It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Obama Admin Rule Forces Hospitals, Doctors Accepting Federal Funds to .......

page: 8
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: In4ormant

He can't decree that discrimination won't be put up with by the Federal Government? The anti-discrimination laws were already passed by Congress. This rule is just reiterating that the existing laws must be followed. Duh.


Why is it, then, that Obama is not crusading for the rights of the OS Community?

I do not think I have heard or read one word from him, or his fellow Democrats on this subject?


According to Marsh, "The emotions and experiences reported by OS people correspond to general definitions of sexual orientation," such as that in an APA article "on sexual orientation and homosexuality ... [which] refers to sexual orientation as involving 'feelings and self concept.'"



For some, sexual or even close emotional relationships with humans are incomprehensible. Some object-sexual individuals also often believe in animism, and sense reciprocation based on the belief that objects have souls, intelligence, and feelings, and are able to communicate


Where is the outcry for societal accommodation for those with this sexual orientation?

Shouldn't Erika Eiffel, a world class archer, who is married to the Eiffel Tower, be provided with accessible housing that would allow her husband/wife/edifice to move in with her?

Will King Barak I be issuing a national decree to all Restaurants, to ensure that all eateries provide seating areas that can accommodate the marble statue spouses of OS folk like Reighner Deleighnie (who has publically declared her love for a marble statue of Adonis, named Hans)?

OS People Downtrodden and Ignored by Obama!

Don't laugh...these are people with serious and decided sexual preferences and/or identifications/orientations. What makes their human rights issues any different than the microscopic segment of the population that are biologically one sex, but identify themselves as being another?

Should men who say they identify as women (if they can now use women's washrooms and lockerooms) be entitled to compete for positions on women's sports teams (hockey, soccer, Olympics sports, etc.), get small business loans, grants and other assistance that are reserved for female entrepreneurs?

There are people born as Caucasians, who identify as African American...should they, therefore, be given full access to Affirmative Action Programs?

Obama and the PC crowd have opened a massive can of worms by lobbying for the dismantling of the biological norm of the binary sexual system...in favour of not just the concept of there being a biological continuum (which has some merit scientifically), but also a social/legal system based on "individual sexual notion".

I know it is the ultimate radical extent of the argument - which would meet with near universal rejection if ever suggested - but on some level, using the left's current arguments, even those whose sexual orientation is toward very young boys/girls (ie, paedophiles) should have their rights protected.

People who are of this sexual persuasion are perhaps just as engrained and "incurable" as those who prefer people of their own sex. Before the howling begins...I recognize that any argument "pro-pedo" breaks down because their brand of sexual orientation does harm to others (and minors in this case).

Anyway...my point here is that in any society, there have to be practical limits on non-discrimination...just like there are limits put on free speech.




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Uh huh. A sexual fetish is not the same thing as being a transgender person. Pedophilia is not the same thing as being a transgender person.

If you recognize that your argument breaks down, why pursue it?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

He's speaking in terms of preferences as in sexual preference. We call women who have a preference for women lesbian. They can't be discriminated against based on their preference so why does his argument hold no merit? Just because you fail to recognize the whole can of worms because your focused on one does not mean it doesn't exist.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

Sexual orientation is not "sexual preference". Having a fetish is not sexual orientation.

Now we're back to hatin' on gays. Great.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Your rediculous.

Who said they hate gays?? Strawman much?

Your word orientation relates to preference. I prefer women so my orientation is straight. They are intertwined. Women who PREFER women are gay, that's their orientation.

Stop trying to mix words so you don't have to face the inadequacies in your argument. Answer the man's legitimate questions without deflecting and rearranging word meanings to fit your narrow assertions.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

You aren't going to get anything answered directly mate. It will all just get ignored or twisted.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

No. You can prefer blondes or you can prefer women with big boobs, but those preferences are not your sexual orientation. I have known men who preferred blondes, but ended up happily married to brunettes. But I have never known a man with a heterosexual orientation being happily married to another man. Terminology is important in understanding how things work.

Preferences are just part of your personality. Sexual orientation is core identity. Preferences may change, sexual orientation does not.

There are no legal protections for preferences. There are legal protections for sexual orientation.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
while it's not overly burdensome for a hospital to perform an operation that they already do to many women for transsexuals, it would be overly burdensome to require every restaurant to have accommodations big enough to fit the eiffel tower into! and well, personally my response would be you bring it here, and I will think about expending the size of my resturaurant to accommodate.
but, what is stopping them from bringing in a miniature of the tower and ordering a sub for it?? absolutely nothing! ya people might look a little odd at them for having a conservation with it, but more than likely they'd get the sub!!



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
They determine your orientation.

You aren't a gay man who prefers blonde women with big boobs.

You aren't a gay woman who prefers tall bearded brunettes with chest hair.

It's deterministic.
You saying preference doesn't determine orientation doesn't make it so.

Chicken and the egg.


Why don't you answer a series of yes and no questions so there could be an actual debate. Been plenty put out there but everyone wants to dodge them.
edit on 15-5-2016 by In4ormant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

You aren't a gay man if you prefer women, regardless of whether they are blonde or have big boobs. You are a gay man if you prefer blonde men with broad shoulders. The man verses woman makes it an orientation. The rest is just preferences.

