I've read about studies on the subject of LGBT healthcare. I know one needs to out oneself when seeing healthcare providers because there are some medical issues associated with being LGBT (here, here, here, and here, for example).
It's really unlikely that there are any significant intersecting health concerns with my toothache and LGBT status -- but in the past I would always out myself to healthcare providers "just in case."
It's a real worry. Folks who aren't even trans are already suing the federal government because they believe the regulations were written way, way too broadly. From the Washington Post:
Seven states and two family-planning groups yesterday asked a federal court to block a controversial new federal regulation that protects health workers who refuse to provide care that they find objectionable.In three lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, the states and groups sought an immediate court order preventing the regulation from going into effect Tuesday and a permanent decision voiding the rule.
"On the way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking political time bomb that is set to explode literally on the day of the president's inaugural and blow apart women's rights," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who filed one of the suits on behalf of his state, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. "This midnight rule is a nightmare for hospitals and clinics, as well as women."
Blumenthal's lawsuit challenges the regulation on several grounds, charging that it is too vague and overbroad and conflicts with other federal laws and state laws...
[More below the fold.] The preamble also defines, very broadly, the types of individuals that may be involved in an objectionable procedure. The preamble provides an example of a health care worker who autoclaves (sterilizes) surgical instruments used in an objectionable procedure as someone that "assists in the performance" and is thereby protected under the provider conscience clause. The preamble language further defines that any activity with a reasonable connection to the objectionable procedure, such as referrals and training, can also be considered objectionable. This broad definition of "assist in the performance" suggests that any individual invoking the conscience clause protections is under no obligation to refer the patient to other practitioners, pharmacists or hospitals from whom the patient could receive care. The AHA objects to any proposal that releases a practitioner, for any reason, from an obligation to provide or assist patients with a referral or other information that would allow the patient to receive needed health care services. The definitions for objectionable health care services and individuals that assist in objectionable procedures is so broad that hospitals have no reasonable way of planning to ensure that patients have access to the health care services they need. Hospitals and their emergency departments are complex entities; as the proposed rule is written, it would be extremely difficult for hospitals to anticipate all the scenarios under which a health care worker might invoke the provider conscience clause. As a result it would be impossible for hospitals to make the staffing arrangements needed to ensure access to those services. The AHA is concerned that access to services for patients may be significantly hampered by the current definitions of this rule. So, yesterday I compromised my commitment to myself to be open in medical settings so I can get the most appropriate treatment. And, I compromised my commitment to be a force for education about trans people within the various settings I find myself within my life -- including healthcare settings. I did this because I thought someone might invoke their right of conscience against treating a trans person like me in the VA hospital specifically because they object to me having a female gender expression. Scary, sobering thoughts. The way I feel today though, I would rather be open about who I am than live in fear. I would rather be denied treatment, and have the opportunity to comment that I am a disabled veteran of the Persian Gulf War, and was denied treatment because I'm true to my values -- true to who I am. Basically, I can't give into my fears and still be true to who I am. Hey, I'm trans and I'm proud of who I am. I'd rather die than be forced again to live in the closet. ~~~~~
The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Hospital Association (AHA) have come out against these regulations. From the AHA letter on the proposed regulation change:
The definitions of "health care service program" and "health care service," to which an individual can find a moral objection, are very broad and potentially impinge on a patient's access to needed health care services. The preamble states that "health care service program" should be understood to include any activity related in any way to providing medicine, health care, or any other service related to health or wellness, and that "health care service" means any service so provided.
Related:
* Bush Administration 'Right Of Conscience' Regulation May Impact Your Healthcare Treatment
.
I've read about studies on the subject of LGBT healthcare. I know one needs to out oneself when seeing healthcare providers because there are some medical issues associated with being LGBT (here, here, here, and here, for example).
It's really unlikely that there are any significant intersecting health concerns with my toothache and LGBT status -- but in the past I would always out myself to healthcare providers "just in case."
It's a real worry. Folks who aren't even trans are already suing the federal government because they believe the regulations were written way, way too broadly. From the Washington Post:
Seven states and two family-planning groups yesterday asked a federal court to block a controversial new federal regulation that protects health workers who refuse to provide care that they find objectionable.In three lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, the states and groups sought an immediate court order preventing the regulation from going into effect Tuesday and a permanent decision voiding the rule.
"On the way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking political time bomb that is set to explode literally on the day of the president's inaugural and blow apart women's rights," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who filed one of the suits on behalf of his state, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. "This midnight rule is a nightmare for hospitals and clinics, as well as women."
