Monday, November 11, 2019

By November 22nd 5th Circuit Will Rule On Whether Minority Groups Still Have Health Care - And 'Denial of Care' Rule

No photo description available.

The news ( Church & State,  November, p. 6)  that emergency and other medical services may not be available for a number of minority groups in this country did not come as a total surprise.

As an earlier Denver Post piece observed (Sept. 5, p. 6A) )  the prime culprit is the Trump administration's recent imposition of "religious freedom"  edicts embodied in its 'Denial Of Care Rule' for medical providers. Below an excerpt from the piece:

No photo description available.

 As I noted in an earlier (Aug. 1) post:

An ambulance driver could refuse to transport a woman with an ectopic pregnancy

- A receptionist could turn an interfaith couple away seeking fertility treatment

- A nurse could withdraw information about HIV treatment

- A paramedic could refuse to help a woman who's fallen in her home because she's Jewish

Each of the above scenarios is possible under the Trump Administration's new 'Denial Of Care Rule', public health advocates warn.   Other potential denials not listed in the piece but fully consistent with a denial policy include:

- A young woman suffering from endometriosis denied artificial contraception meds which could rectify and ameliorate her condition.

- A prostate cancer patient -  say who's an atheist or homeless (or both) - could be deprived of hormone therapies (e.g. via meds, drugs like Lupron, Casodex - which are expensive) and be forced to undergo orchiectomy instead. (Full physical castration).

  According to Americans' United President and CEO Rachel Laser quoted in the August issue of  
Church & State,:

"This is the Trump administration's most dangerous attempt yet to weaponize religious freedom, and we won't stand for it."


"It is clear that women, LGBTQ people and religious minorities are the intended targets, but it doesn't stop there. The rule is so broad that everyone - including sick children, pregnant women and senior citizens - is at risk."

So no surprise the Trumpie maggots would also extend this specious "religious freedom" balderdash to emergency services as well.  The clock is running and whether we enter a nightmare scenario for millions of patients and caregivers will hinge on a ruling by federal judges - which may go into effect on November 22nd.  

As noted in the most recent (Nov.)  issue of Church & State,  "This invites virtually any health care worker - including doctors, nurses, paramedics, orderlies, and receptionists to deny care to any patient on the basis of the worker's religious or moral beliefs."

The Trumpie scum try to pretend this degenerate rule offers "religious freedom" - but it is a freedom purchased at the expense of others' suffering and denial of access to healthcare- including emergency care that might be life saving.  As the article goes on:

"Anyone can be denied care, even if life-threatening circumstances, because of who they are or what medical care they are seeking: women, LGBTQ people, patients with AIDS or HIV and religious minorities such as atheists".

Let me go on to point out that the threat of loss of funding for non -compliance extends to the health facilities themselves.  Hence, "facilities could feel forced to stop providing certain services like reproductive and LGBTQ-focused care- which is the ultimate goal of Trump and his base of religious extremists".

Why do this? Because they are vermin:  human cockroaches without an ounce of compassion,  genuine moral insight or respect for the nation's Constitution. Indeed, only such a pack of human hyena hybrids would use their religion as a cudgel to "debilitate health systems across the country leaving millions without access to critical health care."

DO they care if these millions of immigrant kids atheists, women or LGBTQ people perish from their untreated conditions?  Well, no, because they are little better than rats and roaches devoid of actual moral centers.  They would have to be to aggressively deny care to millions,  putting them and the larger society at risk, say of an unanticipated outbreak - perhaps of a more virulent  flu strain, or an antibiotic resistant STD.  This is, fortunately, why an alliance of plaintiffs are ready to press and challenge this ruling all the way to the Supreme Court if need be. After all, many medical professionals themselves point to the core ethical edict guiding their profession: "First do no harm".

But that edict cannot be followed if critical medical care, say for an AIDS,  flu or dengue fever patient, is denied.

As observed by Naseema Shafi, chief executive officer of Whitman-Walker clinic, quoted in the article:

"The Denial of Care message that healthcare providers cold be legally entitled to refuse or restrict care, based on their personal religious or moral beliefs, flies in the face of the standards and ethics of every health care profession, and would sow confusion and undermine the entire healthcare system."

And that is putting it mildly.  I suspect it could lead to a partial collapse of the health care system because I estimate over 45 million citizens would be affected, many of whom (e.g. seniors, women) already have insurance.  This possibility arose months ago in a WSJ piece,  'Court Signals Peril For Health Law', WSJ,  p. A4, July 10) wherein we learned:
"This is a case that could cause millions of Americans to lose health coverage and have deep political implications next year.

The final verdict will depend on the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans.  It has expressed  "skepticism' that the ACA is constitutional - which will almost certainly send the case before them to the Supreme Court.   In many respects this ought to claim as much attention as the coming impeachment public hearings, given the potential impact on millions.

But will it?  We will have to wait and see if Americans' attention range can extend that far. Already some pundits (MSNBC, Stephanie Ruhle show this a.m.)   insist it may be too much of an 'ask' for most to grasp the case concerning Trump's attempted extortion of the Ukrainian president , Volodymyr Zelensky.   If this is so it means the Reepo rats may be able to get enough of the public to buy into their  specious arguments, i.e. that Trump committed no impeachable offense.  If they can achieve that they may also be able to convince enough people that eviscerating their health care on the basis of  satisfying others'  'religious freedom' is totally constitutional.

That is how far we've possibly descended  into the abyss thanks to three years exposed to the Trump toxic meme (tweet)  factory.

No comments: