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

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:



 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."

Adding:

"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.

Can Catholic Hospitals Really Interfere With Colorado's 'Medical Aid In Dying' Law ? So Far, Yes.

 Above left above: Dr. Barbara Morris dismissed from her job by Centura Health for planning to assist cancer patient Neil Mahoney (center) to end his life under Colorado's Medical aid in Dying Act.  Brittany Maynard  (right)  had to travel to Oregon in November 2014 to use the state's medical aid in dying law to gain relief from terminal brain cancer. 

The issue of medical assistance for terminally ill patients has again come to the fore, this time here in Colorado. In a Denver Post story yesterday (p. 6A) we learned Dr. Barbara Morris had been terminated for offering assistance (under Colorado's Medical Aid in Dying Law) to a stage IV cancer patient,  Cornelius Mahoney.   The firing was done compliments of Centura Health Corp., which Roman Catholic owners now fully or partially control 5 of 10 major hospitals in the state.  

The recent incident brought to mind earlier interference into personal moral choice with brain cancer patient Brittany Maynard 5 years ago.

Few of us can forget Brittany Maynard's decision  to pull up stakes and travel to Oregon  to avail herself of that state's medical assistance in dying law. She chose this rather than endure the terminal stages of brain cancer. Brittany specifically moved to Oregon to become a resident to be able to make the  decision to end her suffering and carry it out without legal sanctions.    As I wrote in a blog post at the time, after the Vatican's castigation of her decision as "absurd and reprehensible":

"Do the judgmentalists really understand what happens to people in the terminal phases of brain cancer? Do they appreciate that the victims become essentially vegetables incapable of consciousness or the most rudimentary thought - with no knowledge of their surroundings and all the time in unbearable pain as the tumor generates enormous pressures inside their craniums. Are they aware of how all control of bodily functions is lost, and the person becomes a writhing mass of flesh that must be cleaned up almost on the hour else is left lying in their own bodily waste? Are they aware the person's mouth must be wiped constantly to prevent the drool from pooling on the mattress?"

Among the codswallop trotted out at the time was recycled RC doctrinal  bunkum from Melissa Harris- Perry  that "there is redemptive value in undeserved suffering".  Hence,  Brittany ought to have been willing to go through the possibly months (or years) long suffering of terminal brain cancer including loss of all control of her bladder, brain and bowels. to expiate her "sins." 

Evidently, Perry and the Vatican's fossils (in the Curia)  who condemned her decision as "absurd and reprehensible" would have preferred she'd been reduced to a drooling vegetable, with nonstop incontinence issues, and not even cognizant of those around her.  They'd not even grant her the dignity in death we allot to a sick pet dog suffering from terminal bone cancer.  But this is how screwed up their morality is.   It is why it has been encapsulated as "premoral" by ethicist Cheryl Mendelson in her book, 'The Good Life'.  Therein she notes that irrationality is a prime attribute of premoral thinking and the premoral mind - which typically denies any role for individual conscience. 

So what is the alternative, rational approach to morality?  It is “moral provisionalism” or provisional ethics, as described by Michael Shermer ('The Science of Good and Evil'). According to Shermer:

"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"

 Contrary to the Vatican's daft claim of "absurdity" in Brittany's choice,  the moral provisionalist only recognizes such in allowing a sentient being to descend into a totally vegetative state lacking any life quality - with excruciating pain to go with it. Hence, Brittany's choice to end her life is a greater good over merely existing in a debased vegetative condition based on the specious presumption of "sanctity of life" demanded indiscriminately for any and all conditions.  

Nor is there any need for any "redemptive" BS because "sin" itself is a macguffin to keep humans in an inferior state as opposed to attaining mastery over their lives. In the case of Catholics, for example, confession ensures a constant "sin treadmill"  where the person is never really free of the absolution of the assorted priests he sees over a lifetime. He keeps on "sinning" and then keeps coming back to confess them for relief - or "salvation".  Thus, sin is also a ridiculous concept. As my atheist friend Rick put it: "How can a finite glob of ambulatory flesh "offend" a supposedly infinite Being? It's totally ludicrous."
 
