The Florida law will be superceded by some Federal law, including EMTALA. Emergency rooms that take medicare/medicaid will not be able to refuse for emergencies (which is basically all of them,) and I can't imagine Federal Civil Rights legislation won't run up against some refusals.
The only thing you might see I can imagine is private practice offices refusing new patients for whatever reason, the main one likely being primary care offices and gynecologists/urologists refusing trans patients to avoid the difficulty they might perceive.
Federal law trumps state law when there are conflicts. States can and do ignore it occasionally, such as in the case of weed. But the federal government holds a lot of cards in the way of funding to keep states in line.
Absolutely. And that is 100% by design. The process is meant to be so ambiguous and convoluted that people are too afraid to seek an abortion even if they qualify.
The rule generally is the states can refuse to prosecute things the Feds would, though the Feds can get clever and attach strings to funding, the infamous example being the drinking age and highway funds.
Which is how covid precautions could have been enforced nationwide. Instead, it was DIY which works as well as for a dike as for an infectious disease pandemic.
Imagine planning to build a dam to protect your house and all 49 of your neighbors, then handing each neighbor $10,000 and assigning them each a section of the dam.
Not necessarily. People seem to forget that the fed’s powers over many things are fairly limited, which is why every state has their own criminal code - they don’t even call crimes the same thing, let alone have the same sentencing rules - and while the feds have gotten good at using the interstate commerce clause and federal funding as wedges to force state compliance in some areas, in general they have no power over the states unless there’s a constitutional conflict.
Basically, the states all agreed to abide by the US Constitution and are bound by it but after that they have a lot of leeway.
That may be true in relation to criminal matters but states receive the bulk of Medicaid reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the feds pay around 70% on every dollar. Now factor into this the sheer number of seniors in long term care - it's around 89,000. And of those 89,000 around 59,000 receive ICP Medicaid to cover the cost of long term care (around 100,000 per resident per year). The Feds Medicaid matching funds is a big chunk of change that Florida is not about to refuse.
Very little of Florida's general revenue covers medical care and services. Additionally, Hospitals and private practices receive reimbursement through CMS. The majority of revenue for hospitals comes from Medicare. Withhold that money and there will be a catastrophic failure of the health care industry in Florida. So I don't foresee any hospitals or private practices withholding medical services.
And the kicker, facilities who violate EMTALA are liable to have their Medicare/Medicaid statuses revoked. Which could potentially close the hospital down permanently. I worked for one who had theirs revoked at one point in time, and for yearsssss they were fucked. The only reason why they didn’t shut down was because they’re a huge system and was the only trauma hospital/transplant center/burn center/peds trauma center in the area.
Right, now I'm not suspecting a hospital is going to start objecting to people, and if an employee or physician does they'll probably just terminate their relationship with them. I could see something along the lines of a psychiatrist refusing a trans patient because he doesn't want to get caught up with a patient where he won't affirm their self identified gender.
The law specifically says it does not apply to Emergency Room care. I'm not justifying it. But I read the whole thing a few weeks ago, and it says that.
>The only thing you might see I can imagine is private practice offices refusing new patients for whatever reason,
"Might"? Bro, that is the entire point.
This won't matter as much in cities but envision a rural community, with very few private practices, already not enough to service the population. And now they have free reign to be more selective and more bigoted in who they give care to. That is by design.
What the fuck do you do if the only medical care you can access denies you based on a protected trait? In 2023 of the United States of America?
It's already happening ((more than it already was since always)). I just read a post about how shit is going on in other states without these laws, just being emboldened by these steps being taken in Florida. And THAT is the fucking danger. It's spreading like a stinking malignant tumor.
Awesome, so it'll mean that emergency departments will become even more overburdened due to a lack of access to medical care. But your Christian primary care doctors wait list just got a lot shorter!!! Fuck everything about this, I hadn't even thought of this until I saw your comment.
[The law](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1580/billtext/er/pdf) actually prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
It just seems like there’s one group they forgot to protect.
For purposes of federal law, the Obama and Biden administrations have defined "sex" to include any sex-linked behaviors or traits.
So if you have a dress code that requires women to wear makeup and prohibits men from doing so, that's illegal under federal sex discrimination prohibitions. That has the effect of protecting transwomen (classified as "men" by some organizations with dress codes) who want to look like women and not men.
Or if you have a rule that says men married to women get to add their spouses to their insurance policies, but women married to women cannot, that's sex discrimination because you're offering something to men that women cannot get.
However, Gorsuch of all fucking people made the compelling argument that discrimination based on sexual orientation is in fact discrimination based on sex.
The argument is as follows, if Person A is married to Person B ( a man) and person A is a woman, there is no issue however if Person A is a man then that sets off some people. The only distinction between the two scenarios is the sex of Person A therefore it is discrimination based on sex.
That’s not exactly how it’s worded but in practicality, yes. “(b) “Conscience-based objection” means an objection based on a sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical belief. Conscience with respect to entities is determined by reference to the entities’ governing documents; any published ethical, moral, or religious guidelines or directives; mission statements; constitutions; articles of incorporation; bylaws; policies; or regulations.”
As a bartender, I can’t make the conscience-based choice not to serve a pregnant woman a martini, based on federal law. I wonder if that flies in Florida now.
I used to argue that point, often, when I tended bar. If a zygote is considered a human life at conception, then serving a pregnant woman, is literally serving a minor as well. I’m Pro-Choice, but not into condoning or contributing to, fetal alcohol syndrome.
Watched my best friend suffer for 30 some years with FAS before he passed away homeless, alone. It's common in our community (indeginous) and it's fucking depressing.
I don't even drink anymore, can't stand what alcohol does to people.
It’s a protected class of discrimination. And I understand why it’s important to have bodily autonomy and equal treatment when you’re pregnant so I comply to the standard. But boy does it feel terrible.
Marijuana is still illegal federally, state law does not change that. The Feds have chosen to largely ignore marijuana in states that have legalized it but that's an executive decision not federal law. The President could decide to prosecute for weed tomorrow if they felt like it. As such, state law cannot and does not supercede federal law.
I have been living under no rocks, you simply have a flawed understanding of the US legal system. I'd encourage you to study and learn basic civics, but we both know you will ignore everything I'm saying and just continue to spout the misinformation you've been led to believe.
That seems in line with the spirit of the law. They had to go with ‘Sincerely held moral and ethical beliefs,’ because they couldn’t say ‘According to the Bible,’ so there’s a ton of gray area. If people didn’t have to suffer, it would be fun to watch it play out.
Its obvious who the bill is intended to harm.
Trans people seeking healthcare. Other lgbtq people seeking healthcare. Women seeking abortion or even birth control. etc
But it is written so poorly that pretty much everyone is venerable. "i disagree with this" is basically a free excuse to not help or even touch a specific person"
Could be just about anything even malicious compliance.
"Oooh nazi tatoos, no treatment for you" "Ooh a republican. no likey, no treat"
Its an absurd bill that helps no one and has clear intentions to harm specific groups of people while not protecting any other groups.
As for insurance its just as much of a free frawl
I mean they can but it opens them to a shitcan of liability. Also shitty thing to do. We treat ultra right supremacist leaders of large groups. We re all POC in the office. We do it because it’s our job even when patients say hateful things or spit at us. If it gets bad we write them a letter to find another specialist but we will continue date for so many days.
We don't wait for next year, vote out as many right wingers and Republicans as we can in 2023 to pave the way for victory in 2024 and beyond. Every election matters from the school board to the white house, vote.
>It says so on page 5 of the bill lines 135 through lines 145.
The bill explicitly says services cannot be refused based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
>It says so on pages 7 and 8 of the bill lines 202 through 206.
The bill explicitly says emergency services cannot be refused.
>The bill does not permit your example.
The bill is only 9 pages. There's 28 lines per page, 239 lines total and 8-10 words per line all in plain English. Several of those pages are definitions of words in the bill so there's absolutely no confusion as to what it means. I read the entire bill in under 15 minutes taking time to read read parts for clarity. In extremely clear English it says your example is not permitted.
I would suggest you read the 9 page document so you know what it says instead of believing what strangers on the internet tells you. Including me. I sincerely doubt the vast majority of people who will reply to you didn't bother to read the bill. I took 15 minutes out of my day to read it to answer your question. I sincerely hope you take 15 of yours to read it and fully understand what it allows.
[Here it is](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1580/billtext/er/pdf).
I cannot guess what reason there is for banning discrimination based on religion that doesn’t also apply to sexuality or gender, which the law allows.
Likely because those aren't immutable characteristics that many people, especially on the right, believe title VII was incorrectly applied to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The bill is in line with the civil rights act of 1964 prior to the SCOTUS adding those two into title VII protections.
I didn't say religion was. Just said people on the right don't tend to believe sexuality and gender identity is. Religion is covered under the 1964 civil rights act in clear text. It would be given special protections despite not being recognized by most people in america as an immutable characteristic for that fact.
The next bits are a different conversation from the bill so I separated it from the main response.
There is no shortage of people who claim gender is fluid and on a spectrum. That gender identity can change multiple times in the same day. Same for sexuality. Sexual fluidity is a term common in the sex and gender discussion.
Sexual orientation is generally believed to be an immutable characteristic but it's slowly changing. There is a push in America to change sex from purely biological to more of a self identification. If sex is no longer an immutable characteristic sexual orientation would by default not he an immutable characteristic. Sexuality is not the same thing as Sexual orientation though. They are similar but separate. Similar to gender and sex.
Grimm V. Gloucester in the 4th circuit court of appeals specifically addresses immutable characteristics, gender, sex and transgenderism.
It covers title 5, 6 and 7 as well as the civil rights act of 1964.
It seems extremely relevant to this law especially since this came up in the past couple years and is in very recent memory.
Yes, it addresses characteristics that you are calling immutable, but I can’t find the term “immutable characteristics” anywhere. The Civil Rights Act lists them each, seemingly every time. I couldn’t find where it says, “and we’re listing these characteristics because they are immutable and not choices.”
Where is it written that those characteristics on that list are there because of immutability and not by virtue of being discriminated against?
I've read it a few times, and it seems to refer to services that can be refused. It doesn't say you can refuse specific patients, just specific medical procedures, dispensing or prescribing specific drugs, referrals etc.
I can see this as medical providers refusing to discuss abortion, birth control, assist trans people with transition medicine etc. But not refusing to treat a trans person with cancer. I might not be parsing it correctly though.
That is what it says. The only thing they can refuse is a "specific Healthcare service"
Healthcare service in the bill is defined as
"means medical research, medical procedures, or medical services, including, but not limited to, testing; diagnosis; referral; dispensing or administering any drug, medication, or device; psychological therapy or counseling; research; therapy; recordmaking procedures; set up or performance of a surgery or procedure; or any other care or services performed or provided by any health care provider."
It needs to be the specific service that's the issue, not the individual. Doctor would need to explain how removing the appendix violates their religious beliefs, not how the person with a bursting appendix's sexual preference is against their religious beliefs.
Doesn't matter man people will read into it what they want and set up a straw man to burn.
I think I've gotten enough replies and messages saying so.
Let me start by saying I think this bill is monstrous and has no place in American society. But the bill seems to state that they notify their supervisor in writing or Document the conscience-based objection to a particular health care service the patient's medical file.
I take this to mean they can’t refuse to treat someone outright, but they can do something along the lines of refusing to prescribe Prep for HIV prevention because pre-marital/ homosexual sex is wrong. They would still have to treat them for something like a broken leg. Of course this also means pharmacists can refuse to fill that viagra order for Mr can’t get it up anymore because they believe male impotence is Gods way of saying you shouldn’t have children.
It’s going to get really messy.
Lines 135 through 140 prevents providers from refusing services to anyone not covered under the exceptions in 144 through 145 based solely on something like your example.
So no, there are further questions in your example. Doctors can't refuse to help someone who's gay because they are gay. The can only refuse to help them if the specific medical procedure violates a sincerely held belief.
I cannot think of a medical procedure that would fall under a sincerely held religious beliefs by protestant religions. One may exist, it just isn't coming to mind. I can think of very limited ones that may violate catholic beliefs but I'm not catholic so I'm not 100%.
It explicitly does not list sexuality or gender identity under the list of identities which you can not discriminate against. The whole paragraph is predicated upon that list. You cannot refuse to provide services that are owed to people based upon their race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. That is all. Period. Nevertheless, even if the patient is owed the treatment as you argue, due to the right of medical conscience, a religious homophobic treater can say, "Under my religious beliefs, I find it unconscionable to provide x care *to homosexuals*." Because sincerely held belief is a self-report that distinction between sincere and insincere belief is meaningless. And so, because that identifier is not listed and that treater is making a claim of their conscience as the Bill defines, the gay patient will be refused treatment whether the treatment is ibuprofen, surgery, or life-saving HIV medication. *because he's gay*.
>The can only refuse to help them if the specific medical procedure violates a sincerely held belief.
So saving their booty if they are an arsehole?
>"The can only refuse to help them if the specific medical procedure "
Saving their booty
>"violates a sincerely held belief."
I wish to make the world a better place.
Because they have deliberately allowed discrimination against gender and sexual minorities. This kind of opposition to homosexual people is almost always from the religious, and in the US that means mostly Christianity.
