|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A U.S. judge in San Francisco on Tuesday struck down a new federal rule that would have allowed health care workers ranging from ambulance drivers to receptionists to refuse to provide care for religious reasons, which would’ve blocked Santa Clara County from $1 billion in federal funding.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup said the rule announced by the administration of President Donald Trump in May went beyond the protections given in congressional laws to doctors and nurses who object to providing abortions and other procedures.
Under the new rule, Alsup wrote, “an ambulance driver would be free, on religious or moral grounds, to eject a patient en route to a hospital upon learning that the patient needed an emergency abortion.
Alsup is the third federal judge in the nation to strike down the rule. Similar decisions were issued by judges in New York City and Spokane, Washington, on Nov. 6 and 7.
Alsup ruled in three lawsuits filed by the city of San Francisco, the state of California and Santa Clara County together with a group of doctors and clinics.
“Today’s court ruling blocked the president’s heartless, unlawful attempt to restrict the healthcare rights of women, LGBTQ individuals, and countless others,” State Attorney General Xavier Becerra said.
The rule would have denied federal health, welfare and education funds to state and local governments that didn’t certify compliance. California could have risked losing $77.6 billion and San Francisco and Santa Clara County each $1 billion annually in federal funding, according to a brief they filed.
If not blocked, the measure would have gone into effect on Nov. 22.
“an ambulance driver would be free, on religious or moral grounds, to eject a patient en route to a hospital upon learning that the patient needed an emergency abortion.”
I cannot believe anyone would think this could happen. How many “emergency abortions” require an ambulance trip? What sane driver would put a person’s life at risk by refusing the trip? What idiot would use this irrational example to make his case? I would stop listening to that person.
> What sane driver would put a person’s life at risk by refusing the trip?
The same person who advocates laws that forbid procedures that might save the life of the mother? The same person that advocates laws that would force a women to carry a embryo resulting from rape or incest?
The same person who doesn’t support complete health services for women?
Posted by JustMe, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
>> I cannot believe anyone would think this could happen. How many “emergency abortions” require an ambulance trip? What sane driver would put a person’s life at risk by refusing the trip? What idiot would use this irrational example to make his case? I would stop listening to that person.
Not a common view, even among RWA Christians. But, not unheard of, either:
“A proponent of “biblical patriarchy” is drawing fire among conservative religious homeschoolers for his view that abortion is never morally justifiable, even to save the life of the mother.”
“Phillips, founder of the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches, sells homeschooling materials through his Vision Forum Ministries”
https://ethicsdaily.com/christian-leader-rejects-abortion-to-save-a-womans-life-cms-12978/
The article is pretty informative, by the way. Definitely worth reading. Interesting that the US Constitution, including especially the First Amendment, allows these folks to preach, if not practice, views such as that by William Einwechter. Folks may have heard of him before. He is the person who “wrote an article in 1999 supporting the stoning of rebellious teens.”
Forget that example. The ambulance arrives to find a black homosexual transvestite with HIV bleeding from a knife fight and refuses to assist. I would hope that someone who became an EMT would not have such views. However, we do have evidence of persons who believe that HIV is “gods punishment” and that homosexuality is a ‘perversion’.