Yet this will open the door. It's all about setting precedent (if the judge agrees with it). And I find with the abortion rulings in some states, there are enough Judges to support this maneuver.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
HIV Drug Violates "Religious Freedom"
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
Yet this will open the door. It's all about setting precedent (if the judge agrees with it). And I find with the abortion rulings in some states, there are enough Judges to support this maneuver.
It is always a potential... but I think the higher up this one goes the more difficult it will be to sustain that verdict. (I don't think abortion is an equivalent subject)
Many don't. But my view is keep your religion out of my (and others) health decisions (including abortion).
For instance my wife will always have high risk pregnancies, and will potentially need several abortions and/or miscarriages before we can conceive. If we were in any state with some of the Laws currently as is, she will die.
But is that medicine from that doctor really infringing on your health decision? He is one in a million IMO
I hope not. When it is the difference between the life of the mother or the baby, I believe (at this time) - it is permissible.
Many of the new laws state otherwise. Nad care is being witheld for hours and days at a time now. Causing irreparable harm to many. All in the name of "religious freedom".
Sure it's One doctor. Now. But as it gets passed along, others will be waiting on the wings to do the same. Look at the thousands of "trigger laws" that went in affect around abortion. People are just waiting for the opportunity.
And what if this is the only available Dr for a patient for hundreds of miles? They're just **** out of luck? Or they have to pay thousands of dollars to move to somewhere more "friendly" (and most can't do this) It's absurd imo.
That's kind of weird for them to frame it this way.
"In 2020, male-to-male sexual contactd accounted for 68% of all new HIV diagnoses in the United States and dependent areas. In the same year, heterosexual contact accounted for 22% of all HIV diagnoses."
"The most affected subpopulation is Black/African American gay and bisexual men."
"There are also variations by age. Young people aged 13 to 24 are especially affected by HIV. In 2020, young people accounted for 20% (6,135) of all new HIV diagnoses. All young people are not equally affected by HIV, however. Young gay and bisexual men accounted for 84% (5,161) of all new HIV diagnoses in people aged 13 to 24 in 2020.e Young Black/African American gay and bisexual men are even more severely affected, as they represented 53% (2,740) of new HIV diagnoses among young gay and bisexual men."
Basic Statistics | HIV Basics | HIV/AIDS | CDC
Trans people, especially trans women, are hard hit by it, too.
Like I said... I doubt if that one stands up to scrutiny. IMV it will be shot down if it is contested upline.
At least one of us is optimistic.
Back when I (briefly) attended a Quaker meeting, a few of the members were participating in a tax revolt: as pacifists, they had a sincere religious objection to funding war, so they had estimated how much of their income tax went towards the Department of Defense and refused to pay that portion. The money they withheld went into an escrow account so that they couldn't be accused of just trying to avoid paying tax.
When that sort of protest gets held up as constitutionally protected, I'll believe that rulings like in the OP really are about religious freedom. For now, I agree that all we're seeing is conservative mean-spiritedness.
"Life of the mother" exceptions are dishonest.
Medical determinations aren't always clear cut. Unless the pregnant person actually dies of their pregnancy, the question of whether they could have survived without an abortion will always be a judgment call.
As long as there's a possibility that some expert witness might testify that they could have saved the pregnant person without an abortion, the doctor will be risking prison by performing one.
Unless the exception is for any abortions that are medically indicated - not just absolutely necessary - it's effectively a total abortion ban (edit: only from people who lack the courage of their convictions to acknowledge that this was their real goal).
And tragically, it is not going to stop soon. As a Canadian, I'm starting to think "big, beautiful wall..."
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Save me a spot first.
Yes, he is.
That the Americans will pay for
It's Texas. What else to expect?
A Texas judge rules coverage of anti-HIV medicine violates religious freedom
Aaaand...... Like I said.
It's been banned (in TX). @KenS
It's going to keep going and be banned in even more places now. Go Religious "freedom"!!! Woohoo /s
Next up JWs and blood transfusions.
Aaaand...... Like I said.
It's been banned (in TX). @KenS
It's going to keep going and be banned in even more places now. Go Religious "freedom"!!! Woohoo /s
Next up JWs and blood transfusions.
Mis-quote, with a hint of grandstanding...
It isn't banned... the statement is "that a requirement for businesses to provide health insurance that covers HIV-preventative drugs violates the religious freedom". It didn't ban it, it simply said that a business doesn't have to cover it.
Close enough imo. And my point still stands.
I told you the TX courts would agree. Let's see how the dominos fall in the rest of the conservative States.
No... it isn't even close to close enough unless you want to exaggerate what happened.
Do you know if it has been appealed?