I've read about this elsewhere. Isn't this story a year old?

But the doctor's objection has to be to the "service" itself, not the recipient. At least, that's my reading of it.

This is all just silly. This shows the silly path this country is being forced down. This is going to cause a horrible (or wonderful) backlash come the next elections. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing religious or right about the religious right. It shames me as a Catholic that the Church is even getting involved in such a selfish, hateful issue. Apparently, the Michigan Catholic Church lost their Bibles. Worry not, I will loan you mine. Perhaps you should read some of the scriptures regarding Jesus, you know, the man who founded our Church? Legislators and Catholic Church leaders in Michigan....ask yourself...What Would Jesus Do?

Apparently yes, and it died in the legislature last year, but from other reports I have seen, it may have been reintroduced this year, hence the renewed publicity.

Okay, but the Catholic moral code says abortion can only be done to save the mother's life. Should a Catholic physician be able to refuse to perform an abortion on a diabetic woman that will lose her kidney function, but not her life, if the pregnancy continues? That is the kind of real-life example that these laws never consider.

Which means a doctor who does not believe in sex before, or outside of, marriage could refuse treatment for STDs because of the patient's "lifestyle" and the physician's belief that such diseases are punishment for immorality.

As a card carrying citizen of soviet Canukistan, here's my 2 cents worth.

For any Physician, Hospital or any other health care worker to deny any form of care, is repugnant. Maybe it's the difference in the 2 countries, but if anyone tried that up here, it would not be allowed, and they would most probably lose the right to practice.

Our National Health Act states that no patient, can be refused. Even if that patient doesn' have health care coverage, the law states that that patient MUST be treated. Failure to do so could result in the hospital losing it's accreditation.

And for those of you who think that this creates another beaurocracy (sp), think of it this way. here in Toronto, the Sunnybrook Health Care Center is the largest in the Toronto area, with over 6,000 beds. It is a very large research hospital, as well as having a veterans hospital on the grounds.

This hospital is the major triage center for Toronto, and gets most of the air ambulances as well.

Total number of people in the accounts receivable department?

6

Great post Lksimcoe! I learned quite a bit by reading your thoughts.

Keep them coming!

Did I just see his head spin around?

"An optimist sees the glass as half full. The pessimist sees it as half empty. A realist sees it as totally full - half with water, half with air."

Hey guys, you're being dragged behind a proverbial pickup truck tied to a rope on this one.

The bill was defeated in a GOP-controlled House last year by GOPers (and Dems) and with the support of GOP State Senators who publicly stated they wouldn't support the bill if it EVER made it out of the State House, which it didn't.

And no, there isn't a similar bill being readied for introduction as we type. No plans for it, either. Let's get it right, ok?

This is another ruse by anti-GOP partisans and gay spin doctors to whip up the whiners and get
'em motivated once again.

And more to the point, despite what some commentators wrote above, the bill wasn't aimed at denying gays health care access. That issue wasn't brought up in all the committee hearings in 2004 by ANYone; nada, no one. The purpose of the bill was to provide legal protection to church-run hospitals that were being pressured by abortion activists to allow non-medical staff docs to perform abortion services in rural areas.

No gay issue here. No GOP boogeyman. Just another attempt by partisans within the extreme elements of our gay community trying to whip up some heat. Repeating: it happened last year, the sane minds within the GOP and House stopped it; end of story. No new attempt in the works.

If you call the House, Senate or Gov and complain about last year's bill like it is "current" --or worse yet, like it's the knife aimed at gay hearts across Michigan-- well, then our community will once again look like ill-informed jerks and reactionaries.

Please, this is a non-issue. Someone's just trying to jerk our chains --like public outings, anti-gay issues, and rights restrictions weren't enough on our plate right now... they have to go make some up. Gheez, rumors without merit.

MiMatt38 is a realist, in that he sees yall are totally full...

"Does Fantomas have a retraction or a bill number or anything?" - William1865

Hey William... it's easier than all that. These guys don't do research; they just cut, paste and run. Take the first line of the fake news article, google-it, and you'll get all kinds of references to 2004. This thread comes from a site targeted to gay parents and the site literally "buys" their feed from a gaytopics news service --or in this case, disservice.

What wonderful thoughts William1865! GREAT quote too I must add. Perhaps you should think of publishing a book of original thoughts?

People could learn so much from your thoughts and observations!

Hey MiMatt....correct me if I'm wrong, but this is on the Michigan State Legislature's official website...
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?pa...me=2003-HB-5006
...if you look at the history of this bill, it shows it was passed by the Michigan State House by a 69-35 vote on April 21, 2004. Am I reading this wrong?

It also shows it was referred to committee on 4/22/04 and hasnt moved since. So Id say its stuck there in the Senate.

"Perhaps later in 2005 Fantomas will alert us to the results of the 2004 Presidential election!"

Ha ha ha. I think everyone knows how the election turned out.

I did check the Michigan State site when I posted and it said it HAD BEEN PASSED, and then referred to the Health Committee last spring. According to the Journal of the Michigan Senate, it says the following:

I don't know how Michigan's legislature works, so I'm not sure how Republicans "defeated" it, but if it's dead, I guess it's dead, so I do apologize for posting that it's an ongoing issue. Is the Michigan State legislature Website fake too? If not, if it's dead, it's dead. One LESS thing to worry about in our theocracy, er, Republic.

[ March 30, 2005, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

This comment aims, I suppose, to be as offensive as possible, fo' sho'. Bonanza!

I think I posted this earlier, probably around the time she was elected to be Governor, but A LOT of MI GOPers supported Dem. Jennifer Granholm and helped get her elected to stymie the RR in the MI GOP. Most smart people don't suffer the fools in the RR - or elsewere - gladly, which may be un-Xtian, but "a Hell" of a lot more practical in terms of getting good people into positions of power than having things run by an incompetent theocracy.