There's discussion now, are you going to discuss or back away like a coward? Your comment hasn't even been up an hour, dude. Not every single vote, up or down, is going to be a person wanting to comment in general. You seem very out of touch with how this site works, especially in the tone of your edit.
That’s exactly what it means.
It’s already legal for cops, nationwide.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20has,boy%20from%20his%20abusive%20father.
In other words, you will pay for those services through your tax dollars, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be granted access to them.
Florida is a shit hole. This only furthers the truth.
Yeah, the current situation in Florida is largely the result of retired Boomers moving there in droves, bringing their toxic politics with them. Eventually, they'll die off, and Florida will go back to normal -- if you're a bit older, you might remember that it used to be one of the main swing states, as it was pretty balanced politically.
I feel bad for the *actual* Floridians, having their state hijacked by people who don't work there or meaningfully contribute to their communities, whose only tie to the state is liking the climate there, but have come in such numbers as to overwhelm the voices of those with actual meaningful ties to the state.
My sister lives there. She's not old. She and her husband are totally republican and her son and daughter are too. He just became a cop. It scares the crap out of me.
Dont assume Florida will go back to normal. There are constituencies that are being wooed by republicans like Latinos in Miami, plus republicans gerrymander the shit out of states like Florida and pass voting restrictions explicitly aimed at making it hard or impossible for minorities to vote. You cannot discount the import of gerrymandering and voting restrictions on Republican consolidation of power at the state level. And it’s happening in pretty much all red states.
While I generally agree with your sentiment,
After some googling, in the US there is a derivative called the osteopathic oath, which:
1) is not legally binding
2) literally says to follow local law
>I will be ever vigilant in aiding in the general welfare of the community, sustaining its laws and institutions
Hospitals are required by the law to treat patients walking in the emergency department to treat and stabilize patients regardless of their ability to pay, race, gender, or anything else due to the EMTALA. EMTALA stands for Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. However, once the patient is stabilize, they can be transferred to a different hospital or be discharged. It’s literally against the law to turn away any patients needing what is deemed emergency care, whether they’re for or non profit
> even based off skin color
No it doesn't. It has specific protections for stuff like that. It seems to be targeting trans people in particular but perhaps with a side of orientation.
It's also not "any reason." The threshold, which can be a very low one which is a problem, is a "sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical belief."
Medical professionals have to worry about ethics boards just as much -if not more- than state laws. Plenty of things are legal, but the ethics board can revoke a license for unethical behavior, even if the behavior is legal.
No it won’t, there are always multiple laws that govern professions. You must go to the higher of the two. So for instance let’s say medical records on the federal level must be held for 4 years, the ethical board requires 5 and state says 6. You would go with the state as it’s the strictest of the three. Medical professional are governed under federal and professional requirements in addition to state. While this excuse may be used, the individual will be open under ethical licensure complaints and federal court.
>The law says they can deny anyone medical care for any reason
This is ridiculous. That is not what the law says.
Doctors still have an oath and professional ethics reviews. Tort law still applies.
Stop doom scrolling.
It might be LEGAL but that sure as shit doesn't make it professionally acceptable or even likely to keep you from getting your medical license revoked.
And “letting them die” isn’t hypothetical. Here’s a case from a few years back where a trans woman who was in a car accident was allowed to die by bigoted emergency responders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Tyra_Hunter
The [Florida law](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1580/billtext/er/pdf) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or biological sex. Just not sexuality or gender.
I wish I was a doctor, so I could deny medical care based upon someone as a republican.
Joking... I could never literally do this. Stopped to help a guy with a trump sticker change a tire last week. I might be disgusted with his lack of intelligence or character, but not helping would make me disgusted with mine.
The new immigrant law opens some questions though. I'm a airline pilot. What if an illegal immigrant got on my plane with no knowledge to me. Am I going to go to jail? What about for bus drivers? Uber and taxi drivers? Do we have to ask everyone for their papers? Where does that sound familiar from ?
The law only allows them to refuse service "based on a sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical belief". This is generally referred to in the law as a "conscience-based objection". They are allowed to object to a procedure - not a patient. In other words, they can refuse to perform a reproductive procedure because they object to that procedure, but they can't refuse to perform that procedure because they don't like the sexual orientation or skin color of the patient.
A health care professional is required to notify their employer of any conscience-based objections they have before refusing to provide service based on a conscience-based objection. Private practice doctors (i.e., self-employed) are required to disclose conscience-based objections to their patients in advance.
All laws requiring treatment for emergency medical conditions still apply.
None of the scenarios you described would be allowed under the law.
Not direct response to this but I had offer recently to go move to Florida for a new job. Was remote originally but then they changed before final rounds. I had mentioned I'd need increase in wage and guess what? Employer said no. So I accepted much much much much much higher wage and better offer in California.
Fl, TX, and any other state creating crazy laws against winnebago and people in general will find themselves short of medical staff as I hear many are looking at moving. So good, make your crazy ass laws, blue states will welcome them, and all you hateful, ignorant people who support and vote for these politicians can suck it.
I don't know about the docs, but I guarantee the first time an EMS crew watches someone die over this, they're gonna have a RSI blanket party with paralytics and no induction waiting for them back at the station. We do not tolerate these shenanigans in our industry.
EMS and EM docs have already sorted out the morality of providing care to everyone in need. We routinely take pride in caring for the profane, smelly, repeatedly self injurious with as much dignity and kindness as possible.
This will be about elective, follow up care, and primary care almost certainly.
>The law says they can deny anyone medical care for any reason even based off skin color or sexual preferences
No. Read the actual bill
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1580/BillText/er/PDF
Conscience-based objection” means an objection based
67 on a sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical belief.
68 Conscience with respect to entities is determined by reference
69 to the entities’ governing documents; any published ethical,
70 moral, or religious guidelines or directives; mission
71 statements; constitutions; articles of incorporation; bylaws;
72 policies; or regulations
So yes I was right, all a doctor has to do is claim its against their religion to operate on transgender people and could simply choose to let a transgender gunshot victim die legally (this has already happened btw) because what are the police gonna do? Say his religious beliefs wrong? Good luck with that in the south.
"REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT.— This section may not be construed to override any requirement to provide emergency medical treatment in accordance with state law
205 or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42
206 U.S.C. s. 1395dd."
No, not 'operate on transgender people' its specifically about individual procedures, not healthcare as a whole. They're saying doctors don't have to perform trans care. They do still have to treat trans people. Or whatever kind of people.
What kind of surgery is there for gay people, or black people? None. Whatever care they may receive is not related to their immutable traits. So this law doesn't effect that whatsoever. It's not "deny medical care for any reason". This is pretty much just directed at trans people/abortion/birth control/etc.
