"Moral refusal" to provide care provisions

[johnnyreb132]

Originally Posted by Ridryder911
Here is a good hypothetical scenario for left wingers (p.s. right wings usually have advanced degrees, so they are not uneducated).

A MVA involves a female patient which pregnant, she was struck by a drunk driver. A horrible situation that kills her and the baby. In the real world the driver would be charged with double manslaughter....

Now, lets say that the woman was en-route to an abortion clinic, should the double charge be dropped to a single charge?

Again, lefties love to use their "rights" and what the "definition of conception and life is"; when its convenient and to their point ... which ever is their opinion at the time.

I think he means would they count the fetus as a living human in order to make the double manslaughter? In contrast to just manslaughter for the mother that was killed. I thought it was a good point.

 

[TomB]

Physicians, nurses, and PAs have the right to refuse to perform medical services that violate their conscience provided that an appropriate referral can be made, so that the patient is not abandoned. When a time sensitive emergency exists, the patient's right to access to care trumps the provider's conscience. It's hard to conceive of a EMT or paramedic refusing to transport a patient to the emergency department on moral grounds. I'm sorry, but a private ambulance company transporting someone to an abortion clinic for an elective procedure does not compare. Plenty of time to arrange alternate transportation or an alternate crew.

Actually, it is the same. Trying to make them different is ridiculous. In health care, no matter what section, you will very likely but put into a situation where you completely disagree with what is being done to/by the pt. But you know what? 1, it's the pt's choice, and 2, agree or disagree on a moral basis, it doesn't matter, it is still your obligation as a healthcare provider to perform your job is accordance with the pt's wishes and the standard treatements.

For those people who provide a medical taxi for people on a non-emergent basis, it doesn't matter where the pt want's to go...if your company agrees to take them there, it is now your job to get them there, whether or not you have a moral objection. Now, if you really don't like it, then please, feel free to quit your job and go somewhere else. Ethics are one thing, but morals are another, and allowing them to get in the way of pt care and your job is pathetic and inexscusable. Find another line of work.

How about this for an example: You work for a 911 agency that, instead of taking drunk bums to the ER, takes them to one of several homeless shelters. You happen to believe that the bums are at fault for being homeless and drunk and deserve no pity from anyone, and the fact that a shelter is available to them disgusts you. So you refuse to transport them anywhere. Is that ok since you are refusing on moral grounds?

Sure I can. But, my morals don't mean squat while working for the most part. I may completely disagree with what is being done, but, if the treatements are called for and are medically appropriate...guess what...they get done. Oh, and if a RN refused to turn off life support because it violated her conscoius or morals...then she needs a new job, and preferrable should lose her license.

 

[Shishkabob]

conservative rural america, and even finishing high school is an achievement for many of them.

As is in liberal urban America... do you really want to go there?

 

[Veneficus]

As is in liberal urban America... do you really want to go there?

No doubt, but it seems to me liberals are less likely to adopt behaviors that back putting their beliefs into law. Otherwise I think we would see considerably more "legal" mind altering substances.

I was trying to delicately say rural Americans are usually a bit more avid churchgoers and as I pointed out the 2 most popular religions today definately embrace what Dostoevski would call the master/slave relationship.

I agree with TomB, we are not talking about an Emergent transport in the case cited. So the company could with much less fanfare just got somebody else and moved on. But it seems they chose the hard way.

for my personal perspective, I do not think there should be a law protecting the moral judgements or reservations of medical professionals who have a tradition of putting the interest of the patient above their own. If agencies want to decide to not offer specific treatments, as long as they are not receiving government money, I don't see a problem with it. The same as I don't see a problem with people going to spiritual "healers" (of any title).

 

[Veneficus]

I think he means would they count the fetus as a living human in order to make the double manslaughter? In contrast to just manslaughter for the mother that was killed. I thought it was a good point.

I got that. But I was thinking what is the difference between charging somebody with 2 counts of manslaughter convicting him of 2 and imposing a sentence of say 2 concurrent terms of 5 years in prison, or just calling it something like negligent manslaughter and having him serve 10 years?

The idea that somebody would get different punishments for the same crime doesn't seem reasonable to me. What is the difference between a drunk who kills 1, or 10 in the same act? It is like a terrorist that kills 100 or 1000 in one act. It is why judges were initially given discretion on penalties. (prior to mandatory sentenses which is a legislative abuse of power) Let's say for manslaughter you can get 5-10 years (I don't know the legal details) so if you kill one person you get 5, kill more you get nearer the 10.

to give an example of the point:

"Lincoln Sternn you stand here accused of: 12 counts of murder in the first degree, 14 counts of armed theft, 22 counts of piracy, 18 counts of fraud, 37counts of rape, and one moving violation."

