Trump's 'religious conscience'

Nurses General Nursing

Updated:   Published

Has anyone heard of this? Its saying that basically ANY healthcare worker has the right as of July 22nd to refuse care to a patient due to the healthcare worker's moral beliefs or religion. I'm so confused. First of all we as healthcare workers are here to help EVERYONE. Most people think it will effect LGBTQ or women, which I can definitely see happening. I mean rapists are against my morals so does that mean I can refuse treatment? I've been looking this up trying to find some clarification.

On the NPR website it states "Last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services put out a new rule that "implements full and robust enforcement" of existing laws that protect what the administration calls "conscience rights" for health care workers. The rule is set to go into effect on July 22."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/11/730659035/-patients-will-die-one-county-s-challenge-to-trump-s-conscience-rights-rule

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics/legal-challenge-hhs-conscience-objection-rule/index.html

I added two links of articles I have found on it, still confused though. Any thoughts or facts you guys have?

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
On 6/17/2019 at 10:09 PM, hherrn said:

Lane-

I appreciate your well conceived and well written response, and disagree with part of it.

"Posing the question the way you did oversimplifies a complex issue that deserves to retain its complexity"

I would say posing the question the way I did simplifies a complex issue despite its complexity.

This rule makes no exemptions for emergencies. I am the only RN in a small ER. My interpretation, as bizarre as it is, of Jesus's teaching is that I should not care for for a woman suffering from the complications of an abortion. Or a post surgical gender reassignment. Or a same sex couple. or whatever.

I am deliberately asking Dancrn a simple question in the context of a complex issue.

Do I have a right to refuse care to those who violate my conscious rights?

It is a deliberately simple question. Dancrn?

It might violate your "unconscious" rights.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU/Mother-Baby/Peds/Mgmt.
On 6/22/2019 at 11:20 AM, subee said:

First the zanies take away abortion; then they will want to take away birth control......

Actually, if you read some of the Evangelical Christian sites they do want to take away many forms of birth control; the pill and the IUD because fertilization can occur but these forms of bc will make it impossible/harder for the fertilized egg to implant, as well as Plan B. So think about how many women are on the pill or have IUDs and then how many more pregnancies we'd have without those...

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
On 6/25/2019 at 8:02 AM, osceteacher said:

Us Europeans will never understand Americans obsession with what another person does with their genitals, especially when based on books written thousands of years ago by men who had an understanding of the world that a 10 year old would laugh at.

I love comments that start with, "Us _____ (fill in the blank) believe such and such". A Black comedian joked that when white people asked him, "What do Black people think about _____" (fill in the blank). He'd reply, "I don't know but we're having a meeting tonight and I'll find out".

I'm not very religious. How about basing religious conscience on what Jesus purported to say, "Love the Lord with all your heart.... Love your neighbor as yourself....All the Law and the Phrophets hang on these two commandments."

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.

OK. I'll take rhat one. Why are you asking everyone else to base their religiosity in YOUR religion? And again, we have no idea what Jesus really said.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
2 minutes ago, subee said:

OK. I'll take rhat one. Why are you asking everyone else to base their religiosity in YOUR religion? And again, we have no idea what Jesus really said.

"My religiosity....my religion....". I guess because the topic is Trump's religious conscience comment I brought Christianity and Jesus into the conversation. I never claimed it was my religion or my religiosity. I just thought love thy neighbor as thyself was a nice way to get through life. Even an atheist (which I kind of am) or followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be able to live by those words.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Family Nurse Practitioner.
1 hour ago, brownbook said:

How about basing religious conscience on what Jesus purported to say, "Love the Lord with all your heart.... Love your neighbor as yourself...."

Yes. It can be this simple: If everyone, no matter what religion or professional training they have chosen, treated others the way they want to be treated the world would be a healthier, happier place.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
1 hour ago, Lane Therrell FNP, MSN, RN said:

Yes. It can be this simple: If everyone, no matter what religion or professional training they have chosen, treated others the way they want to be treated the world would be a healthier, happier place.

But the golden rule is just common sense for people to live together in this society and, no doubt , existed before Jesus was born. When he existed, there were already large cities with legal codes that forbade bad behaviors.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Family Nurse Practitioner.
6 minutes ago, subee said:

But the golden rule is just common sense for people to live together in this society and, no doubt , existed before Jesus was born...

Absolutely. It's timeless wisdom. And so incredibly simple. Unfortunately it seems that sense is no longer common in most of the world today.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×

Hello All!

Just wading in here without having read entire several pages of postings.

First and foremost was born, raised and still live in NYC, and have never known nor heard of DT being particularly religious. The man is serial philander with very lose personal and business ethics along with morals.

That being said this whole newfound getting of religion is DT's pay back for the unexpected and surprising votes from the "moral majority" and religious right who put him into office.