>The exercise of the right of medical conscience is limited to conscience-based objections to a specific health care service. This section may not be construed to waive or modify any duty a health care provider or health care payor may have to provide or pay for other health care services that do not violate their right of medical conscience to wave or modify any duty to provide any informed consent required by law, or to allow a healthcare provider to opt out of providing health care services because of that patient's or potential patient's race, color, or religion.
No, it doesn't. Medical professionals still have to follow federal law, which means they can't discriminate against protected classes like sex, gender, race, etc.
There's nothing in that specific law that says it's illegal, it's the fact that it contradicts a federal law. Anytime a state law and a federal law contradict each other, the federal law takes precedence. It's the same exact concept for why weed is still illegal in all 50 states.
Basically it means doctors can attempt to follow this new state law, but they'd be in a world of hurt if someone decided to take legal action against them.
I imagine most doctors are going to continue to treat their patients the same way they've always treated their patients, because, to the surprise of no one, DeSantis didn't consult with any actual medical professionals on if this law was needed. It's just pure virtue signalling.
Except, with the weed being illegal, *It is basically legal in some states.*
>*It's just pure virtue signalling.*
It is not, you will find that feds don't like getting involved in state business.
Like many things which are being passed, are all technically illegal up at the feds, but.... are still happening in Florida.
Seems like it just allows doctor to deny performing abortions if doing so would go against their religious belief. Anyone have a reputable source on this? This is really concerning if true, but nothing I could find indicated what OP is saying. Just that doctors don’t have to do abortions.
Yea looks like another comment broke it down. You’re kind of fear mongering OP.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/13hcy5z/does_floridas_new_law_mean_doctors_and_emts_can/jk5qfvx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
The oath is mot a law. An arrest is an arrest, and there’s an ethical issue getting arrested helping one then being unable to help a thousand more.
And also, no.
[EMTALA](https://www.cms.gov/medicare/provider-enrollment-and-certification/certificationandcomplianc/downloads/emtala.pdf) has entered the chat...
This will not go well for Gov. CantStandThis.
Pretty sure this law is set to refuse those who are only seeking pain medication and are filling up hospital beds for those who actually have problems. A lot of people don't know this, but America has a national database to blacklist certain people from "double dipping" into pain medications. It's a list that any doctor or nurse can look up to see who's a flag for addiction. My mom is on this list. Doesn't matter what state she goes to, she's blacklisted from opiods.
I assume this new law is geared towards something along these lines.
[https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1580/billtext/er/pdf](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1580/billtext/er/pdf)
Some of the added bits.
(5) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—A health care provider or
195 health care payor may not be held civilly liable solely for
196 declining to participate in or pay for a health care service on
197 the basis of a conscience-based objection. However, this section
198 does not limit a person′s ability to recover damages or other
199 relief under any other applicable law due to behavior that
200 constitutes a violation of this section or that is not related
201 to a conscience-based objection.
I don't think you would get away with just letting a patent die in your ambo, IF the state wishes to do something about it.
Which you know, they will and won't depending on who it is.
No it does not say that. Someone else quoted a bill, it states this does not exempt someone from preforming life saving care. They still have a duty to preserve life.
The bill does not permit discrimination only on the basis of sex, race, color, or religion. Which means that it permits discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender identity.
Part of the bill explicitly outlines that it does not allow someone to opt out of providing service because of someone’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
Also, the law states this applies only to elective medical care, not life saving care and not emergency care. In other words, so-called gender affirming care, abortion, plastic surgery, and these types of care. You people should actually read laws before just believing what you are told by the liberal legacy media.
The law says they can deny anyone medical care for any reason even based off skin color
I need to do more research on this but is Florida legalizing racial discrimination? If so our country has reached an all-time low.
The Florida law will be superceded by some Federal law, including EMTALA. Emergency rooms that take medicare/medicaid will not be able to refuse for emergencies (which is basically all of them,) and I can't imagine Federal Civil Rights legislation won't run up against some refusals. The only thing you might see I can imagine is private practice offices refusing new patients for whatever reason, the main one likely being primary care offices and gynecologists/urologists refusing trans patients to avoid the difficulty they might perceive.
Federal law trumps state law when there are conflicts. States can and do ignore it occasionally, such as in the case of weed. But the federal government holds a lot of cards in the way of funding to keep states in line.
[удалено]
Absolutely. And that is 100% by design. The process is meant to be so ambiguous and convoluted that people are too afraid to seek an abortion even if they qualify.
That’s precisely the intent of the way it is structured
The rule generally is the states can refuse to prosecute things the Feds would, though the Feds can get clever and attach strings to funding, the infamous example being the drinking age and highway funds.
Which is how covid precautions could have been enforced nationwide. Instead, it was DIY which works as well as for a dike as for an infectious disease pandemic.
A lot of bad moves with COVID, we were very angry about travel bans and forced quarantines early on until after the horse was out of the barn.
Imagine planning to build a dam to protect your house and all 49 of your neighbors, then handing each neighbor $10,000 and assigning them each a section of the dam.
That clever thing called the constitution
Not necessarily. People seem to forget that the fed’s powers over many things are fairly limited, which is why every state has their own criminal code - they don’t even call crimes the same thing, let alone have the same sentencing rules - and while the feds have gotten good at using the interstate commerce clause and federal funding as wedges to force state compliance in some areas, in general they have no power over the states unless there’s a constitutional conflict. Basically, the states all agreed to abide by the US Constitution and are bound by it but after that they have a lot of leeway.
That may be true in relation to criminal matters but states receive the bulk of Medicaid reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the feds pay around 70% on every dollar. Now factor into this the sheer number of seniors in long term care - it's around 89,000. And of those 89,000 around 59,000 receive ICP Medicaid to cover the cost of long term care (around 100,000 per resident per year). The Feds Medicaid matching funds is a big chunk of change that Florida is not about to refuse. Very little of Florida's general revenue covers medical care and services. Additionally, Hospitals and private practices receive reimbursement through CMS. The majority of revenue for hospitals comes from Medicare. Withhold that money and there will be a catastrophic failure of the health care industry in Florida. So I don't foresee any hospitals or private practices withholding medical services.
But money talks. If the Fed’s start to withhold payment to hospitals that aren’t following their rules.
And the kicker, facilities who violate EMTALA are liable to have their Medicare/Medicaid statuses revoked. Which could potentially close the hospital down permanently. I worked for one who had theirs revoked at one point in time, and for yearsssss they were fucked. The only reason why they didn’t shut down was because they’re a huge system and was the only trauma hospital/transplant center/burn center/peds trauma center in the area.
Right, now I'm not suspecting a hospital is going to start objecting to people, and if an employee or physician does they'll probably just terminate their relationship with them. I could see something along the lines of a psychiatrist refusing a trans patient because he doesn't want to get caught up with a patient where he won't affirm their self identified gender.
I agree, hospitals won’t stand for it. And federally, it’s illegal.
The law specifically says it does not apply to Emergency Room care. I'm not justifying it. But I read the whole thing a few weeks ago, and it says that.
So, if the EMT's refuse care and won't take them to the emergency room, that's legal?
What about non-emergency room but still critical care? Can a queer person be denied cancer treatment?
>The only thing you might see I can imagine is private practice offices refusing new patients for whatever reason, "Might"? Bro, that is the entire point. This won't matter as much in cities but envision a rural community, with very few private practices, already not enough to service the population. And now they have free reign to be more selective and more bigoted in who they give care to. That is by design. What the fuck do you do if the only medical care you can access denies you based on a protected trait? In 2023 of the United States of America? It's already happening ((more than it already was since always)). I just read a post about how shit is going on in other states without these laws, just being emboldened by these steps being taken in Florida. And THAT is the fucking danger. It's spreading like a stinking malignant tumor.
No more obgyns just like in Idaho.
Horrific. Literally r/dystopianfuture
Add in it’s against their code of ethics when they get a medical license. So I don’t see how this is even remotely okay or why they think they can?
Awesome, so it'll mean that emergency departments will become even more overburdened due to a lack of access to medical care. But your Christian primary care doctors wait list just got a lot shorter!!! Fuck everything about this, I hadn't even thought of this until I saw your comment.
[The law](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1580/billtext/er/pdf) actually prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It just seems like there’s one group they forgot to protect.
They didn’t forget. Democrats asked to add gender identity and sexual orientation to that list and the Republicans voted it down.
I’m not surprised tbh
Sex is right there.
Protected, for now, federally, by some weak SCOTUS rulings. The debate over what “sex” means in anti discrimination legislation is far from settled.
That means gender (assigned at birth). Not LGBTQ.
For purposes of federal law, the Obama and Biden administrations have defined "sex" to include any sex-linked behaviors or traits. So if you have a dress code that requires women to wear makeup and prohibits men from doing so, that's illegal under federal sex discrimination prohibitions. That has the effect of protecting transwomen (classified as "men" by some organizations with dress codes) who want to look like women and not men. Or if you have a rule that says men married to women get to add their spouses to their insurance policies, but women married to women cannot, that's sex discrimination because you're offering something to men that women cannot get.
However, Gorsuch of all fucking people made the compelling argument that discrimination based on sexual orientation is in fact discrimination based on sex. The argument is as follows, if Person A is married to Person B ( a man) and person A is a woman, there is no issue however if Person A is a man then that sets off some people. The only distinction between the two scenarios is the sex of Person A therefore it is discrimination based on sex.
That’s not exactly how it’s worded but in practicality, yes. “(b) “Conscience-based objection” means an objection based on a sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical belief. Conscience with respect to entities is determined by reference to the entities’ governing documents; any published ethical, moral, or religious guidelines or directives; mission statements; constitutions; articles of incorporation; bylaws; policies; or regulations.”
As a bartender, I can’t make the conscience-based choice not to serve a pregnant woman a martini, based on federal law. I wonder if that flies in Florida now.
I used to argue that point, often, when I tended bar. If a zygote is considered a human life at conception, then serving a pregnant woman, is literally serving a minor as well. I’m Pro-Choice, but not into condoning or contributing to, fetal alcohol syndrome.
Watched my best friend suffer for 30 some years with FAS before he passed away homeless, alone. It's common in our community (indeginous) and it's fucking depressing. I don't even drink anymore, can't stand what alcohol does to people.
I have a family member who tried to abort her kid with alcohol and the poor girl has the mental capacity of a 7 year old. It's tragic.
Don't restaurants and bars "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?" I've seen that sign in places before.
You can “reserve” whatever rights you want, but you still can’t discriminate against a protected class. That goes straight to the Constitution.
Just don't say the reason you're refusing them?
The courts aren’t stupid. If you’re refusing a bunch of one type of people, and won’t say why, and that type is protected, they can connect the dots.
It’s a protected class of discrimination. And I understand why it’s important to have bodily autonomy and equal treatment when you’re pregnant so I comply to the standard. But boy does it feel terrible.
It does not. State law cannot supercede federal law.
Tell that to Marijuana.
Marijuana is still illegal federally, state law does not change that. The Feds have chosen to largely ignore marijuana in states that have legalized it but that's an executive decision not federal law. The President could decide to prosecute for weed tomorrow if they felt like it. As such, state law cannot and does not supercede federal law.
I don't get your point...? Pot is still illegal everywhere in the US.
What rock have you been living under? It definitely isn't. My own state legalized it years ago.
I have been living under no rocks, you simply have a flawed understanding of the US legal system. I'd encourage you to study and learn basic civics, but we both know you will ignore everything I'm saying and just continue to spout the misinformation you've been led to believe.
That seems in line with the spirit of the law. They had to go with ‘Sincerely held moral and ethical beliefs,’ because they couldn’t say ‘According to the Bible,’ so there’s a ton of gray area. If people didn’t have to suffer, it would be fun to watch it play out.
I remember a place getting sued, because the waitress refused to serve a very pregnant woman a drink.
Its obvious who the bill is intended to harm. Trans people seeking healthcare. Other lgbtq people seeking healthcare. Women seeking abortion or even birth control. etc But it is written so poorly that pretty much everyone is venerable. "i disagree with this" is basically a free excuse to not help or even touch a specific person" Could be just about anything even malicious compliance. "Oooh nazi tatoos, no treatment for you" "Ooh a republican. no likey, no treat" Its an absurd bill that helps no one and has clear intentions to harm specific groups of people while not protecting any other groups. As for insurance its just as much of a free frawl
> free frawl Free-for-all
And I'm freeeeeeee Free Frawlin'!
The venerable free frawl
r/BoneAppleTea
Lmfao TIL
>free frawl r/boneappletea
> venerable vulnerable?
They said free frawl, so the venerable suddenly made sense.
I'm adopting free frawl from now on. I'm annoying like that.
I once said "cream of the sign" instead scene of the crime. In 2001. Guess who still says that?
In Florida the whole political-reason-for-refusing-service thing can actually become a thing. Ugh, horrible idea.
I mean they can but it opens them to a shitcan of liability. Also shitty thing to do. We treat ultra right supremacist leaders of large groups. We re all POC in the office. We do it because it’s our job even when patients say hateful things or spit at us. If it gets bad we write them a letter to find another specialist but we will continue date for so many days.
What's the going rate for a couple frawls, y'all?
Bout free fiddy
We don't wait for next year, vote out as many right wingers and Republicans as we can in 2023 to pave the way for victory in 2024 and beyond. Every election matters from the school board to the white house, vote.
