The 2025 Medical Ethics Defense Act allows physicians to deny care to patients whose lifestyles they disagree with
The only reason why I even knew this was a thing was because of a Joni Mitchel song called, “Magdeline laundries.”
What happened to the right wanting to protect all unborn children no matter how impractical?
The right doesn’t want to do anything but impose their authority. For a conservative, the only valid abortion is my abortion. The only valid exception to any rule is my exception.
Oh she can still go to jail if she tries to get an abortion. That’s their protection.
My wife was denied care in Texas because there was a possibility she could be pregnant. There were no signs she was pregnant or anything; there was just a non-zero chance, because we’re sexually active, so they refused to perform a mammogram on her.
Never mind what could happen if she needed that mammogram, if it might catch something and save her life. Never mind the two kids at home who need her. A hypothetical fetus is more important than her medical care.
It took her weeks to get the appointment, and they just turned her away. She ended up taking a pregnancy test in a Whataburger bathroom. The state of women’s healthcare in parts of the US is absolutely abhorrent.
Even in Canada, the insane push to make people have more children is put above letting people make choices for their health. My sister’s friend already had two or three children and couldn’t get the doctor to tie her tubes because she was still young and could want more children. I’m reminded of The Handmaid’s Tale. I don’t even think people should be having children of their own when there are already children in need of a home.
This is not typical in Canada.
There is difference between preventive investigation and diagnostic investigation.
If the mammogram was advised because she has a history of breast cancer either familial or in her past; or if she had lumps in her breasts or other signs of breast cancer. Then that mammogram was diagnostic and should not have been rejected.
If it was a part of preventive screening then perhaps the benefits of rejection outweigh the harm it might have caused.
Mammogram has a greater exposure to radiation than a x-ray. And can more than likely cause birth defects. Any other place they might ve given abortive pills or contraceptive to mitigate that risk. But this was the land of the free. So it is less risky to just not do it.
Are you saying that it’s ok for them to turn away any woman of childbearing age who has sex? Because those are the only “risk factors” they were looking at. That’s a lot of women.
Besides that, denying mammograms during pregnancy isn’t even standard. They could just shield her belly. There are conflicting studies on this, but denying mammograms during hypothetical pregnancy is ridiculous.
Besides that, her mother had breast cancer a few years ago, and the mammogram was recommended by her regular doctor after she found lumps.
And while I’m adding more details, they texted her while she was in that Whataburger bathroom and told her not to bother with the pregnancy test because of the possibility it could be a false negative.
She was denied care because Texas values her role as a potential womb over her life. It’s fucked up and totally unacceptable.
I specifically said in the case which you elaborated in your reply the rejection was wrong. My response was to what you had shared in your original post before.
According to the limited details you had shared before one can propose why the rejection was done.
The problem is not the doctors rejecting care, deciding to safeguard themselves. Only because when the government decides to prosecute anyone it is always the doctor. And the patients that doctor might have cared for no where to be seen.
I specifically said in the case which you elaborated in your reply the rejection was wrong.
Those details were irrelevant, because their denial of care was wrong either way.
The problem is not the doctors rejecting care, deciding to safeguard themselves. Only because when the government decides to prosecute anyone it is always the doctor. And the patients that doctor might have cared for no where to be seen.
It sounds a lot like you’re suggesting patients should be prosecuted for seeking care. There’s a reason they aren’t.
Regardless, the healthcare provider is absolutely wrong in this case, because there was no evidence that she might be pregnant. They’re valuing her womb over her entire person. Even worse, they only informed her of this extremely broad restriction after she showed up for her appointment.
Even her regular doctor agreed and said she won’t be using that place anymore. But that kind of thing is becoming more common.
My point is the doctor shouldn’t be prosecuted for taking a decision that the government is forcing them to take. The blame doesn’t lie with the doctors but the government the people chose to make the laws.
This is what happens when the medical decision has to be guided by legal principles instead of medical reasonings.
Your anger understandable but directed at the wrong entity. It should be directed towards the government rather than the doctors. They might have been the face of decision taken to deny your wife care but it is not theirs.