You saying that orientation is the same as preference doesn't make it so.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

You up for some questions?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

I answered the question - I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

There are no legal protections for sexual fetishes. There are no laws requiring that public establishments accommodate sexual fetishes. There ARE laws against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, nationality, and sexual orientation.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant


We're getting off topic here. The topic is did Obama's Admin Rule force hospitals and doctors accepting federal funds to perform sex reassignment surgeries and abortions. I think we have determined that the answer to that is a resounding no.

If you want to start another thread on sexual preferences and fetishes verses sexual orientation, sure I'll participate in it. We've been down this road a million times on ATS, but I'm in.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




Uh huh. A sexual fetish is not the same thing as being a transgender person. Pedophilia is not the same thing as being a transgender person.


The 'argument' breaks down when certain people like Obama, and his followers try to argue SCIENCE for the win.

There are two sexes for homo sapiens.

Male, and female.

There is NO third one.



Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise person") is the binomial nomenclature (also known as the scientific name) for the only extant human species.


en.wikipedia.org...

For those that don't know what BINOMIAL means.

www.dictionary.com...

How about people stop making up words.

POLITICAL words at that.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: In4ormant

I answered the question - I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

There are no legal protections for sexual fetishes. There are no laws requiring that public establishments accommodate sexual fetishes. There ARE laws against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, nationality, and sexual orientation.


Could you give me a link to the law against discrimination based on gender? I've never seen anything in law that refers to gender, only to sex---a biological, scientific determination. Are we being asked to now throw science out the window in favor of feelings or beliefs? When scientific testing shows that you are male, the doc is supposed to just go with your belief that you are female?
I had a relative who believed he was a panda when he was 5 years-old. Should his mom have taken him to the vet instead of the pediatrician?

These kinds of decrees are why some docs are no longer accepting any sort of insurance.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: GodEmperor

I don't think this law says anything about insurance paying for it or who fits the bill.

It just says that hospitals that take federal funds can't deny anyone that service. Not who has to pay for any of it, but just that they can't refuse to offer those services.


Thank you, that's how I took it too. It's really shocking me lately how doctors pick and choose what medication/services they provide based on THEIR beliefs....thereby totally discounting the patient's beliefs.

My son's teacher had to drive almost an hour away to a different doctor because her doctor doesn't 'believe' in birth control. WTF? You can believe what you want on Sunday in church, or in your free time, but while you're on the job you need to 'believe' in science and medicine.

I can understand not forcing a doctor to perform and abortion if they believe it's murder. BUT...there are doctors who don't have a moral issue with it that are hobbled by Catholic owned hospitals. And that's BS. According to the Catholics it's totally ok to let a woman suffer and die for the sake of a fetus, even if the fetus is non-viable.
ACLU Article re: Catholic Hospitals



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MysterX

Health care isn't a right.

Actually there are conscience laws on the books that do protect doctors and allow them to opt out of performing treatments.


Health care is a legal right if that citizen's is paying his or her insurance and taxes.

Otherwise it becomes an insurance based fraud, taking premiums and refusing to provide the services insured against, based on nothing more than a moral or religious standing or opinion is illegal, and essentially fraud.

As i say, create your own, non-federal funded health care services and do what you like and don't do what you don't like.

But let's be honest...you like the federal money more than you don't like treating those who offend your beliefs, and will winge and whine with outstretched arms for the federal cash.


Not all places offer all services. Is it discriminatory of my GP not to offer a full range of services? He doesn't treat my migraines for example. I have to go see a neurologist for that. Are you trying to tell me that my GP is discriminating against me by NOT offering treat them? Similarly I see an OB/GYN for my yearly feminine things ... again, is my GP discriminating for NOT offering those services?


I think you don't understand the hospital/dr/specialists system. It is a given that there are specialists that only specialize in a certain area for ex. a podiatrist would not be required to do a pap smear.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie


and, at least some of those doctors have a belief that it is wrong to let those women lay in agony for days waiting for the heartbeat to end that is just as strong as the dear catholics belief that abortion is wrong. so where is this leading, outside of needlessly risking women's lives?? are just the religious institutions protected by the constitution, and their followers as long as they are standing with the religious institutions, or is it the people's own beliefs, their conscious that is protected? if the gov't will protect a doctor, nurse, ect in a hospital from having to do abortions, then it should also be protecting these doctors from having to just sit there and do nothing till the heartbeat stops.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

As things are, the doctor themselves could have no moral problem with it. But it's religious owned hospital owners that cry it's against THEIR religious freedom to allow doctors to perform these procedures. Thereby, completely disregarding medicine, science and the patient's beliefs.

This directive is warning that gov't funds could be yanked if they don't cut it out. As well they should. Separation of church and state.

I think they're adding the Gender Transition stuff because, if it hasn't been an issue already, the religious healthcare owners would cry that THAT is against their convictions as well.

Any self respecting doc would perform necessary life saving procedures, even if that includes abortion. And if they thought a transgender patient was unstable, refuse to do the transition and refer them to a shrink. If the person is stable and aware of what they're doing than a decent doctor would help them.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

I'm not sure if I could find it again, but there is an article out there expressing the concern of the doctors about the catholic hospitals policies... they feel that it is tying their hands, they can't give their patients what the feel is the best medical care with them in place. so, while they are complaining about regulations that are preventing them from following their beliefs, they are preventing others from following their own beliefs.
something's got to give here, and I don't believe that hospital chains and businesses were the target of those constitutional protections, I believe it was the actual people who were.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join