I mention this because the "redemptive"  baloney  has also been invoked  by Centura Health in its decision  to fire a doctor (Barbara Morris),  who had  planned to attend to a stage IV cancer patient, Neil Mahoney.    According to the earlier cited Denver Post piece:

 "In a letter hand -delivered to Morris, who has worked in the health care system since 2013, Centura president Vance Maclaren said she had violated the firm's governing rules" i.e. "embodied in The Ethical and Religious Directives For Catholic Health Care Services."

The letter went on to say:

"Rather than encouraging patient Cornelius Mahoney to receive care consistent with that doctrine or transferring care to other providers, you have encouraged a morally unacceptable option"

And what, pray tell, was the option she ought to have selected?  We learn the answer from the document cited by the Post:

"Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering."

In other words, be accepting of a nice, tortuous and prolonged demise where you will be barfing and shitting your bedclothes and everything else most of the time - even as you're barely conscious of much more than the odor and filth. A dog in this country deserves better and gets it, but not terminal human cancer patients.  Those the church beckons to roil in their "redemptive" suffering for whatever...imaginary sins they committed in the past. 

But let's cut to the chase and drop the bafflegab and formalist bullshit and "doctrine" cited by Centura.  As the Denver Post piece observes (ibid.)  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:

What is this so-called "conscience rule" about?   Archdiocese of Denver spokesperson Mark Haas put it thusly (ibid.):

"Asking a Christian hospital to play any role in violating the dignity of human life is asking the Christian hospital to compromise its values and core mission. This is not the hospital forcing its beliefs on others but rather having outside views forced upon it."

Which is pure balderdash. First, the top sentence means the "Christian" hospital actually invests more "dignity" in a contorted, tortured, puking and nonstop- shitting person than for that person to die with dignity.  How is that for twisted logic?  Sophistry anyone?   As Florida Lawyer Robert Rivas pointed out, skewering this claptrap (ibid.):

"When you look closely at what they're saying, it turns out they really want to be empowered to force their religion on others."

  As for the last line of Haas' statement, that also is a terrific excuse for running roughshod over a state law which entitles any Coloradan suffering from the final stages of a disease to get final respite at any hospital.    In reality, the only "outside force" at work here, providing leverage (empowerment) for this sanctimonious refusal, is the nation's pussy grabber- in -chief, Dotard Trump.  This asswipe excuse for a president is their moral dictator-   like he is now for the evangelicals, e.g.



As Americans United CEO Rachel Laser put it, after this farce of a conscience rule was ordained by the nation's number one sexual predator,  liar, grifter and con man:


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

And it's now rearing its ugly, deformed head in challenging the state's medical aid -in- dying act passed by a large majority of Colorado voters. So we are clear on this politically implemented rule, no matter how its gussied up in doctrine or dogma: 

"It invites any health care worker - including doctors, nurses, paramedics, administrators and even clerical staff- to deny medical treatment and services to patients because of personal religious or moral belies."

This is exactly what's happened here in Colorado, never mind the "redemptive suffering" malarkey.   Thousands of  terminal or near terminal cancer patients are hoping this religious rebellion based on bogus first amendment sophistry can be nipped in the bud.  Else, patients will find other ways - not medically or legally sanctioned - to end their misery.   As Dr. Morris explained to the Post:

"These are complex, ill patients. We have a pretty big thing n medicine about not abandoning patients, so that's a pretty big issue."

In her lawsuit filed with Mr. Mahoney, she argues that "Centura's policy prohibting doctors from prescribing aid in dying drugs is broader than state law allows."

With which I concur.  And that's why I do hope the state AG joins the suit, especially as an ancillary state law mandates that "health care facilities may not limit or otherwise exercise control  over a physcian's medical judgement" . 

