The bill clarifies wording which if the "and justice for
all" was taken seriously would not be an issue to begin with.
"sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, mental or
physical disability, or regardless of any actual or perceived" is changed to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic
The other line changed is:
"Sex" means the biological condition or quality of being a
male or female human being.
This does not have to mean sexual deviance. Anyone who has been around a neonatal unit knows that nature gets it mixed up sometimes. In the American language, we have ambiguous names for children until a discision is made on their sex chosen either by hopefully genetics or the family. Hispanic families have a more difficult time because their language and culture is based on male and female terms. These children are often abandoned as the devil's work.
I can not find anywhere in this bill where mommy and daddy will be eliminated except for in other versions the terms parent and guardian or some other non sex indicating terminology are used.
And yes, it does cause some situations in the hospital because those that have both male and female anatomy parts, either by nature or surgical, assigning rooms can be a challenge. And on occasion we have to room a staunch Republican Bush loving Texas male with a Democratic male from the Beach with feminine characteristics because they have the same anatomy. Usually the only arguements we have to break up are political and not due to sexual orientation.
As far as bathrooms, even in the gay bars they have 3 bathrooms, MEN, WOMEN and OTHER (by whatever term is appropriate). I've worked my share of bar calls through the years both on the redneck and the gay side of town. Tolerance and patience are two skills that I value as much as my intubation skills.
Originally Posted by VentMedic
I thought healthcare institutions, regardless of religious affilitation, and providers were supposed to treat everyone regardless of their lifestyles. That also includes recognizing life partners and privacy for those being treated that directly involves transgender or transexual conditions.
Actually no. If they are privately funded they can refuse to whom they want. Ever seen private clinics refuse to non-payers? Yes, I have and still do.
R/r 911
Yes, private clinics have their own operating agenda.
However, for hospitals and ERs:
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)1986 requires a hospital to provide an appropriate medical screening examination to
any person who comes to the hospital emergency department and requests treatment or an examination for a medical condition. If the examination reveals an emergency medical condition, the hospital must also provide either necessary stabilizing treatment or an appropriate transfer to another medical facility.
Of course, this act may not be specific enough to include race, lifestyle, gender issues or sexual orientation so the term "any person" would be interpreted differently in different courts in different states.
U.S. Healthcare is lacking on the uninsured care options. However, one is again stereotyping a person that is "different" as to not having insurance.
Rid, I respect your opinions and enjoy a good intellectual debate. We are from the same generation with similar beliefs and values but differing opinions on issues involving those beliefs and values. I would hope the next generations learn from our generation both values, including the fundamental family values, and tolerance.
When it comes to education and healthcare I would surely hope some agreement can be met where there are equal opportunities for all. As a healthcare professional, I would hope one's personal opinions and beliefs does not hinder them from giving the best possible care to an individual regardless of their genetics or chosen path.
