Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: House Dems still refusing to go along with Senate’s FY 15 patch
Next Post: More like this, please
Posted in:
A bill that opponents say would force doctors that hold religious convictions to choose between God and government is on third reading in the Illinois Senate, and could be called for a floor vote at any time.
SB 1564, sponsored by Democrat senators Daniel Biss - Julie A. Morrison - Toi W. Hutchinson - Linda Holmes - Kimberly A. Lightford, Michael Noland, Heather A. Steans, William Delgado, Iris Y. Martinez, Jacqueline Y. Collins, Emil Jones, III and Donne E. Trotter, is called the “Health Care Right of Conscience Act.”
It demands that medical personnel permit, perform, assist in, counsel about, suggest, recommend, refer for or participate in health care services a patient demands - even if it is against his or her religious belief system - unless a written protocol with alternatives is available to share with the patient.
Biss’ proposal contradicts the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, Thomas More Society counsel Tom Brechja said, the first part of which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
“If you’re impairing the patient’s health by delaying his or her access to a suicide pill, [for example], that may be ‘Brave New World,’ but we’re already living in ‘Brave New World,’” Brechja said. “Who knows what some court somewhere is going to decide. With this bill, you’ve certainly started down that path, and into the abyss.”
Once the law says a person’s conscience must yield to state or federal law, there’s no prediction where that may lead, Brechja said.
While Illinois’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows citizens to act upon their religious beliefs, Biss’ law would supersede the state’s RFRA.
Nationwide, some states’ conscience clauses explicitly cover abortion, contraception, sterilization, and the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatments.
Some clauses cover local conditions. For example in Oregon, a conscience clause describes a physician’s right of refusal concerning physician-assisted suicide, which is legal in that state.
*** UPDATE *** From Ed Yohnka at the ACLU…
Rich,
I just caught the coverage on the blog today about Senator Biss’ SB1564 which the Senate approved yesterday. I think that our friends at the IFI and Illinois Review have a rather distorted view of the measure, which now reflects an agreement between the ACLU, the Catholic Conference and the Catholic Health Care Association. These last two organizations would be shocked to see this description given their assent on the measure.
I know that you have covered the bill earlier in the session, but the purpose of the measure is to ensure that patients in Illinois get the health care that is best for them WHEN a doctor, a nurse of a health care institution exercises a religious objection. Nothing here eliminates the ability of a health care provider to make a conscience objection and nothing forces anyone to provide a service to which they have an objection.
Finally, while language referencing “suicide pills” is colorful and has a rhetorical flourish one might enjoy, the bill (back here in the real world) only applies to legal medical procedures. Enough said about that.
I’m attaching here our fact sheet on the bill. I’m also attaching a couple of examples of why we need this law in Illinois.
Hope all is well.
Ed
* Meanwhile, from the Illinois Times…
Illinois lawmakers are considering legislation that would reverse a 30-year-old ban on public money being used to pay for abortions.
The bill raises one of the most controversial issues in American society, with religious groups objecting on moral grounds and women’s rights groups saying it’s a matter of fairness.
House Bill 4013, sponsored by Chicago Democrat Sara Feigenholtz, would allow state employee health insurance and Medicaid to cover abortions. The bill passed the House Human Services Committee in March with an 8-6 vote. The votes fell along party lines, with each Democrat on the panel voting for the bill and each Republican voting against it.
Since at least 1980, state law has prohibited coverage of abortions for state employees who receive health insurance through the state. The same prohibition has applied to people on Medicaid since at least the late 1980s. State law does allow coverage for abortions in cases of rape, incest, life endangerment and health endangerment. Feigenholtz’s bill would reverse that prohibition, allowing elective abortions to be covered under both state employee health insurance and Medicaid.
The bill also reverses a ban on state grants to organizations that perform abortions or refer women for the procedure. Currently, the state can make grants to organizations that provide services for women experiencing problem pregnancies. Additionally, abortion providers would no longer be required to provide a description of the method used in each request for Medicaid reimbursement under Feigenholtz’s bill.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:22 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: House Dems still refusing to go along with Senate’s FY 15 patch
Next Post: More like this, please
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
and the left thinks they are “enlightened.”