There are no laws regarding this specific situation. This is a stance they chose to take.
But believe me, I blame the doctors, the government, and Republican voters equally.
Yes but there is laws which prosecute doctors for abortion, which is a consequence of pregnancy.
Were they right to deny the investigation to your wife? No absolutely not.
Having said that, it is understandable why the blanket decision was taken.
Doesn’t matter, either way she should have been allowed to state she was not pregnant and get her care. Having to prove it over and over is just madness.
What if she was pregnant, mammogram caused irreparable harm to fetus, she couldn’t abort even if the harm had caused the fetus to die in her uterus which may have caused her to die or be infertile.
I am not saying it was right decision but this might have been the thought process behind it.
One should remember the possibility of these outcomes are more than the benefits she might have had by the mammogram, if it was preventive not diagnostic.
What if she has cancer and the cancer does irreparable damage to her life dumbass. Also, they could just check for a fetus if that’s a concern.
Checking for a fetus is called proving, by a pregnancy test.
And what if she wasn’t pregnant and died of breast cancer because she couldn’t get a mammogram to detect it while it was still treatable?
Do you see why these hypotheticals are stupid?
What if the the mammogram fails to detect it and she still dies?
ManmohanMammogram is not 100% accurate.Manmohan? What’s that? Google says that guy was a Prime Minister of India. That sounds 100% accurate…
Not Manmohan, mammogram.
Google keyboard swipe not that accurate.
I guess it’s the hypocritic oath from now on in the US.
I wish the practice / physician was named, I’d like to write a letter to their alma mater, especially if it’s from a part of the country that might actually care.
slow clap
Move to a civilized country where “your religious rules don’t apply to others” is in the constitution. You only have religious freedom if you have freedom from religion.
It does say that, but SCOTUS is full of christo-fascists who don’t care, and the legislatures are full of other fascists who also don’t care.
Canada has a much better process for choosing judges. They have to be lawyers and they have to be non-partisan.
It is in ours, too. We just decided “fuck it, full fascism speed run”.
The problem is that your supreme court is full of activists and abjectly corrupt.
Trump’s America
To me it sounds more a religion (aka “”““values””“”) issue than a political one.
How are those things different/mutually exclusive? This is literally a law, drafted and passed by politicians, that allowed someone’s “values” to be used to deny someone medical care. How isn’t this political?
Well we didn’t lose Roe v Wade under trump…
So I’m not saying it isn’t political, but the person you responded to is more correct than OP, objectively.
It is less “Trump’s America” than it is the result of religious values.
The loss was due to judges pushed by Republican govt and Trump who had falsely declared that there is no overturning of the judgement when asked in their confirmation hearings. So even if the timing was off this was Trump’s doing.
Not saying it wasn’t.
Saying it is definitionally less accurate to call this Trump’s America than is to blame it on religion.
Both are accurate. One is more accurate.
It is Trump’s America only because inspite of what people might say America is far closer to be like Saudi Arabia than any Nordic countries.
…religious values* (values being a stand in for religious organizations
bribinglobbying) politicians to pass laws enabling discrimination.What does the word political mean to you? To take the most liberal (as in political affiliation) definition, this is the consequences of a law passed by elected leaders. This law was only allowed to take effect because an anti trans healthcare bill (also from Tennessee) was upheld by the supreme court. The contents of this article is entirely a consequence of our political process. If fascists weren’t actively promoting discrimination, this bill wouldn’t exist and this woman wouldn’t have been denied care she needed. Just because a law has the word “ethics” in it doesn’t mean it ceases to be political.
Even ignorning that, religion is political. Doubly so in America. We have politicians writing laws that religious leaders want. We have politicians writing laws alienating people due to them being non-chrisitan. We’re living through a fascist coup. Religion is a large part of fascism
You might need to try rereading or something. Your response seems to have completely ignored what I said. Reading this in response to my post is… Baffling.
I know it was really long, so I can understand missing this:
I’m not saying it isn’t political,
