>
Doctors who refuse care for religious reasons should lose their license. >

Are medical licenses at the state or federal level? >

State how ever your Conscience Rights are 
Federal statutes protect health care provider conscience rights and prohibit recipients of certain federal funds from discriminating against health care providers who refuse to participate in certain services based on moral objections or religious beliefs. How ever is not against the law which is should be . >

If they're going to do that, medical care providers should be required to publicly post any religious objections they have to any service reasonably expected. In the absence of that information patients should have a right to refuse payment of any such uncompleted care. >

Fantastic idea!!! >


Defending Freedom

Ironic. >

Alliance Destroying Freedom is what they should be called. >

We get closer to a dystopia every day. >

"get closer to?" Lol, we have been there for a while. >

We've been slowly struggling out of dystopia since the Temple at Uruk. >

Are they requiring any justification or can a doctor just claim ‘against my religion’ for any culture war bullshit they see on fox news? >

And, apparently, "is against my religion" extends to any group. Not that limiting it to LGBTQ would be acceptable. It wouldn't. However, this sounds like it could be used to discriminate against people based on skin color or relation because their "religious beliefs say so."
"My religion states that white people can't operate on black or brown people so I can't do the triple bypass that this patient needs to survive. You'll have to wait eight hours until the next doctor is on shift, though I've heard that his religion says that he can't operate on Muslims so the patient might be out of luck." >

That's what happened in a lot of places in the South during segregation. Many black people died in the hospitals because doctors refused to give care to them for being black. >

This must be more of that "pro-life" thing I've heard so much about. >

Cool. It's against my religion to pay my bills. Fair trade. >

Seriously, what is to stop someone from bringing this up? I've heard many a Christian say that they don't pay taxes to a government, even though render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. >

The police and "justice" system I supposed. >

Taking a longer view. 
Up and coming generations are trending more liberal, more open, and more openly LGBTQIA+.
It seems to me that being so aggressively anti- is not only unchristian, but it's also unwise given that so much of conservative Christian ethos is fear of becoming the minority.
If they don't achieve Gilead pretty damn quick, they are going to marginalize themselves. >

Wtf >

That's what I said also. >

Looks like Montana is not a place to visit.  Who wants to find out in the ER that you are someone's religious issue while you bleed out. >

I wonder how the cast of Yellowstone will take this. >

Sure, so long as anyone refusing to provide care for religious reasons, will not be entitled to any healthcare whatsoever. They can just pray to their deity to heal themselves. >

That will get shot down pretty damn quick when providers realize they won't get any money from Medicare. >

This is what winning looks like /s >

Republicans are really "OWNING DA LIBZ!" with this one.
​
What's to say whenever a Republican patient is terminal and in hospice care they can't do euthanasia? They are really going to revamp the Terri Schiavo situation! >

Great! “Ahh, I see you are a Christian Nationalist Sir/Madam. I am afraid I am a member of the Church of Satan and cannot conduct your heart transplant due to my deeply held religious beliefs.” Kick rocks! >

I wonder how that would go over in Montana. >

Guess we’ll find out because that’s the way to end this Christian Nationalism BS. ‘Your’ religious views are yours and not mine or the public’s. Otherwise it goes both ways that non-Christian’s can stop serving the zealots. >


Regier promises that her bill, known as H.B. 303: Implement Medical Ethics and Diversity Act, would only apply to “narrow circumstances” and wouldn’t lead to large-scale discrimination against LGBTQ+ patients.

Why don't I believe this promise? (Not that it would excuse the bill even if the promise was true.)

However, the bill’s text says that it would allow basically any individual involved in healthcare to refuse services. These individuals include any healthcare employees, doctors, nurses, aides, pharmacy workers, medical and mental health school members, lab techs, board members, insurers, other payers, “or any other person who facilitates or participates in a healthcare service.”

Which means that you could be discriminated against for any reason so long as the health care worker phrased it as a religious belief.
"I'm sorry. My religion says that I can only operate on people who have accepted Christ and you're Jewish."
"According to my religion, god declared that black people don't feel pain so I can't fill your prescription for painkillers."
"We were going to X-Ray your son's leg to see if it was broken, but the X-Ray technician noticed that his parents were two women and so refused to do it for religious reasons. Your son will need to wait here in pain until another X-ray technician comes on shift. No, we can't give him any painkillers because our pharmacists belong to the same religion." >

When state medical boards are against it you can clearly see how this is all about politics and nothing more . >

"wHaT do yOU Mean ExteRmINaTIonisT laWs?!?" >

Well. Hopefully that doesn’t get signed into law. >

Okay you see I go to the doctor to be judged for my poor health habits, not because I don't worship the same God or follow the same religion as my doctor. I want my doctor to tell me what is the best option based on the medical books and years of scientific research to back it. I don't want my doctor to tell how his religion doesn't agree with vaccines, abortion or blood transfusions. >

"religious based discrimination" lol >

Governing with scientific ignorance, and religious bigotry, misogyny  and homophobia.