Comment by Liberty Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:27 am
“Once the law says a person’s conscience must yield to state or federal law, there’s no prediction where that may lead, Brechja said.”
The law already says that. I daresay that’s the whole purpose of law.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:28 am
What if it is outside the scope of practice and/or not medically necessary? Could you demand BC from your dentist? Could you demand a doctor perform a procedure they normally don’t do?
I guess the ‘written protocol’ covers this to some degree.
What if it is outside of practice entirely, when people know you are in health care (just like I suspect if they know you can fix a car) they ask you questions and/or ask you to perscribe something outside a normal clinical setting..
When is someone actually a patient?
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:31 am
Are these really “just bills” that aren’t likely to go anywhere or do they actually have some traction?
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:32 am
Sweet Lord, why do we have to do this now? Yes, it’s an important issue to get on the table, but do we have to do this now? Why? Guru’s of this blog, is this some kind of strategic thing that a newbie to politics doesn’t get?
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:37 am
The “Conservative” position is that the freedom lies with the medical professional to deny services to women & members of LGBT community.
This law would prioritize the freedom of the patient (customer, client) to choose from the medical options that are legal.
Do I understand the two sides correctly?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:38 am
Square - SB 1564 passed yesterday. The tally was 34-19. The debate was interesting.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:43 am
“Sweet Lord, why do we have to do this now?” Legislatures all over the country are limiting the reproductive rights of women. they are endangering the health of women, half the population, with such actions. Kudos to the legislators in Illinois who are pushing for women’s reproductive rights with these bills. This kind of legislation helps women.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:43 am
They stretch and blow up this issue beyond all reason. Typical More Society and IFI crap.
The core issue is: If a doctor or other medical professional refuses medical services for a person requesting an abortion, based on personal religious beliefs — (which is allowed) — can they at least refer them to another medical care provider or institution?
Is that a reasonable professional medical standard to be applied, as it is in all other cases? The bill says Yes. The opponents say No.
Similar to the stance that baking a cake on order, is somehow participating in a gay marriage.
Comment by walker Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:46 am
- Amalia - Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:43 am:
You are so misguided or trying to be disceptive.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:48 am
OK, so SB 1564 (conscience clause) passed the Senate but does anyone know whether it really has a chance of passing the House? (It’s not uncommon for bills to pass one house and go nowhere in the other.) And how likely is it that HB 4013 (Medicaid funding of abortions) will make it to a floor vote, or get past the House?
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:54 am
Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:38 am:
No, conservatives do not deny coverage to women and LGBT people.
Pro-life people do not want to participate in abortions.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 11:54 am
“Pro-life people do not want to participate in abortions”
Any more than people opposed to the death penalty want to participate in executions. Liberals don’t seem to mind when medical professionals, drug suppliers, etc. refuse to participate in lethal injection procedures. Why would it be any different for those who don’t want to participate in or facilitate what they believe to be the “execution” of an unborn child?
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 12:05 pm
Hey, when did we solve the financial crisis? All must be well if these hacks have time to deal with crap like this.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 12:24 pm
A bill like the one described by Illinois Review and IFI would have no chance of passing. Fortunately, SB1564 is actually quite different. All the bill says is that if a health care practitioner decides to exercise her right of conscience and refuses to provide a medical service, she has to give a written statement explaining the procedure(s) available and a list of other health care providers offering the service.
Let’s give a real life example. For many women who have had complications from child birth (or simply don’t want more children after the current pregnancy), the best time for a tubal ligation is right after delivery. But Catholic hospitals don’t offer tubal ligations.
All this bill does is require the OB/GYN (and/or hospital) to explain that it does not offer tubal ligations, and then give a list of places that in fact offer tubal ligations. No referrals, nothing forces the Catholic health care provider to perform the tubal ligation — just an explanation that this service is not available, call these people if you want it.
A good bill, in other words, and not at all the bill described by IFI and Illinois Review.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 12:26 pm
Why do “xtians” insist on forcing their “lifestyle choice/personal issue” on others? You were not born this way. This has nothing to do with Religious Freedom. “xtians” are NOT being discriminated against in this country.
