It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Florida’s New Anti-Gay, Anti-Woman Bill May Be the Most Malicious Yet

page: 24
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 09:01 PM
a reply to: murphy22

If "Moral Conviction" is Discrimination than i would say they don't have a Higher Standard than me
edit on 31-10-2015 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 10:55 PM

The facility or health care provider is not liable for
such refusal, except when withholding the medical treatment or
procedure places the patient in imminent danger of loss of life
or serious bodily injury.

I would say that covers the biggest concern right there. All else having been said though, this bill simply protects the rights and beliefs of private entities and individuals from litigation by others with a predatory mindset to setup a situation where they can profit or maliciously put someone out of business through litigation, such as the bakery that refused service.

A person, closely held organization, religious institution, or business owned or operated by a religious institution is not required to produce, create, or deliver a
product or service that would be contrary to the religious or
moral convictions or policies of the person, organization,
institution, or business. Such person, organization,
institution, or business is not liable for such refusal, except
when withholding the custom product or service places the
consumer in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily

There we have it. The very safety and welfare of an instigators actions have been thought of and included in this bill. The only other reason to support litigation against these free individuals offering their services and products of their own free will is for an easy paycheck or hatefully using the law to force another out of business with owners they do not like. I sure am glad we have common sense legislators here in this state.

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:37 PM
From a year ago

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:59 PM
a reply to: AmericanRealist
so, let's say that a cancer patient who's pregnant is advised by their doctor to get a tubal litigation during the birth to avoid the risk of another pregnancy during treatment for the cancer. She ends up having to give birth in a hospital that has connections to the catholic religion and is told that they can't get the tubal because it's against the religious policies of the hospital. this poses either the risk that another operation to do the tubal at a later time, or the risk of a pregnancy that could endanger the women in the future and the danger to either the mother or the future child because well, the chemo isn't that great for a developing baby....

would this be considered as placing the consumer in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily

I would say it does, but reckon what the courts would decide??? and well just what would any court decision do for the women who is refused the treatment and ends up suffering outside of maybe a nice court settlement after the fact?

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:57 PM
a reply to: dawnstar

I agree with you that this is a procedure that cannot be turned down due to the health condition and complications involved. Your scenario is exactly the kind of case that has to be handled on an as is basis. Luckily, most women who want treatment that conflicts with religious views dont readily have cancer to complicate the situation further. Even if the hospital did deny the procedure, they would subsequently be open to litigation anyways due to it falling IMO under one of the exceptions.

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:07 PM
a reply to: AmericanRealist

well, it was turned down, unless they reverse their decision since...

it's not the only case either

edit on 19-11-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:30 PM
a reply to: murphy22

What's wrong with "moral" conviction? Are you upset by people with higher standards than you?

Supporting a bill that would allow medical workers to deprive treatment to those they deem incompatible with their religious beliefs is a much less sophisticated moral view. You can have all the conviction in the World that's not the case, and that you have a 'higher standard' for supporting it, but it would still be unethical.

posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 10:51 AM
another one:

And as researcher Lori Freedman has documented over and over again, Catholic hospitals have routinely delayed providing care, allowing pregnant women's health to deteriorate. For example, one doctor described a patient in the middle of her pregnancy who was miscarrying. She was bleeding so much that the whites of her eyes filled with blood, and she developed a serious infection and a 106 degree fever. The only way to treat her was to terminate the pregnancy. The Catholic hospital wouldn't allow the abortion, however, until the fetus had no heartbeat. The doctor said that the woman was "dying before our eyes." The doctor provided unauthorized treatment to save her life, and then promptly quit his job. The woman survived but spent 10 days in intensive care.

new topics

top topics

<< 21  22  23   >>

log in