Religious American Law Denies Medical Care For Transgender & Female Patients
By Ines Baricic
At the end of December 2016, Texas received a new law regulation regarding medical care. U.S. Judge Reed O’Connor delivered a verdict which gives doctors freedom to deny medical treatment to transgender patients and to women who have had an abortion.
This decree is known as Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Its purpose is to impede other federal laws from clashing against the First Amendment. It fully concentrates on the protection of religious freedom. Congress passed the RFRA in 1993, the same year president Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.
Freedom To Discriminate
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act extends the precedent established by the Supreme Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling. It permits family business to impose religious beliefs on employees. The disputable rule gives them complete freedom to refuse providing health care coverage for birth control as they see fit. The Hobby Lobby rule is discriminating and “nothing” compared to this matter.
LGBT Left Behind
Opponents against RFRA say it is the biggest threat to the LGBT community since Hobby Lobby. They suspect the businesses might manipulate it in order to bypass the laws protecting the LGBT rights. Given that O’Connor deems that treating transgender patients poses a burden to religion exercise, that fear is utterly justified. Especially since his will triumphed to the detriment of all transgender patients.
The RFRA also threatens women who aborted or, in some cases, miscarried pregnancies. O’Connor and the plaintiffs aim to defend the believers from violation of their religious convictions. But let’s call it what it is. For the purpose of satisfying their excessive need to protect religious principles they are prepared to abuse another human being. By denying them proper medical care, this law has an actual potential to harm people.
Above The Law
As much as freedom of opinion is important, does it really exceed the need for medical care? That’s exactly what progressives keep weighing — does acting upon individual beliefs have bigger importance than somebody’s need of medical treatment? They seek to emphasize the danger of personal opinion posing a threat to health or life of another person.
Opposing points of view state that the controversial ruling permits healthcare professionals to discriminate under the justification of “religious belief”. It defends professionals’ right to act upon their feeling of religious obligation and individualized assessment. But what if somebody’s religious beliefs oppose to the generally applicable law? Should one be entitled to immunity from the general law? Or maybe, should the same law be applied to all?
The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, prohibits doctors from refusing to deliver treatment based on gender identity or termination of pregnancy. Enacting the RFRA prevents the federal government from enforcing the Obamacare regulation which blocks this kind of discrimination. Furthermore, Judge O’Connor considers that ACA regulations run counter to the beliefs of those who think transgender persons and pregnancy terminations “evil”. Due to this, some consider the ACA regulation an assault to the First Amendment which ensures free exercise of religion. Medical specialists’ religious rights are violated according to the ACA, due to the pressure to provide healthcare in such situations.
Ruthless States
Especially disturbing is that not even women who have had a spontaneous abortion are off the hook. Many of them speak out about the horrific experiences they have encountered.
One of them is Brittany Cartrett from Georgia. After having a miscarriage, she went through hell trying to facilitate the post-miscarriage pain. Due to pregnancy loss after six weeks of expecting, her doctor prescribed her a medicine to ease the pain. Brittany was unpleasantly surprised when two pharmacists refused to provide her with the medicine. As if the emotional stress wasn’t enough, she experienced an unjustified judgment by people who knew nothing about her situation and disregarded the instructions of her doctors.
Robin Utz from Missouri shared her unfavorable opinion regarding the protocol of getting an abortion in that state. The protocol is ruthless and with no exceptions, not even for parents who terminate due to fetal abnormality. She described how painful it was to deal with all the prejudices after everything she and her husband went through. Another downside — the additional cost of abortion since Missouri doesn’t permit private insurance coverage for this matter.
Legislating Backwards
Let’s reflect on blocking the abortion — related services under purported justifications of religion exercise for a moment. The abortion relevant protection doesn’t obligate anyone to perform an abortion.
One person’s religious rights does not deserve to be neglected nor put aside because of a law. The fight against violations of person’s moral convictions is definitely an imperative today. Should interests in religious freedom be put before basic human needs? When a religious objector calls upon RFRA to justify their normative gender views or defend their assault on a woman’s right to choose, we definitely start questioning the act’s dubious logic.
The immense expansion of Hobby Lobby that O’Connor induced highly aggravates the coexistence of different beliefs. We can only hope that under these new “protections” a religious person’s conscience will not allow them to turn their back from a human being in need.
The #MakeHealthPrimary Journal is a Dress A Med publication.