If your a doctor then you treat the patient that is in front of you. If not, them quit. It’s that simple.
Comment by Jack Stephens Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 12:31 pm
Read the bill, it ins’t as bad as they make it out to be.
Carl, it really have nothing to do with LGBT stuff, but thanks for playing.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 12:33 pm
The catch on it really is
(g) “Undue delay” means unreasonable delay that causes, impairment of the patient’s health.
Seems to me you could drive a truck through that one.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 12:54 pm
This bill makes me very uneasy, but I can’t nail down why. If a medical person doesn’t want to enable or perform services that are against their religious beliefs, are the persons being denied those objected services or advice limited to those medical professionals? Or can they go elsewhere, or ask to speak with someone in the organization that doesn’t hold those religious objections?
What am I missing?
Comment by Toure's Latte Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 1:08 pm
“Choice” means no choice for doctors and taxpayers.
Comment by anon Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 1:10 pm
“If a medical person doesn’t want to enable or perform services that are against their religious beliefs, are the persons being denied those objected services or advice limited to those medical professionals? Or can they go elsewhere, or ask to speak with someone in the organization that doesn’t hold those religious objections?”
It depends. I think a lot of doctors and health care practitioners who exercise their right of conscience do it properly: they explain to the patient that they do not provide a certain service/procedure, and will suggest a different health care practitioner.
Some do not. For example, some physicians at Catholic hospitals don’t discuss the tubal ligation issue with patients and a pregnant women facing a C-section (or just wanting a tubal ligation) doesn’t know until she is in delivery that she cannot get that service at the hospital.
In other cases, it can be even more problematic. Imagine a pregnant woman diagnosed with cancer by a physician with a sincerely held belief against abortion. It is really not that hard to imagine the physician saying that the patient cannot get chemo because she is pregnant, without discussing the option of an abortion to allow her to get chemo.
These situations actually happen. Perhaps they are not common, but they do happen. Some health care practitioners properly suggest talking with another physicians; but some do not. It seems to me that this bill draws the line in the right place. And most importantly, it’s not at all the bill described by IFI and Illinois Review.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 1:33 pm
For crying out loud, the anti-Americanism of some of these zealots is breathtaking.
In what fever dream do you see the “government” forcing anyone to participate in performing an abortion?
Just how would the government go about forcing someone to do that?
You all act like you live in Saudia Arabia or something, with the religious police dogging your every step.
Of course, I imagine you wouldn’t mind being the religious police, if you could.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 1:40 pm
If they cut the state employees health insurance coverage down to barely nothing like Rauner wants to, how will there be any coverage in their insurance that would even begin to cover the costs of an abortion?
Comment by Challengerrt Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 1:57 pm
==and the left thinks==
==Liberals don’t seem to mind ==
Can we please knock it off with this kind of garbage (on both sides)? If you can’t make a point without this then you don’t have a point to make.
==You all act like you live in Saudia Arabia or something, with the religious police dogging your every step.==
Agreed. There is a growing belief among Christians in the U.S. that they are being persecuted. Somewhere along the line they have come to believe (or been told to believe) that they don’t have to do anything that offends their religious beliefs. As a Christian myself (and just as an individual for that matter) there are many things that “offend” me. But I don’t invoke my religion as an excuse not to have to do something. I get it that a doctor who has a religious objection to abortion does not want to perform one. That’s fine. But I’m not in favor of doctors just saying they don’t want to do anything or see someone just because it “offends” their religious beliefs. As far as I’m concerned if you become a doctor you have an obligation to be a doctor. There are some things in life that require you to be something before another thing. If you can’t then you might want to look into a different profession.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 2:03 pm
First amendment would not support allowing a patient to come to harm because of a religious belief.
The hippocratic oath also does not have a religious exception.
medicine is a privilege granted by the government. If its practice conflicts with religious beliefs, consider another profession.
Just waiting for the taxi drivers and bus driver to require minorities to sit at the back of the bus for religious reasons…..
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 2:16 pm
how about a real religious rights law which provides that you can not pick and choose which aspects of your religion are most convenient to use to discriminate. If you whish to deny services to any sinner, then you must deny service to all sinners.
After all, if you just pick certain sins you are by definition not making a religious claim, but just a discriminatory one.