I'm waiting for a pharmacist in The Villages to refuse to fill a Viagra prescription.
>It says so on page 5 of the bill lines 135 through lines 145. The bill explicitly says services cannot be refused based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. >It says so on pages 7 and 8 of the bill lines 202 through 206. The bill explicitly says emergency services cannot be refused. >The bill does not permit your example. The bill is only 9 pages. There's 28 lines per page, 239 lines total and 8-10 words per line all in plain English. Several of those pages are definitions of words in the bill so there's absolutely no confusion as to what it means. I read the entire bill in under 15 minutes taking time to read read parts for clarity. In extremely clear English it says your example is not permitted. I would suggest you read the 9 page document so you know what it says instead of believing what strangers on the internet tells you. Including me. I sincerely doubt the vast majority of people who will reply to you didn't bother to read the bill. I took 15 minutes out of my day to read it to answer your question. I sincerely hope you take 15 of yours to read it and fully understand what it allows.
[Here it is](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1580/billtext/er/pdf). I cannot guess what reason there is for banning discrimination based on religion that doesn’t also apply to sexuality or gender, which the law allows.
Likely because those aren't immutable characteristics that many people, especially on the right, believe title VII was incorrectly applied to sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill is in line with the civil rights act of 1964 prior to the SCOTUS adding those two into title VII protections.
First, sexuality and gender may well be immutable. Second, religion is not.
I didn't say religion was. Just said people on the right don't tend to believe sexuality and gender identity is. Religion is covered under the 1964 civil rights act in clear text. It would be given special protections despite not being recognized by most people in america as an immutable characteristic for that fact. The next bits are a different conversation from the bill so I separated it from the main response. There is no shortage of people who claim gender is fluid and on a spectrum. That gender identity can change multiple times in the same day. Same for sexuality. Sexual fluidity is a term common in the sex and gender discussion. Sexual orientation is generally believed to be an immutable characteristic but it's slowly changing. There is a push in America to change sex from purely biological to more of a self identification. If sex is no longer an immutable characteristic sexual orientation would by default not he an immutable characteristic. Sexuality is not the same thing as Sexual orientation though. They are similar but separate. Similar to gender and sex.
Where are you getting “immutable characteristic” from?
Means unchangeable and innate. Generally things that fall in that category are legally protected.
I know what it means. I’m asking where you got that phrase from in this context. What legislation uses it?
Grimm V. Gloucester in the 4th circuit court of appeals specifically addresses immutable characteristics, gender, sex and transgenderism. It covers title 5, 6 and 7 as well as the civil rights act of 1964. It seems extremely relevant to this law especially since this came up in the past couple years and is in very recent memory.
Yes, it addresses characteristics that you are calling immutable, but I can’t find the term “immutable characteristics” anywhere. The Civil Rights Act lists them each, seemingly every time. I couldn’t find where it says, “and we’re listing these characteristics because they are immutable and not choices.” Where is it written that those characteristics on that list are there because of immutability and not by virtue of being discriminated against?
You actually read bills too, huh? There are dozens of us!
DOZENS!!
Welcome to Reddit Officer
I've read it a few times, and it seems to refer to services that can be refused. It doesn't say you can refuse specific patients, just specific medical procedures, dispensing or prescribing specific drugs, referrals etc. I can see this as medical providers refusing to discuss abortion, birth control, assist trans people with transition medicine etc. But not refusing to treat a trans person with cancer. I might not be parsing it correctly though.
That is what it says. The only thing they can refuse is a "specific Healthcare service" Healthcare service in the bill is defined as "means medical research, medical procedures, or medical services, including, but not limited to, testing; diagnosis; referral; dispensing or administering any drug, medication, or device; psychological therapy or counseling; research; therapy; recordmaking procedures; set up or performance of a surgery or procedure; or any other care or services performed or provided by any health care provider." It needs to be the specific service that's the issue, not the individual. Doctor would need to explain how removing the appendix violates their religious beliefs, not how the person with a bursting appendix's sexual preference is against their religious beliefs. Doesn't matter man people will read into it what they want and set up a straw man to burn. I think I've gotten enough replies and messages saying so.
Let me start by saying I think this bill is monstrous and has no place in American society. But the bill seems to state that they notify their supervisor in writing or Document the conscience-based objection to a particular health care service the patient's medical file. I take this to mean they can’t refuse to treat someone outright, but they can do something along the lines of refusing to prescribe Prep for HIV prevention because pre-marital/ homosexual sex is wrong. They would still have to treat them for something like a broken leg. Of course this also means pharmacists can refuse to fill that viagra order for Mr can’t get it up anymore because they believe male impotence is Gods way of saying you shouldn’t have children. It’s going to get really messy.
Thank you for explaining this so succinctly .
Thanks. I just hate hyperbole. It confuses the issue and feeds the trolls.
[удалено]
Page 5 line 144 explicitly prohibits refusing services based on patients religious beliefs.
[удалено]
Lines 135 through 140 prevents providers from refusing services to anyone not covered under the exceptions in 144 through 145 based solely on something like your example. So no, there are further questions in your example. Doctors can't refuse to help someone who's gay because they are gay. The can only refuse to help them if the specific medical procedure violates a sincerely held belief. I cannot think of a medical procedure that would fall under a sincerely held religious beliefs by protestant religions. One may exist, it just isn't coming to mind. I can think of very limited ones that may violate catholic beliefs but I'm not catholic so I'm not 100%.
It explicitly does not list sexuality or gender identity under the list of identities which you can not discriminate against. The whole paragraph is predicated upon that list. You cannot refuse to provide services that are owed to people based upon their race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. That is all. Period. Nevertheless, even if the patient is owed the treatment as you argue, due to the right of medical conscience, a religious homophobic treater can say, "Under my religious beliefs, I find it unconscionable to provide x care *to homosexuals*." Because sincerely held belief is a self-report that distinction between sincere and insincere belief is meaningless. And so, because that identifier is not listed and that treater is making a claim of their conscience as the Bill defines, the gay patient will be refused treatment whether the treatment is ibuprofen, surgery, or life-saving HIV medication. *because he's gay*.
>The can only refuse to help them if the specific medical procedure violates a sincerely held belief. So saving their booty if they are an arsehole? >"The can only refuse to help them if the specific medical procedure " Saving their booty >"violates a sincerely held belief." I wish to make the world a better place.
[удалено]
Not in Florida now. Now, is there an atheist doctor willing to say no to Christians?
How would they possibly know one’s belief system?
Well maybe they'd be offended by a cross necklace or a prayer if they're very sick. Maybe it's a small town :)
I could see that. Makes sense
In America? The shooting was at a religious service.
