Judge Rules That Doctors Don’t Have to Treat You if They Think You’re Evil

Slippery slope to systemic discrimination

by JANET JAY

Fun fact — if you are a trans person or have had an abortion, a doctor no longer has to help you when you’re in need.

Under the guise of “religious freedom” and protected in the broad wake of the Supreme Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision, Donald Trump’s election and the all-over right-wing takeover, it’s now legal for doctors and healthcare providers to refuse to treat patients who are living lives they morally object to.

This is hateful bullshit.

Not surprisingly, we’re talking about judgmental Christians enforcing their morality, specifically a Texas judge intent on pushing judicial precedents that go arm-in-arm with his own politics.

This injunction, Franciscan Alliance v. Burwell, was handed down on Dec. 31, 2016 by Judge Reed O’Connor. He’s the district court judge who, in 2016, ordered a national ban on an Obama administration policy that said that trans kids could use the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

The year before that, O’Connor granted another Texas request to not extend family and medical leave benefits to same-sex couples — just before the Supreme Court’s ruling against state gay-marriage bans.

Sure seems like a nice guy, and an example of the kind of judges who are apt to be appointed as Trump’s political machine begins to Rube Goldberg itself along.

It all started last summer, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services expanded Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination language to include “a new prohibition of discrimination on the basis on sex in health programs and activities outside of educational institutions, which includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotyping or gender identity.”

“Texas, which brought this suit along with four other states and several Christian medical associations, chose O’Connor’s court specifically because of his clear opposition to federal rules protecting transgender people,” Slate reported.

The plaintiffs claimed that “the new [HHS] regulation will require them to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender transitions and abortions, regardless of their contrary religious beliefs or medical judgment.”

They argued that the change was inconsistent with other federal definitions, as well as a violation of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that faith-based medical facilities who are “forced” to perform these procedures have had a “substantial burden” placed on their sincerely-held religious beliefs.

“Material cooperation with evil” is mentioned … twice.

O’Connor could have just ruled on the issue of sex discrimination but instead decided to take it a step farther, analyzing the case under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which was designed to protect religious minorities against laws that restrict their free-exercise rights and is now protecting businesses from nondiscrimination laws.

Stern described this ruling as “an extreme extension of the dubious logic” behind Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The Christian medical associations and insurance companies behind this lawsuit argued that treating transgender patients and women who’ve had abortions constituted that “material cooperation with evil.”

O’Connor not only agreed, but placed these rights foremost.

People in cities sometimes forget just how far apart things are in certain areas of the country. What happens when the only doctor within 100 miles refuses to treat you in a time of need because you had an abortion or were born a different gender?

Can a Jewish doctor refuse to treat a Muslim patient, or an anti-semite refuse to treat a Jew, or a Christian refuse to treat an atheist — and them all refuse to treat a woman who needs an abortion? You can go anywhere with this logic!

“It’s very disturbing that this ruling extends down to the level of care providers and individual practitioners,” explained Matthew Patterson from Equality Louisiana, the statewide coalition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organizations. “It’s crucially important that people understand this isn’t just about providing transition-related care — this ruling allows doctors to refuse to treat any trans person for any condition at all, solely because they are transgender.

“This potentially jeopardizes the health and safety of anyone at any point in transition. And the same goes for the ruling pertaining to abortion — it allows doctors to refuse to treat a person who has had an abortion for anything. Unfortunately, I think we are going to see this being used, and people will be denied care for injuries and illnesses totally unrelated to their gender identity.”