 We cannot allow religions which now - via mergers and other operations -control so many hospitals, to have the final say on a citizen's well being. And that well being includes his or her choice to shuffle this mortal coil without undergoing "redemptive" torture. 

See also:

If Trump Gets Another 4 Years: Look For Religious ...

If Trump Gets Another 4 Years: Look For Religious Control Of Your Health Care

Many of the delirious and drowning in denial will insist it can't happen.  But if Trump is re-elected we could see a  Reich wing, religiously- dictated health care system.  Impossible, you say? Not if he can then tilt the Supreme Court even further Right, via a 6-3 or even 7-2 majority.  Then look for a miscast "religious liberty" on steroids.  Try to conceive, my friends, of the Court bending over even further backwards to allow and enable disdain of patients, say beyond providing artificial contraception. (Which is already happening now with push back the ACA rules).   See e.g.

'Little Sisters of the Poor' Need an Education In ... - Brane Space

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/little-sisters-of-poor-need-education.html


What would a fully religious health system, implemented with the help of extremist Catholics and Trump's Religious Right allies and fanatics look like? According to the recent article 'Bad Medicine" appearing in Church & State (July-August, p. 9):

- 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 piece:

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

Well, I certainly hope not!  BUT if Trump somehow sneaks in again - using the Electoral college- there will be very little anyone can do if he stacks the Supreme Court to issue even more draconian rulings.

So we are clear on the rule's provisions, it "invites any health care worker - including doctors, nurses, paramedics, administrators and even clerical staff- to deny medical treatment and services to patients because of personal religious or moral belies."

Adding:

"The vaguely worded rule sets no limits on what constitutes a religious or moral refusal, even in life and death situations".

So technically, such medical staff - if they knew I was an atheist - could deny me life -saving care.  Say if the only hospital I was able to get to was a Catholic one.   Well, what if such a hospital were to thumb its nose at the Trumpie imperialists and deliver care anyway? Well then under the law's provisions, they could lose federal funding.

As Ms. Laser puts it (ibid.):

"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."

Particularly abhorrent is the "conscience rights" aspect of this misbegotten rule.  I.e. if a religious medical provider's "conscience" is upset by the prospect of treating a Jew or atheist, or LGBTQ person, he can rightfully avoid doing so.  As articulated by Lorri L. Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles   LGBT Rights Center (ibid.):

"This so-called conscience rights rule is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to codify discrimination against LGBT people, among others.  It eliminates critical health care protections and puts millions of lives at risk.  Moreover it is a clear violation of civil rights laws.:"

Well, we already know what the Supreme Court did to the Voting Rights Act, don't we? So again, if the Court is stacked even further by Trump that response provides little in the way of comfort. What we do know is that if this outrageous rule is implemented - and again, I'd expect a very good chance if Trump gets re-elected- then it will exacerbate health care access for a wide swatch of citizens, from young women seeking abortions, to LGBTQ folks, to those living with HIV.

Again, people would be wise not to dismiss the consequences, given a number of real life incidents have already been reported.  These would be given full license should the rule become law. For example. (p. 11):

-  A transgender woman who needed an ultrasound for a cancer screening but was denied by a technician who also openly mocked her.

-   A man who called emergency services when he feared he was having a heart attack but the EMS team then refused to transport him and belittled him on learning he was gay.

These are bound to increase exponentially if Trump's Denial Rule" is made the law of the land. Worse, the remnants of Obamacare could be gone at the same time, (E.g. 'Court Signals Peril For Health Law', WSJ,  p. A4, July 10) wherein we learn:

"This is a case that could cause millions of Americans to lose health coverage and have deep political implications next year." 

This is traced to the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans expressing "skepticism' that the ACA is constitutional - which will almost certainly send the case before them to the Supreme Court. Are you confident that the ACA will be upheld with Brett Kavanagh and his sidekick Neil Gorsuch on the Court? I'm not!

Don't wish to see it? Then we have to ensure the reprehensible human rat :

doesn't get a second term!

Dems, you better damned well not blow it!  Voters, you better not either!