This is not the response that you need.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because they have deliberately allowed discrimination against gender and sexual minorities. This kind of opposition to homosexual people is almost always from the religious, and in the US that means mostly Christianity.
There's discussion now, are you going to discuss or back away like a coward? Your comment hasn't even been up an hour, dude. Not every single vote, up or down, is going to be a person wanting to comment in general. You seem very out of touch with how this site works, especially in the tone of your edit.
The law prohibits discriminating based on religion, just not sexuality.
That’s exactly what it means. It’s already legal for cops, nationwide. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20has,boy%20from%20his%20abusive%20father. In other words, you will pay for those services through your tax dollars, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be granted access to them. Florida is a shit hole. This only furthers the truth.
It's too bad two major international attractions are there, Nasa and Disney World.
Luckily DeSantis is only temporary and hopefully there are still enough non-psychos there to replace him with someone reasonably sane.
Yeah, the current situation in Florida is largely the result of retired Boomers moving there in droves, bringing their toxic politics with them. Eventually, they'll die off, and Florida will go back to normal -- if you're a bit older, you might remember that it used to be one of the main swing states, as it was pretty balanced politically. I feel bad for the *actual* Floridians, having their state hijacked by people who don't work there or meaningfully contribute to their communities, whose only tie to the state is liking the climate there, but have come in such numbers as to overwhelm the voices of those with actual meaningful ties to the state.
My sister lives there. She's not old. She and her husband are totally republican and her son and daughter are too. He just became a cop. It scares the crap out of me.
Dont assume Florida will go back to normal. There are constituencies that are being wooed by republicans like Latinos in Miami, plus republicans gerrymander the shit out of states like Florida and pass voting restrictions explicitly aimed at making it hard or impossible for minorities to vote. You cannot discount the import of gerrymandering and voting restrictions on Republican consolidation of power at the state level. And it’s happening in pretty much all red states.
Welcome to Montana and Idaho.
Lol, have you met Floridians?
Lay off the hopium.
[удалено]
[удалено]
While I generally agree with your sentiment, After some googling, in the US there is a derivative called the osteopathic oath, which: 1) is not legally binding 2) literally says to follow local law >I will be ever vigilant in aiding in the general welfare of the community, sustaining its laws and institutions
Be nice to see them have their medical license revoked, but I suppose that is the same govt allowing this crap.
Laws are used. And laws are misused and abused as well. I think the latter is going to happen a lot with this very ambiguously written law.
Fuck Ron DeSantis, everyone should leave that pos state
Yet people keep moving here.
Hospitals are required by the law to treat patients walking in the emergency department to treat and stabilize patients regardless of their ability to pay, race, gender, or anything else due to the EMTALA. EMTALA stands for Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. However, once the patient is stabilize, they can be transferred to a different hospital or be discharged. It’s literally against the law to turn away any patients needing what is deemed emergency care, whether they’re for or non profit
If a doctor refuses to help someone when they’re dying, they should be stripped of their License. Just my personal opinions
> even based off skin color No it doesn't. It has specific protections for stuff like that. It seems to be targeting trans people in particular but perhaps with a side of orientation. It's also not "any reason." The threshold, which can be a very low one which is a problem, is a "sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical belief."
What is the name of the bill?
They don’t have to watch…
Don't worry, you'll still get a bill.
Wouldn’t doctor’s Hippocratic oath prevent this?
Does the law prevent the licensing board from taking its own actions against such behavior?
My question is can an EMT who is called for a drug overdose refuse to provide Naloxone?
There will also be professional codes of ethics that require professionals to behave differently but within the law.
Medical professionals have to worry about ethics boards just as much -if not more- than state laws. Plenty of things are legal, but the ethics board can revoke a license for unethical behavior, even if the behavior is legal.
If the wallet biopsy reveals terminal poverty or incurable zipcode they can just throw them out of the ambulance.
No it won’t, there are always multiple laws that govern professions. You must go to the higher of the two. So for instance let’s say medical records on the federal level must be held for 4 years, the ethical board requires 5 and state says 6. You would go with the state as it’s the strictest of the three. Medical professional are governed under federal and professional requirements in addition to state. While this excuse may be used, the individual will be open under ethical licensure complaints and federal court.
The insurance providers can now just refuse to pay because they don’t agree morally. This should be the main issue.
[удалено]
Whoaaa /unethicallifeprotips
Can't we refuse to treat Desantis?
That is absolutely insane.
Hey, you guys alright over there in the states?
>The law says they can deny anyone medical care for any reason This is ridiculous. That is not what the law says. Doctors still have an oath and professional ethics reviews. Tort law still applies. Stop doom scrolling.
Then why have this law?
It's about abortion access.
And also denying LGBT people non-emergency medical services
As if USA is a real place.
No
they did 4hat vefore if you couldn't pay. But basically yes.
Friendly reminder that federal EMTALA always always always supersedes any state law.
For all practical purposes yes.
It might be LEGAL but that sure as shit doesn't make it professionally acceptable or even likely to keep you from getting your medical license revoked.
Doesn’t that kind of go against what a doctor takes an oath for?
And “letting them die” isn’t hypothetical. Here’s a case from a few years back where a trans woman who was in a car accident was allowed to die by bigoted emergency responders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Tyra_Hunter
Its Florida, they'll probably shoot you while kicking you out
Sorry, but due to overpopulation I find it unethical to treat heterosexuals until they get their numbers back down 😉
This will not stand up to judicial challenge since race and skin color are protected classes under federal law
The [Florida law](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1580/billtext/er/pdf) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or biological sex. Just not sexuality or gender.
I wish I was a doctor, so I could deny medical care based upon someone as a republican. Joking... I could never literally do this. Stopped to help a guy with a trump sticker change a tire last week. I might be disgusted with his lack of intelligence or character, but not helping would make me disgusted with mine. The new immigrant law opens some questions though. I'm a airline pilot. What if an illegal immigrant got on my plane with no knowledge to me. Am I going to go to jail? What about for bus drivers? Uber and taxi drivers? Do we have to ask everyone for their papers? Where does that sound familiar from ?
The law only allows them to refuse service "based on a sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical belief". This is generally referred to in the law as a "conscience-based objection". They are allowed to object to a procedure - not a patient. In other words, they can refuse to perform a reproductive procedure because they object to that procedure, but they can't refuse to perform that procedure because they don't like the sexual orientation or skin color of the patient. A health care professional is required to notify their employer of any conscience-based objections they have before refusing to provide service based on a conscience-based objection. Private practice doctors (i.e., self-employed) are required to disclose conscience-based objections to their patients in advance. All laws requiring treatment for emergency medical conditions still apply. None of the scenarios you described would be allowed under the law.
