• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientation

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

No, you didn't even take two seconds to look up protected clasess did you? Religion and race are protected by constitutional amendment, federally. And if you can't find ERA verbiage in any state's constitutions you just plain have not looked.

Please provide the exact Amendment.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Do you understand what possibility means? Yes, it was possible that the child might not have been seen that day due to her refusal to see the child based on the sexual orientation of the parents. We don't know what she would have done had her colleague refused to see the baby, whether due to already being booked or agreeing with the first doctor. There is nothing in the story that says that the doctor would have seen the child had the other doctor refused. But along with this, the doctor had already agreed to take the baby as a new patient of hers (prenatal), and even if she had seen the child this time, the possibility does exist that had she simply told them that that was the only appointment she could see them, she couldn't possibly know that the couple could then find someone else to see them, again whether due to other doctors having too may patients or due to their own religious objections.

Possibility is different than probability.

There was no possibility of nobody being able to see this baby in that group practice unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Oh lord, please read the thread first. Everything you just brought up has already been answered, multiple times.

LMAO... sit back down clown... you ain't a mod and I get to exercise my right to speak, even to repeat what has been said before... you'd have a full time job going from thread to thread whining about repeats... but of course you are quite selective on when you whine...

It has been replied to, but answered is a matter of opinion... and not a firmly based opinion IMO.... but of course those who defend the doctor's shameful act think it is being blown out of proportion by special interests... as if!!!

Course the same whiners would think equal rights for all races was being blown out of proportion at Selma by special interests groups... 100 years AFTER the end of the Civil War....
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

And?

Okay, let's play the hypothetical game. I want to discuss this slippery slope. Barack Obama has forced me to buy health insurance or else I have to pay a penalty. Before he leaves office, he's going to force me to buy a hybrid car or pay a penalty, because he can. A mentally compromised kid whose mother had guns went to a school and shot some innocent children with her guns, so we should take guns away from everyone with kids because this could now become a weekly occurrence.

That was fun.

So is this thread about hypotheticals and what may happen? Then you're right, I'm in the wrong thread. I'm posting about the very minor incident here that has people all jacked up.

More logically, re: Rosa Parks, we can look at one woman on a bus and one bus driver. She was asked to move to another seat....at the back. No harm would have been done for her to move to the back of the bus. One person, one incident, no harm. Totally meaningless, right?

Others have attempted to make this issue clear on this type of basis, I dont see the point of more detail because apparently either it's meaningless or it's irrelevant to the OP and would be dismissed.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Yes, I do know how they work. I'm in one. We still have a regularly assigned doctor for us. Just as these parents went to this doctor and she agreed to be the pediatrician for their baby. While it was always possible that she might not be available for them, this was not the case here. She is refusing to see them due to a completely different reason.

Plus, you have just essentially destroyed her own reasoning here. If they were likely to see other doctors, then how would she develop a necessary doctor/patient/parent relationship with them? Why would it be necessary if she wasn't likely to see them or was going to refuse to see them all along, from them signing on with that group?

Also, you are the one that doesn't understand the way ERA works. It is not in itself a Constitutional protection. It is a protection that is constitutionally sound.

You're throwing spaghetti at the wall. Patients see one doctor in the group regularly BECAUSE that develops the necessary doctor/patient relationship. And no, because they signed with the group.

Wow, all this nonsense just to avoid actually googling protected classes. Here ya go, you can stop twisting now:

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

There was no possibility of nobody being able to see this baby in that group practice unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

There was always the possibility, because there was a possibility of everyone but her getting sick or even everyone in the office getting sick that day. There is also the possibility that only the other doctor who actually agreed to take her patient had a family emergency that day. There was always the possibility that the other doctors, all of them, could have refused to take the lesbian mothers' baby as a patient based on the same objections she had. Those are all possible. They may not have been probable to happen, but still possible.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Please provide the exact Amendment.

The First and all the resconstruction amendments. EVERY SCOTUS decision on race in the modern century.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Who knows, but why should they be entitled to her services simply because they are lesbians?
You are missing the point, by a mile. The doctor has seen them already, set up the appointment, did not even tell them that she is backing out. They only found out whey they showed up for the appointment.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Who knows, but why should they be entitled to her services simply because they are lesbians? If a physician believes they can't provide the highest quality of care to someone due to certain factors then the responsible thing is to have them seen by someone else. It's not much different from practitioners referring someone elsewhere for abortion services or those who are unwilling to see drug addicts or other patient populations they may not be able to establish a proper relationship with.