So no more services for people who talk back to their parents or covet others…those are in the ten commandants so they have to be major no no’s./
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 2:19 pm
Ghost,
” medicine is a privilege granted by the state” I really hope you aren’t that crazy. This is another law that will end up in court and cost the so called broke state of Illinois millions in legal fees.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 2:36 pm
Ghost,
“how about a real religious rights law which provides that you can not pick and choose which aspects of your religion are most convenient” Ok since the state would then be telling someone how to practice their religion. So a Muslim who eats pork or has a beer or smokes would no be allowed to ask for breaks to pray or wear a hijab if others can’t wear hats. We could have a religious purity test of some type. Maybe tell people they aren’t Jewish, catholic or Hindu enough so to bad.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 2:42 pm
Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 12:05 pm:
Thank you
I am pro-life and against the death penalty.
I do not believe that anybody should have to participate in either if they are opposed to them.
Are there really that many people out there who do not know that a Catholic hospital will not participate in abortions?
Being a Catholic and actually believing in the teachings of the church do not make a person anti-women or anti-gay or anti-transgender. Also, it doesn’t make us right wingers or fanatics.
I actually never voted for a Republican
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 3:05 pm
Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 3:05 pm:
To continue
I have never voted for a Republican Governor in over 30 years. I have voted for both Democrates and Republicans for President. I voted for Obama in 2008 and a third party in 2012.
I am also big into social justice and a big supporter of Unions.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 3:09 pm
“Being a Catholic and actually believing in the teachings of the church do not make a person anti-women or anti-gay or anti-transgender.” I get your point anonymous. But with the slew of hospital consolidations going on all over the country — many women do not have good access to other than a Catholic run institution. There are folks that would let a woman needing an emergency abortion die, rather than offer that care. You may recall the case of the nun who was punished for allowing the hospital to save a woman’s life in this exact same situation. I’m all for allowing “religious conscience” some leeway — but not when it involves harm to third parties.
Comment by kimocat Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 3:26 pm
Anonymous @ 3:05PM wrote:
“Are there really that many people out there who do not know that a Catholic hospital will not participate in abortions?”
You’re right about elective abortions. But there are a bunch of other nuances regarding what is allowed and not allowed at Catholic hospitals. Tubal ligations after delivery is one example. Then there is the entire question of when, under Catholic doctrine, abortion is morally acceptable. Moreover, the question of conscience is not limited to Catholic institutions. Last, as kimocat points out, with hospital mergers, it’s not always clear what institution is affiliated with the Catholic Church. More importantly, when a Catholic hospital is sold, very often a condition of the sale is that the new owners follow Catholic doctrine, making the situation even more confusing.
The main point is that, as Ed Yohnka wrote, this bill does not mandate that any health care practitioner do something that violates her right of conscience. But it does require the health care practitioner to disclose that a procedure or service is not being offered. IFI and Illinois Review are engaging in scare tactics.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 3:46 pm
I guess a physician who was a Christian Scientist could deny a lot of care
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 6:42 pm
Anonymous: I get what you’re saying, but you’re not fairly describing this bill.
Are you really arguing that telling someone “I don’t do that”, or “you cannot get that at this hospital,” and then saying “here are some that might” is the same as performing a tubal ligation or abortion? Isn’t that quite a stretch?
Comment by walker Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 7:01 pm
Can someone please tell me how an elective abortion qualifies as a women’s health issue. In your explanation I would ask that you do not include any references to rape or incest. Go.
Comment by I don't get it Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 10:01 pm
- walker - Thursday, Apr 23, 15 @ 7:01 pm:
No it is not
I am saying that they should not be forced into any kind of forced acceptance of acts that they do not believe in.
People should be able to have nothing to do with procedures that they disagree with.
In the death penalty, government is not told, I will not sell you the chemicals but you can buy them at this location.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Apr 24, 15 @ 8:40 am
==Can someone please tell me how an elective abortion qualifies as a women’s health issue.==
How about you tell us why it’s not.
I would say anything that is inside a person’s body qualifies as a health issue. Are you suggesting that pregnancy isn’t a health issue?
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Apr 24, 15 @ 8:50 am