gleason

House Bills 5277 (Substitute H-2) and 5278 (Substitute H-2)

Sponsor: Rep. Scott Hummel

Committee: Health Policy

Complete to 3-31-04

A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILLS 5006 AND HOUSE BILLS 5276-5278 AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE 3-30-04

As a package, the bills would allow, under certain conditions, a health care provider or health facility to refuse to provide or participate in a health care service and allow health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to refuse to offer or provide a health care benefit.

House Bill 5006 would create the Conscientious Objector Policy Act to allow a health care provider to object, as a matter of conscience, to providing or participating in a health care service on professional, ethical, religious, or moral grounds. A “health care provider” would include members of professions regulated under Article 15 of the Public Health Code except for veterinarians and sanitarians. “Health care service” would be defined as the provision or withdrawal of, or research or experimentation involving, a medical diagnosis, treatment, procedure, diagnostic test, device, medication, drug, or other substance intended to affect the physical or mental condition of an individual, but would not include the provision of a contraceptive medication or device. The bill would:

· Provide a procedure for notifying an employer of a conscientious objection.

· Prohibit an employer from refusing employment or staff privileges to a provider who asserted an objection to providing or participating in a health service.

· Prohibit a medical school from denying admission to a person who filed a conscientious objection.

· Specify that a provider’s objection could not be the basis for civil liability, criminal action, administrative or licensure action, or termination of employment or refusal of staff privileges at a health facility.

· Provide a number of circumstances under which the protections afforded under the bill to a provider would not apply.

· Allow an employer to terminate a provider’s employment, with at least 60 days advance notice, if the service objected to constituted a regular or substantial portion of the provider’s current and defined position.

· Allow a provider to bring a civil action, including a petition for injunctive relief, if he or she was penalized or suffered discrimination for asserting a conscientious objection to providing or participating in a health service.

· Make a violation of the bill a state civil infraction and establish penalties.

House Bill 5276 would create a new act to allow a “health facility” to withdraw or withhold or refuse to provide or participate in a health care service on professional, ethical, moral, or religious grounds reflected in its organizational documents, bylaws, charter, or an adopted mission statement.

A facility could not assert such an objection to a service if the facility routinely provided or participated in the service and the objection was based on a disagreement with a member of a health profession employed by, under contract to, or granted privileges by the facility regarding the medical appropriateness of a service for a specific patient if the patient had already consented to the provision of the service. Nor could an objection be made in the event of a public health emergency. A facility’s objection to providing or participating in a health care service could not be a basis for either of the following: civil, criminal, or administrative liability; or, with one stated exception, eligibility discrimination against the facility in a grant, contract, or program.

“Health facility” would be defined in the bill and include a health facility or agency as defined in the Public Health Code, a private physician office, medical clinic, or a public or private institution, teaching institution, pharmacy, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, sole proprietorship or other legal entity that provided a health care service to an individual. “Health care service” would mean the provision or withdrawal of, or research or experimentation involving, a medical diagnosis, treatment, procedure, device, diagnostic test, medication, drug, or other substance intended to affect the physical or mental condition of an individual. “Participating in” a service would include counseling, referring, performing, administering, prescribing, dispensing, treating, withholding, withdrawing, diagnosing, testing, evaluating, training, researching, preparing, or providing medical advice or material or physical assistance in a health care service.

House Bills 5277 and 5278 would allow a health insurer, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to refuse to offer or provide a health care benefit on professional, ethical, moral, or religious grounds as reflected in its articles of incorporation or bylaws or an adopted mission statement. This would not apply to a health care benefit if the benefit was specifically covered under the certificate, contract, or policy. Further, the refusal to offer or provide a health care benefit could not be a basis for one or more of the following: civil, criminal, or administrative liability; or, with one stated exception, eligibility discrimination against the health care corporation in providing a certificate.

House Bill 5277 would add a new section to the Nonprofit Health Care Corporation Reform Act (MCL 550.409a), which regulates Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

House Bill 5278 would add a new section to the Insurance Code (MCL 500.3406r) to apply to health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and commercial insurers.

Legislative Analyst: S. Stutzky

■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.

Here is the link that I found this on: http://http://www.michiganle...5006-a.htm



And here is what I also found... This will give you an idea as to who "yeah-ed" and who "neah-ed" this bill.

I put a link at the bottem of this so you could read through the whole thing if you wanted to.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



House Bill No. 5006, entitled

A bill to provide standards for personnel policies to protect the right of conscience of health care providers who conscientiously object to providing or participating in certain health care services under certain circumstances; to provide for protection from certain liability; and to provide for penalties and remedies.

Was read a second time, and the question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-3) previously recommended by the Committee on Health Policy,

The substitute (H-3) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.


Rep. Richardville moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 3, line 25, after "on" by striking out "professional,".

2. Amend page 4, line 9, after "adopts" by striking out "a" and inserting "an".

3. Amend page 4, line 10, by striking out "professional,".

The motion prevailed and the amendments were adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.


Rep. Ruth Johnson moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 1, line 4, after the first "medication" by striking out "or device".

2. Amend page 1, line 5, by striking out "or device"."

3. Amend page 2, line 12, after "medication" by striking out "or device".

The motion prevailed and the amendments were adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.


Rep. Whitmer moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 1, following line 6, by inserting:

"(b) "Emergency contraceptive medication or device" means a medication or combination of medications or device approved by the federal drug administration that prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation or fertilization of an egg that is taken or used after sexual intercourse." and relettering the remaining subdivisions.

2. Amend page 2, line 12, after "device" by inserting "or an emergency contraceptive medication or device".

The question being on the adoption of the amendments offered by Rep. Whitmer,

Rep. Whitmer demanded the yeas and nays.

The demand was supported.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments offered by Rep. Whitmer,

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

Roll Call No. 258 Yeas--34


Accavitti Farrah Law Smith
Adamini Gillard Lipsey Tobocman
Anderson Gleason McConico Vagnozzi
Bieda Hardman Meisner Waters
Byrum Hood Minore Whitmer
Clack Hopgood Murphy Williams
Condino Hunter Phillips Woodward
Dennis Jamnick Plakas Zelenko


Elkins Kolb



Nays--68


Acciavatti Hart Mortimer Sheltrown
Amos Hoogendyk Newell Shulman
Bradstreet Howell Nitz Spade
Brandenburg Huizenga Nofs Stahl
Brown Hummel Palmer Stakoe
Casperson Hune Palsrok Steil
Caswell Johnson, Rick Pappageorge Stewart
Caul Johnson, Ruth Pastor Tabor
DeRoche Julian Pumford Taub
Drolet Koetje Richardville Van Regenmorter
Ehardt Kooiman Rivet Vander Veen
Emmons LaJoy Robertson Voorhees
Farhat LaSata Rocca Walker
Gaffney Meyer Sak Ward
Garfield Middaugh Shackleton Wenke
Gieleghem Milosch Shaffer Wojno
Hager Moolenaar Sheen Woronchak




In The Chair: Julian



Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.


By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills



House Bill No. 5006, entitled

A bill to provide standards for personnel policies to protect the right of conscience of health care providers who conscientiously object to providing or participating in certain health care services under certain circumstances; to provide for protection from certain liability; and to provide for penalties and remedies.

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:



Roll Call No. 259 Yeas--69


Acciavatti Hart Mortimer Sheen
Amos Hoogendyk Newell Sheltrown
Bieda Howell Nitz Shulman
Bradstreet Huizenga Nofs Spade
Brandenburg Hummel O'Neil Stahl
Brown Hune Palmer Stakoe
Casperson Johnson, Rick Palsrok Steil
Caswell Johnson, Ruth Pappageorge Tabor
Caul Julian Pastor Taub
DeRoche Koetje Pumford Van Regenmorter
Drolet Kooiman Richardville Vander Veen
Ehardt LaJoy Rivet Voorhees
Emmons LaSata Robertson Walker
Farhat Meyer Rocca Ward
Gaffney Middaugh Sak Wenke
Garfield Milosch Shackleton Wojno
Gleason Moolenaar Shaffer Woronchak


Hager



Nays--35


Accavitti Gieleghem Lipsey Stewart
Adamini Gillard McConico Tobocman
Anderson Hardman Meisner Vagnozzi
Byrum Hood Minore Waters
Clack Hopgood Murphy Whitmer
Condino Hunter Phillips Williams
Dennis Jamnick Plakas Woodward
Elkins Kolb Reeves Zelenko
Farrah Law Smith




In The Chair: Julian



The House agreed to the title of the bill.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

Reps. Shulman, Rick Johnson, Tabor, Hager, Ehardt, Julian, Newell, Howell, Shackleton, DeRoche, Stakoe, Hune, Wenke, Emmons, Van Regenmorter, Nitz and Palsrok were named co-sponsors of the bill.