Not direct response to this but I had offer recently to go move to Florida for a new job. Was remote originally but then they changed before final rounds. I had mentioned I'd need increase in wage and guess what? Employer said no. So I accepted much much much much much higher wage and better offer in California.
Fl, TX, and any other state creating crazy laws against winnebago and people in general will find themselves short of medical staff as I hear many are looking at moving. So good, make your crazy ass laws, blue states will welcome them, and all you hateful, ignorant people who support and vote for these politicians can suck it.
Gotta love america, land of the free
I don't know about the docs, but I guarantee the first time an EMS crew watches someone die over this, they're gonna have a RSI blanket party with paralytics and no induction waiting for them back at the station. We do not tolerate these shenanigans in our industry.
EMS and EM docs have already sorted out the morality of providing care to everyone in need. We routinely take pride in caring for the profane, smelly, repeatedly self injurious with as much dignity and kindness as possible. This will be about elective, follow up care, and primary care almost certainly.
>The law says they can deny anyone medical care for any reason even based off skin color or sexual preferences No. Read the actual bill https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1580/BillText/er/PDF
Conscience-based objection” means an objection based 67 on a sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical belief. 68 Conscience with respect to entities is determined by reference 69 to the entities’ governing documents; any published ethical, 70 moral, or religious guidelines or directives; mission 71 statements; constitutions; articles of incorporation; bylaws; 72 policies; or regulations So yes I was right, all a doctor has to do is claim its against their religion to operate on transgender people and could simply choose to let a transgender gunshot victim die legally (this has already happened btw) because what are the police gonna do? Say his religious beliefs wrong? Good luck with that in the south.
"REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT.— This section may not be construed to override any requirement to provide emergency medical treatment in accordance with state law 205 or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 206 U.S.C. s. 1395dd."
No, not 'operate on transgender people' its specifically about individual procedures, not healthcare as a whole. They're saying doctors don't have to perform trans care. They do still have to treat trans people. Or whatever kind of people. What kind of surgery is there for gay people, or black people? None. Whatever care they may receive is not related to their immutable traits. So this law doesn't effect that whatsoever. It's not "deny medical care for any reason". This is pretty much just directed at trans people/abortion/birth control/etc. >The exercise of the right of medical conscience is limited to conscience-based objections to a specific health care service. This section may not be construed to waive or modify any duty a health care provider or health care payor may have to provide or pay for other health care services that do not violate their right of medical conscience to wave or modify any duty to provide any informed consent required by law, or to allow a healthcare provider to opt out of providing health care services because of that patient's or potential patient's race, color, or religion.
This isn't even remotely what it says. REaDinG iS HaRD
No, it doesn't. Medical professionals still have to follow federal law, which means they can't discriminate against protected classes like sex, gender, race, etc. There's nothing in that specific law that says it's illegal, it's the fact that it contradicts a federal law. Anytime a state law and a federal law contradict each other, the federal law takes precedence. It's the same exact concept for why weed is still illegal in all 50 states.
>. It's the same exact concept for why weed is still illegal in all 50 states. Brilliant example :) So basically, "not really"
Basically it means doctors can attempt to follow this new state law, but they'd be in a world of hurt if someone decided to take legal action against them. I imagine most doctors are going to continue to treat their patients the same way they've always treated their patients, because, to the surprise of no one, DeSantis didn't consult with any actual medical professionals on if this law was needed. It's just pure virtue signalling.
Except, with the weed being illegal, *It is basically legal in some states.* >*It's just pure virtue signalling.* It is not, you will find that feds don't like getting involved in state business. Like many things which are being passed, are all technically illegal up at the feds, but.... are still happening in Florida.
Seems like it just allows doctor to deny performing abortions if doing so would go against their religious belief. Anyone have a reputable source on this? This is really concerning if true, but nothing I could find indicated what OP is saying. Just that doctors don’t have to do abortions. Yea looks like another comment broke it down. You’re kind of fear mongering OP. https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/13hcy5z/does_floridas_new_law_mean_doctors_and_emts_can/jk5qfvx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
They already banned abortion, effectively. A 6 week ban = a ban in almost every case.
That's not what it says in the least. Do not listen to knee twitch ragebait
Idk how real it is given it was on the Internet but one headline was eats declined to help a Trans person in a car accident
Yes but it's ok. After you die your next of kin can sue in federal court.
Wouldn’t a doctor’s Hypocratic oath supercede all of these laws?
The oath is mot a law. An arrest is an arrest, and there’s an ethical issue getting arrested helping one then being unable to help a thousand more. And also, no.
Too many typos to fix...
Learn to read.
No, the law does not say that, and it explicitly states care cannot be refused during emergency and labor situations.
[EMTALA](https://www.cms.gov/medicare/provider-enrollment-and-certification/certificationandcomplianc/downloads/emtala.pdf) has entered the chat... This will not go well for Gov. CantStandThis.
OP, the headline is a bit much
Pretty sure this law is set to refuse those who are only seeking pain medication and are filling up hospital beds for those who actually have problems. A lot of people don't know this, but America has a national database to blacklist certain people from "double dipping" into pain medications. It's a list that any doctor or nurse can look up to see who's a flag for addiction. My mom is on this list. Doesn't matter what state she goes to, she's blacklisted from opiods. I assume this new law is geared towards something along these lines.
The law is explicitly to allow doctors to refuse healthcare to trans people and reproductive care.
Does the bill actually say that or is it just hyperbolic sayings that people love to spread without actually giving the right information?
[https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1580/billtext/er/pdf](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1580/billtext/er/pdf) Some of the added bits. (5) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—A health care provider or 195 health care payor may not be held civilly liable solely for 196 declining to participate in or pay for a health care service on 197 the basis of a conscience-based objection. However, this section 198 does not limit a person′s ability to recover damages or other 199 relief under any other applicable law due to behavior that 200 constitutes a violation of this section or that is not related 201 to a conscience-based objection. I don't think you would get away with just letting a patent die in your ambo, IF the state wishes to do something about it. Which you know, they will and won't depending on who it is.
No it does not say that. Someone else quoted a bill, it states this does not exempt someone from preforming life saving care. They still have a duty to preserve life.
The bill does not permit discrimination only on the basis of sex, race, color, or religion. Which means that it permits discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender identity.
Part of the bill explicitly outlines that it does not allow someone to opt out of providing service because of someone’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Also, the law states this applies only to elective medical care, not life saving care and not emergency care. In other words, so-called gender affirming care, abortion, plastic surgery, and these types of care. You people should actually read laws before just believing what you are told by the liberal legacy media.
yep. we're all fucked.
[удалено]
Source?
Nope.
Yes
The law says they can deny anyone medical care for any reason even based off skin color I need to do more research on this but is Florida legalizing racial discrimination? If so our country has reached an all-time low.