 

[triemal04]

Physicians, nurses, and PAs have the right to refuse to perform medical services that violate their conscience provided that an appropriate referral can be made, so that the patient is not abandoned. When a time sensitive emergency exists, the patient's right to access to care trumps the provider's conscience. It's hard to conceive of a EMT or paramedic refusing to transport a patient to the emergency department on moral grounds. I'm sorry, but a private ambulance company transporting someone to an abortion clinic for an elective procedure does not compare. Plenty of time to arrange alternate transportation or an alternate crew.

You're right, they do (in non-emergent situations anyway). Though the new law that is supposed to take effect also allows them to not refer the pt anywhere, just refuse care, or to provide meds, etc etc.

And really...while it bothers me, I don't really have an extremely huge problem with that...with certain conditions. As ridryder said, a catholic hospital will not perform certain procedures (such as abortion) that others will...which I can live with given that this is still a nice free country. My problem is less with an institution electing not to perform some procedures as it is with an individual deciding that they don't want to fulfill their job obligations. To be blunt: if you don't want to do procedure X, then don't work somewhere where you may have to. If you choose to work somewhere where procedure X is done, then you WILL do it as neccasary. Period. IF that means, say in the case of removing life support, that you cannot find work in the medical field...tough titties. Go be an accountant.

Even that is a slippery slope, which, in a perfect world wouldn't even come up. But given the :censored::censored::censored::censored:ed up place we live in, it's a compromise that (unfortunately) will have to exist.

And you really aren't so naive that you think that no paramedic has never, or never will, refuse to transport/treat a patient because of their morals? EMS is no different than any other branch of medicine; beliefs prevalent elsewhere are prevalent here, along with some funky attitudes.

 

[daedalus]

This may be an elitist opinion, but I think part of the purpose of religion is to instill behaviors. In the Christian and Muslim faiths, religion hinges around doing what somebody placed above you commands. Alternatively Eastern religions take an approach similar to creating harmony. Other uses for religion are to give meaning to death and explain that which is not understood by man.

Hopefully care providers of all levels have evolved to the point where they can recognize the difference between individual spirituality and “moral” reasoning in a multicultural society.

I stipulate any provider at any level who refuses care based on moral objection has not placed the art of medicine above their personal desires and should be banned. At least until they can reconcile that they chose to accept a position of nonjudgement in the spirit of using the knowledge they have to help others.

But considering a large part of the US is undereducated and ethnocentric, it doesn’t surprise me that this stuff comes up. After 8 years of unchallenged right wing conservative rule how is this shocking to anyone?

If you want to object on moral grounds, become a priest, witchdoctor, shaman, CS practitioner, or snake oil salesman, or whatever. They are all the same thing.

Agree whole heartedly

 

[daedalus]

I probably would had refused her as well. Sorry, why would you need an ambulance for an elective procedure? This was for birth control not a medical procedure. Sorry, being pregnant is not a warrant for EMS. Apparently, the patient was well enough to have such procedure.

-rid/ryder

Rid, are you sure you are saying that not because of your religious objection to abortion but because of an objective standpoint? How about the women who is bed bound and cannot get to the clinic in a wheel chair van? Are you going to say out of luck your too lazy and disabled to get there yourself so see ya?

Also, Catholic Hospitals still have a duty to provide their patients with objective information. My mother is a NICU and postpartum RN at a catholic hospital and, while the hospital forbids the dispensing of baby formula and demands that babies are to be breast fed if possible, will easily make exceptions when needed and also hands out information on the advantages of formula.

Rid/ryder, who gives you the right to not participate in procedures that a patient wants to have done? Are you in the business of forcing your will on others? God himself gives you the right? Allopathic medicine does not recognize god, and we do not follow Christian moral codes. We follow the ethics of our profession, and hold the patient's wishes over our own, and our art above our personal beliefs.

 

[Shishkabob]

No doubt, but it seems to me liberals are less likely to adopt behaviors that back putting their beliefs into law.

Like it or not, every single human law ever created is based off of beliefs on how things should be.




One thing I've always noticed though... liberals are seen as the people who want to help other people, but in my experience, the vast majority of doctors, police, EMTs, firefighters, and military personnel are conservative.

 

[Ridryder911]

-rid/ryder

Rid, are you sure you are saying that not because of your religious objection to abortion but because of an objective standpoint? How about the women who is bed bound and cannot get to the clinic in a wheel chair van? Are you going to say out of luck your too lazy and disabled to get there yourself so see ya?

