Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 499 (Mandate health care facilities grant “conscientious objector” status )  by gypsy on May 14, 2009 

What "objectionable" procedures would this include? Abortion I'm certain, but what others? Are we giving medical professionals the option of choosing which legal medical procedures they choose to perform, based on their personal religious or moral beliefs? If a procedure is legal, medically approved, and a professional is trained and capable of performing it, they should be required to provide it. The health and welfare of the patient should be the only consideration.

I think this is the slippery slope the President wanted to prevent us from going down when he repealed the Bush rule allowing medical professionals to opt out of "objectionable" procedures.

Reply

2) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 499 (Mandate health care facilities grant “conscientious objector” status )  by FreeSpeaker on May 14, 2009 

The Mackinac Center synopsis of this bill says,

 

[quote] A person claiming this “conscientious objector”
status could not be subjected to civil, criminal, or administrative liability
for refusing to perform the objectionable procedure.[/quote]

 

I endorse that idea in principle.  However, in order for this to be fair it also should work
the other way – that a practitioner cannot be subjected to civil, criminal or
administrative liability for performing an “objectionable” procedure.

 

Without coverage in both directions, which would allow fully for
the exercise of professional judgment and personal conscience, this bill should be
rejected.

Reply

3) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 499 (Mandate health care facilities grant “conscientious objector” status )  by Poppy on May 6, 2009 

 This sounds like a good "work around" for the latest fiasco pushed on us by Washington.  I like it. It sounds like a common sense way to stop further incursions in to what ever you believe in.

Reply

View Full Conversation