This issue is being blown up way out of proportion, likely due to this special rights movement of LGBTQ entitlement with blatant disrespect of the rights and beliefs of others who may have issues with it.

That bolded part is very logical and well written.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

You're throwing spaghetti at the wall. Patients see one doctor in the group regularly BECAUSE that develops the necessary doctor/patient relationship. And no, because they signed with the group.

Wow, all this nonsense just to avoid actually googling protected classes. Here ya go, you can stop twisting now:

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't seem to understand the difference between a constitutionally sound law (like the ERA) and an actual constitutional protection (such as freedom of speech, religion, equal protection of the laws, etc.).

I am well aware of what a protected class is in relation to the ERA. That was never in contention. The problem is that you are claiming that the Constitution protects people from discrimination based on those things in relation to private businesses or people. That is what is not true. The 14th only protects people from having laws made that would treat them unequally due to those reasons and many more without some sort of ability to show a state interest of some kind is furthered. There is no constitutional protection that says no one can ever deny you service in their private, open to the public business based on your race, religion, etc. What there is is a law, that has been found to not violate any constitutional provisions/rights guarantees, which says people cannot discriminate in their businesses based on those things. This law can be changed or even repealed without going through the same requirements as amending the US Constitution because it is not a part of that Constitution. In fact, the most likely change that will happen is to include sexuality/sexual orientation as a protected class, something that has come up a few times in the last few years. A change in Congress within the next decade, and we very likely will see this.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Physician felt she couldn't provide the best care...
Just to emphasize, there is a tremendous difference between not being able to provide the best care because lack of expertise, experience, familiarity with a condition, lack of equipment and so one, but bigotry is something that should never be part of the equation. Personal feelings are supposed to be overcome by true professionals.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

The First and all the resconstruction amendments. EVERY SCOTUS decision on race in the modern century.

No. You are wrong on this. Please recheck your information. There is a difference between a constitutional protection and a law that is constitutionally sound. Public Accommodation laws are not constitutionally protected. They can be repealed by a simple process of passing laws in Congress and via the President, simple majority. These deal with open to the public businesses and them not being allowed to use those classes to deny service to people.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

There was always the possibility, because there was a possibility of everyone but her getting sick or even everyone in the office getting sick that day. There is also the possibility that only the other doctor who actually agreed to take her patient had a family emergency that day. There was always the possibility that the other doctors, all of them, could have refused to take the lesbian mothers' baby as a patient based on the same objections she had. Those are all possible. They may not have been probable to happen, but still possible.

OMG, for crying out loud, there was a possibility that the parents could have won Powerball and chartered a flight to Tahiti and brought along their own doctor for the wellness check too. Stop imagining things.

If she asked her fellow doctor to see the baby, and her fellow doctor saw the baby, you imagining things that didn't happen is nothing but your imagination.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

You are missing the point, by a mile. The doctor has seen them already, set up the appointment, did not even tell them that she is backing out. They only found out whey they showed up for the appointment.

That's actually my biggest issue with this person at this point. She comes across as supremely unprofessional and as a coward to boot. She couldn't be bothered to tell them face to face that she would not take their baby as a patient after all, had one of her colleagues do her dirty work for her and it took 4 months for her to apologize to them.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

I don't have a problem with doctors in a group practice sharing responsibility for patients. I don't care about which hygienist in my dentist's group practice cleans my teeth every 6 months. They're on a rotation. I don't care which doctor has to see me if my own doctor is home sick. In other words, I don't go to doctors or dentists or any medical provider to be accepted or liked. I go to get care, and if I don't like the person, or I don't like the care, I go elsewhere. You seem to think I'm crazy because I don't share your outrage that this baby was seen by another doctor in a group practice. I don't.

I assume most people don't care, to start (although most people do prefer to built histories with routine doctors -- saves time re-stating your history). But you're basically saying there should be no limit on what they can pass the buck over, which may ultimately end in a person being refused service from anyone. Yes, that's crazy.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

More logically, re: Rosa Parks, we can look at one woman on a bus and one bus driver. She was asked to move to another seat....at the back. No harm would have been done for her to move to the back of the bus. One person, one incident, no harm. Totally meaningless, right?

Others have attempted to make this issue clear on this type of basis, I dont see the point of more detail because apparently either it's meaningless or it's irrelevant to the OP and would be dismissed.

Rosa Parks? Okay, I'll play the Rosa Parks hypothetical, but that won't stop me from laughing at this being compared to the Rosa Parks story.

Let's see. Rosa Parks paid for a bus ticket. Same as the white people on the bus did. Their ticket allowed them to sit wherever they wanted. Hers didn't. She wasn't being treated equally. She was being ordered to move to a section of the bus against her wishes. She refused to do it.

Okay, and that has to do with the baby being seen by the doctor's partner....how again?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

They already do, what's wrong with you? But to do so for a patient that is in need of immediate medical treatment is indeed unprofessional and against the law. That wasn't the case here.

Since when? I've never been asked what I do for a living.

Should people just do a bunch of forms for every possible circumstance of their life the doctor may be bigoted against?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

That's actually my biggest issue with this person at this point. She comes across as supremely unprofessional and as a coward to boot. She couldn't be bothered to tell them face to face that she would not take their baby as a patient after all, had one of her colleagues do her dirty work for her and it took 4 months for her to apologize to them.
Maybe the apology or how to sort that aspect out was not part of her prayers and it came to her later, when her bigotry was being known by more and more people. Self serving apologies are always the best.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

I assume most people don't care, to start (although most people do prefer to built histories with routine doctors -- saves time re-stating your history). But you're basically saying there should be no limit on what they can pass the buck over, which may ultimately end in a person being refused service from anyone. Yes, that's crazy.

Fine, then pass a law that says nobody in any profession is allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason, and the consumer can demand service whether the provider chooses to provide it or not. Period. That sounds fair.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Rosa Parks? Okay, I'll play the Rosa Parks hypothetical, but that won't stop me from laughing at this being compared to the Rosa Parks story.

Let's see. Rosa Parks paid for a bus ticket. Same as the white people on the bus did. Their ticket allowed them to sit wherever they wanted. Hers didn't. She wasn't being treated equally. She was being ordered to move to a section of the bus against her wishes. She refused to do it.

Okay, and that has to do with the baby being seen by the doctor's partner....how again?

How about this? Doctor believes mixed race couples go against God and the children are "harmed" from the rejection they face. Doctor tells parents only after making the appointment that he cannot see a mixed race child based on his personal religious beliefs. Illegal discrimination or not? Why?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

You're still confused. The legal basis for laws is not a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of law

You keep shifting the frame of your argument without seeing that I'm not arguing. The origin of all laws start with someone's opinion of how something should be (in their opinion). When there is a critical mass, laws are passed. Clearly many people on this thread are upset that the law and the medical community support the actions of this physician. Their solution--there should be a law forcing the physician to do something. My solution--market forces will decide the fate of this physician.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

How about this? Doctor believes mixed race couples go against God and the children are "harmed" from the rejection they face. Doctor tells parents only after making the appointment that he cannot see a mixed race child based on his personal religious beliefs. Illegal discrimination or not? Why?

Why are you asking me what's illegal or not? I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one. You should ask an attorney that question.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Doctors can reject patients if they are on Medicaid, or Medicare, why should any other reason not be valid? They can reject patients for almost any reason, except in emergency situations. As a doctor, you indeed get to pick your clients.

Tim-

No, they can refuse to accept Medicaid/Medicare in the first place, which is readily stated in any information in print or online about the hospital, unlike whether or not any of the doctors are bigots. In the former case, it's a service they don't offer to begin with. In the later case, it's a service they claim to offer without caveat, which they arbitrarily refuse to offer if the doctor you just so happen to run into is a bigot.

However, I think America's health care system is broken in general, so you certainly won't see me claiming it's ok that hospitals reject patients on assistance (often the elderly and children, unbelievably), or for any reason at all, really. It's insane that America doesn't have single-payer.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Why are you asking me what's illegal or not? I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one. You should ask an attorney that question.

Actually, I'm asking your opinion of the law. Should it be illegal to discriminate?

I already know it is illegal to discriminate based on the scenario I gave.
 
Back
Top Bottom