______



Rep. Meisner, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

In order to become a physician, individuals must take the Hippocratic Oath, which lays out the credo of physicians as derived from Hippocrates, the father of medicine. All who take the oath say, among other things, the following: 'I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability.' Nowhere in the oath does it say that physicians shall not treat people whose ethnicity, sexual orientation, or beliefs they may not agree with or approve of. This package of bills would amend the Hippocratic Oath in a way that takes rights away from people in the name of protecting the rights of others. We do not have the moral or professional standing to do either."


Reps. Hopgood, Law, Zelenko, Jamnick, Anderson and Waters, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on House Bills 5006, 5276, 5277, and 5278 because these bills would hinder access to health care services in Michigan, particularly in rural areas. These bills allow individual health care providers' interests to trump patient care. These bills also do not require health care providers to refer or counsel patients on their full health care options if the health care provider conscientiously objects to one of the possible treatments or procedures. The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. These bills also ignore current accreditation rules requiring hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for."


Rep. Kolb, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on House Bills 5006, and the other bills in this legislative package (5276, 5277, and 5278) because these bills would hinder access to health care services in Michigan. This bill and the other bills allow health care provides (and insurers) to refuse to provide health care, to people in need, that violates the health provider's ethical, moral or religious principals. This legislation would allow individual health care providers' interests to trump patient care. I oppose this legislation and worry that its passage into law would hinder access to health care services, especially in rural areas. This legislation also does not require health care providers to refer or counsel patients on their full health care options if the health care provider conscientiously objects to one of the possible treatments or procedures. The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. Current accreditation rules already require hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for. This bill allows health care providers to deny needed health care services to any individual not currently protected from discrimination under the state's Elliot-Larsen civil rights act. Thus, a health provider could refuse health care to an individual based upon a patient's actual or perceived sexual orientation. I adamantly oppose this legislation and believe that this is a very dangerous path for Michigan to travel down."


Rep. Adamini, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on House Bill 5006 because these bills would hinder access to health care services in Michigan, particularly in rural areas. These bills allow individual health care providers' interests to trump patient care. These bills also do not require health care providers to refer or counsel patients on their full health care options if the health care provider conscientiously objects to one of the possible treatments or procedures. The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. These bills also ignore current accreditation rules requiring hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for."

To read all of the minutes and notes go to: http://http://www.michiganle...21-032.htm



I'll repost this as a sory, after I get to the site, this is just what I see so far
:? :(

wow

Yea

Its just not right, y'know?

:?

yeah but i spaced out like.. 2 sentences in... so ill go with what you guys say ``,

Well lemme break it down for you mack daddy :P

Its liek this

Michigan is trying to push a law through congress that will allow doctors to beable to stop treatments, surgery, and so on of any kind on gays, and people ho's religion is no longer mainstream.

If ou scroll down a bit, look at the last fewlinks, you'll see who voted yea, and nay on this bill.

It sucks, just like our president

Thats why we have you Silk :D

*Sticks tongue out at Maugan* :P

I don't do suck, unless its someone special :twisted:

See I don't know if the law is good or not.

On one hand, you could be refused by the doctors...but on the other hand...do you really want to be operated on if a doctor has a secret hate for you?

headnerd has brought up an interesting concept :o

*Sighs, and rubs forhead*

headnerd, I don't know whether to call you cynical, or unrealistic. Even if they have a secret hate for you, 90% of the time, they'll be professional and operate on you anyways.

Even so, the Law is bad because its opening a crevese. About 210 miles wide and deep, into the protection of our rights and freedoms, which are so few already, that I don't understand why everybody is willing to let even MORE of 'em go.

Let me get into some depth here my friend, if you are of what is politically considered the wrong sexual preferance AND/OR RELIGION!

Meaning, if you aren't Christian, or Catholic, wether you're homosexual, or not, you'd better not develope any head wounds, stomach pains, appendicitis, oteoperosis, or diabetes, or anything of the like because what this law is gonna say is..'sorry, you're shit outta luck.' Now so far, its only in that one state, but don't try and tell me other states aren't gonna try and adopt the same attitude, because I'm too old to believe in goddamned fairy tales.

Now, how about you drive to Michigan, and get in a car accident, tell them you're a Buddhist, or a homosexual. Maybe then you'll see the seriousness of the situation. I'm not raving, or even angry at any of you for taking it lightly, why the hell shouldn't you? This is the net, and everything on the net is about as real as fairies. However, I want you ppl to actually think about it for awhile, and tell me how you'd feel if your cousin, or uncle, or best friend was either homosexual, of unmainstreamed religion, or both, was living in Michigan?

Then you take that number, multiply it by the hundreds, of thousands of homosexuals and Buddists, and Muslims out there, and tell me if its still 'unreal' to you.

Thats all I'm gonna say on it.