Blumenthal's lawsuit challenges the regulation on several grounds, charging that it is too vague and overbroad and conflicts with other federal laws and state laws...
[More below the fold.] The preamble also defines, very broadly, the types of individuals that may be involved in an objectionable procedure. The preamble provides an example of a health care worker who autoclaves (sterilizes) surgical instruments used in an objectionable procedure as someone that "assists in the performance" and is thereby protected under the provider conscience clause. The preamble language further defines that any activity with a reasonable connection to the objectionable procedure, such as referrals and training, can also be considered objectionable. This broad definition of "assist in the performance" suggests that any individual invoking the conscience clause protections is under no obligation to refer the patient to other practitioners, pharmacists or hospitals from whom the patient could receive care. The AHA objects to any proposal that releases a practitioner, for any reason, from an obligation to provide or assist patients with a referral or other information that would allow the patient to receive needed health care services.
The definitions for objectionable health care services and individuals that assist in objectionable procedures is so broad that hospitals have no reasonable way of planning to ensure that patients have access to the health care services they need. Hospitals and their emergency departments are complex entities; as the proposed rule is written, it would be extremely difficult for hospitals to anticipate all the scenarios under which a health care worker might invoke the provider conscience clause. As a result it would be impossible for hospitals to make the staffing arrangements needed to ensure access to those services. The AHA is concerned that access to services for patients may be significantly hampered by the current definitions of this rule. So, yesterday I compromised my commitment to myself to be open in medical settings so I can get the most appropriate treatment. And, I compromised my commitment to be a force for education about trans people within the various settings I find myself within my life -- including healthcare settings. I did this because I thought someone might invoke their right of conscience against treating a trans person like me in the VA hospital specifically because they object to me having a female gender expression.
Scary, sobering thoughts.
The way I feel today though, I would rather be open about who I am than live in fear. I would rather be denied treatment, and have the opportunity to comment that I am a disabled veteran of the Persian Gulf War, and was denied treatment because I'm true to my values -- true to who I am.
Basically, I can't give into my fears and still be true to who I am. Hey, I'm trans and I'm proud of who I am. I'd rather die than be forced again to live in the closet.
~~~~~
The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Hospital Association (AHA) have come out against these regulations. From the AHA letter on the proposed regulation change:
The definitions of "health care service program" and "health care service," to which an individual can find a moral objection, are very broad and potentially impinge on a patient's access to needed health care services. The preamble states that "health care service program" should be understood to include any activity related in any way to providing medicine, health care, or any other service related to health or wellness, and that "health care service" means any service so provided.
Related:
* Bush Administration 'Right Of Conscience' Regulation May Impact Your Healthcare Treatment
.
The City of Gainesville is under attack and we all are at risk if the far right succeeds.A group calling itself "Citizens for Good Public Policy" has placed a charter amendment on the City of Gainesville's March 24th ballot which, if passed, will repeal gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender protections in housing, employment, and public accommodations within city limits.
This threat to Gainesville is a threat to Florida. Every community in Florida that has stepped forward to denounce discrimination against LGBT people will be in danger if we fail to stop this divisive and mean-spirited initiative.
This campaign is such a high priority that I've taken a leave of absence as Equality Florida's Field Director to be the full-time campaign manager for Equality is Gainesville's Business, the local effort to stop the repeal of these basic and vital legal protections.
We cannot allow the divisive and mean spirited politics of "Citizens for Good Public Policy" become a rallying cry for local referendums across our state. We must stop this here and now in Gainesville.
Please join me in supporting Equality is Gainesville's Business today with a contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even $500. You can make a contribution of any size and every donation matters.
Time to hit the campaign trail!
Sincerely.
Joe Saunders
Campaign Manager
Equality is Gainesville's Business
407-497-4986P.S. Every single dollar you give will help us talk to 10 more voters, mail 5 more households and canvass one more street to ensure that ALL Gainesville citizens are afforded an opportunity to live open and full lives, free of discrimination.
***Please note that if you DO NOT have a PayPal account you CAN still make a contribution. Simply input your donation amount, click "Update Total", and then choose the option to continue under "Don't Have a PayPal account?"
Read what the "Christian" taliban is saying, after the flip.
"In practical effect, these types of ordinances end up being used to intimidate and prosecute Christians and anyone else who raises objections to this form of deviant behavior."-Richard Thompson, Legal counsel for
Citizens for Good Public Policy
The Christian Coalition's efforts have shown that "extremists with special rights agendas can be stopped, even in a liberal university town"-Dennis Baxley, Executive Director of the Christian Coalition of Florida
Subscribe to Reader feed
Subscribe to daily Email
No comments:
Post a Comment