First salvo over bow was that national "day of prayer" proclamation, but the other came with DT's executive order regarding "free speech and religious liberty" for the department of health.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-promoting-free-speech-religious-liberty/

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/13/2017-21851/religious-exemptions-and-accommodations-for-coverage-of-certain-preventive-services-under-the

https://pjmedia.com/faith/trumps-hhs-religious-freedom-rule-protects-pro-life-health-care-workers-from-abortion-mandates/

It is pretty much self evident that DT hates B. Obama with a red hot passion. This comes on many levels and likely somehow (as with other whites around the country) is race related. Obama broke into the last exclusive all white male club in the USA, and some never will forgive nor forget...

Out of the box DT and his administration began to roll back, repeal, and or otherwise negate or nullify nearly every single law, rule or regulation put in place during the Obama administration. This of course sits well with the far right, moral majority, etc... since they viewed much of it from climate control to same sex marriage/LGBT equality as over reach at best, and at worse abhorrent.

The Affordable Healthcare Act greatly expanded protections for not just LGBT but women (abortion) and so forth. Much of was done same way other things are in Washington, those who take the "kings coin, must sing the king's tune". In many ways state and local healthcare providers are tied to the federal government because either directly or indirectly they receive federal funds.

To appease the far right and religious DT and his administration isn't just going with removing or whatever put in place by Obama, but greatly expanding the ground various health care workers, providers, insurance providers and so forth can use the vast club of federal government to beat down anyone or thing who "forces" them to do something against their *religious)* conscious .

Religious practice and or beliefs are one of the few protections enshrined in the USC. An employee can be terminated and or have disciplinary action taken against them for refusing a direct order (insubordination). OTOH if same employee can claim doing what was ordered violates their religious beliefs it is a different ballgame.

As mentioned a large part of this is not just abortion; but the huge expansion of rights/protections that came during the Obama administration. Medicaid for instance now covers gender reassignment surgeries, procedures and medication. Cannot recall if the Affordable Care Act mandates same, but many states such as New York have forced *all* private insurers to cover same.

This has lead to an expansion of LGBT health care services which in turn exposes far more nurses, doctors, and other providers to deal with this issue. Here in NYC Mount Sinai and the Health and Hospitals Corporation have brand new and expansive LGBT clinics, services and so forth.

Nurses who once thought they were safe from this issue working on say a GYN floor (many hospitals in at least NYC didn't put pre-op trans on such floors), now find things are different. Worse (for them at least) they now are called upon to assist in various gender reassignment surgeries.

DT's new rules not only actively protect those with "issues" relating to this new expanded range of health care (plus abortion), but actively seek those who feel they have been comprised to sue their employers in federal court with the (federal) government at their backs.

The obvious end game to this is same with abortion; to force persons/institutions to simply cease providing such care because it just becomes so difficult it might as well be illegal.

Hospitals were invented and exist to provide skilled professional nursing care in a central location. How are supervisors or places supposed to staff when every other nurse on a floor/in a unit has this or that religious objection?

Women have died and or suffered adverse outcomes when in an emergency situation called for termination, but the nurse or nurses on duty balked. In such cases the facility can pull rank but then not only do you have a nurse providing care in what may well be a passive/aggressive manner, but she or he may thereafter be in a frightful bait (read bad attitude) which can lead to them filing lawsuits or complaints with EEOC.

LGBT isn't just about trans issues; but a whole range of things including surrogacy. If a nurse objects on "religious" grounds to gays becoming parents does she or he have the right to absent themselves from a surrogate obviously giving birth for a gay couple? Can said nurse refuse to participate in IVF for lesbians on same grounds?

If a nurse, hospital, nursing home or whatever objects to same sex marriage, can they be forced to recognize same sex spouses?

In a perfect world the nursing profession would be populated by those motivated purely by altruism, selflessly providing care to all without regard to race, creed, or whatever else. But we all know that isn't true. It wasn't during the days of starched whites and caps, and certainly isn't today.

This is a very dangerous and slippery slope DT and federal government is going down. What's next? Are we going to segregate again hospitals/health care facilities?

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Practice educator.
On 6/27/2019 at 7:20 PM, brownbook said:

I love comments that start with, "Us _____ (fill in the blank) believe such and such". A Black comedian joked that when white people asked him, "What do Black people think about _____" (fill in the blank). He'd reply, "I don't know but we're having a meeting tonight and I'll find out".

I'm not very religious. How about basing religious conscience on what Jesus purported to say, "Love the Lord with all your heart.... Love your neighbor as yourself....All the Law and the Phrophets hang on these two commandments."

I love comments that critique obvious hyperbole.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×

People, when you post your response within the quoted post, it's impossible to discern where your comments begin. You have to post outside of the quoted material.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
On 6/17/2019 at 10:09 PM, hherrn said:

My interpretation, as bizarre as it is, of Jesus's teaching is that I should not care for for a woman suffering from the complications of an abortion. Or a post surgical gender reassignment. Or a same sex couple. or whatever.

Where are you getting this from?

5
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment