If the article is right then there are certain classes of people that can be denied service.
> While the legislation says that health care providers can't use it to deny care based on a patient's race, color, religion, sex or national origin, attempts by Democratic lawmakers to extend those protections to gender identity and sexuality failed.
Frankly I’m very skeptical of the language of the bill. I can’t really think of a specific medical procedure that can be broadly blanket banned on religious grounds that doesn’t come off as extreme or discriminatory: even if one is against abortion, helping to expel a dead fetus is the exact same medical procedure. Even if one is against hormone replacement therapy for trans people, the process of assisting low-testosterone men or menopausal women is the same prescriptions.
I could imagine a doctor who would find circumcision ok but is against gender affirming surgery for minors. But like, idk, what’s the legal difference here that isnt discriminatory?
I'm very confused by your comment - where does the language of the bill say anything about _banning_ medical procedures? And do you get the impression that there are a lot of (or any) doctors in Florida qualified to expel dead fetuses who would prefer to refuse that medical procedure? Or is this just a very detailed straw man?
> And do you get the impression that there are a lot of (or any) doctors in Florida qualified to expel dead fetuses
Just so you know, all gynecologists can do this. Miscarriage occurs in upwards of 1/3 pregnancies, and if the body doesn’t expel the fetus the gynecologist has to do it, known as a d&c and is basically just an abortion.
I’m pointing out that I’m co fused by the idea that a doctor can refuse to perform a procedure on moral or religious grounds but cannot discriminate on who that procedure is on, because I can’t imagine any single procedure that would be opposed to on sincere belief grounds that isnt discriminatory!