Also, Catholic Hospitals still have a duty to provide their patients with objective information. My mother is a NICU and postpartum RN at a catholic hospital and, while the hospital forbids the dispensing of baby formula and demands that babies are to be breast fed if possible, will easily make exceptions when needed and also hands out information on the advantages of formula.

Rid/ryder, who gives you the right to not participate in procedures that a patient wants to have done? Are you in the business of forcing your will on others? God himself gives you the right? Allopathic medicine does not recognize god, and we do not follow Christian moral codes. We follow the ethics of our profession, and hold the patient's wishes over our own, and our art above our personal beliefs.

Just alike medication(s) that maybe harmful to the patient I can refuse to administer,and or make arrangements for someone else to carry through. Giving formula and an elective birth control is totally two different spectrum's.

I am also getting irritated on the opinion that Conservatives or those of Christian faith has more illerteracy. When in fact, the majority of Universities and higher education is sponsored and attended by those of such faith. Please instead of making accusations of those that are to be ignorant, look at the history of where the source of higher education came from in this country. Just because one lives in a region or participates as in faith and has morale's differently does not make one ignorant or less educated. Especially considering most recognized ministries require a minister to have the least a Baccalaureate degree and now most require graduate level for seminary. Now, you want to compare this with your profession (EMS)?

Obviously some still do not understand that the scenario is more than just sentencing. The determination of "life" is broadly made. When it is in the favor of judicial setting it is at conception, but other wise it is not? ... As well there is much difference in two counts of vehicle homicide (especially regarding a pregnant woman) sentencing. Difference maybe a whole additional sentence (additional 5-10 yrs). So yes, it matters and yes its different.

As science progress and we now can perform inner utero surgical procedures, and definitely determine that fetus has nerves can feel pain, can grasp objects and even survive past 20+ gestation, our determination of what life is, should be re-evaluated. If we would had read about these type of procedures during Hitler regime, we would be appalled, yet since it is cleared with a Supreme Court case it validated as okay. Just because it is a popular thing does not make it right as events in history has proven.

As a Christian, I am tired of having defend my traditional morals. As well just because something is "politically correct" does not make it right as well. I am a Christian first, a person with my standards and morals second; and then a health care provider. It is just a profession and job. I can find another place to work if attempted to be forced to go against my personal conviction. I acclaim to have integrity and stand for what I feel is right, not because its a paycheck. If that was the case, I would had left EMS long time ago as I have fought against poor ethics and non professionalism for decades. Just because I place a uniform on does not change my standards or beliefs.

Do the patients have rights.. yes. As I have the right as an employee. I will not discriminate administering life saving and those that require medical care, not matter what race, creed or color. I have treated all kinds, but I do reserve the right to decide if I should participate in certain procedures.

If the person was bed bound, there are other options of transporting and they should make such. Just alike any other non-emergency situation as for dental care, opthamology, etc. I do not transport those type of patients either.

R/r 911

 

[daedalus]

I agree! You should not have to defend your self or other Christians against accusations that you are less educated and white trash. Thats a silly stereotype and is exactly the thing that many self proclaimed liberals accuse others of while they themselves are a part of it! You are exactly right.

What I am saying is that before we refuse to take part in procedures because of our religious or social background, we need to examine our motives. We need to make ethical decisions because we as health care providers wield power over our patients- perceived or actual. We need to think- hmm am I refusing so I can sleep better at night knowing I did not help commit a murderous abortion, or did I not participate in the procedure because I thought harm would come to the patient? The former would be forcing your will on others. I am not sure that we should have the right to refuse such. You are not just an employee but a practitioner of medicine, where the patient's wishes come before your rights to decide what is best for them.

And as for transport for elective procedures and dental care, I agree. Lets stop using costly ambulance transport for these patients. 500+ bucks to transport by BLS ambulance for doctors appointments and things of that nature vs. 30-100 bucks for a wheelchair van or gurney van. Why does medicare keep paying out for costly an un-needed ambulance transportation, because as long as they do private companies will continue to provider the service.

 

[Veneficus]

http://www.medindia.net/news/Vatica...ceptive-Pill-for-Male-Infertility-45949-1.htm

Yep, educated. Obviously their views occlude the ability to make educated statements.

Sure the preist, minister, whatever may be educated, but the sheep (lambs)generally are not. Perhaps it is akin to brain washing or deciding for the lesser species who do not know better in order to "save" them?

The idea of arguing that life begins at conception is a moot point. Conception of sexually reproducing creatures? What about Parthengenesis and other asexual reproduction? When does life begin then? Duplication of cellular components? Activation of expressive genes? What happens if humans start self reproduction? That would really have an effect on patriarcal beliefs.

A fetus can live by itself after 20 weeks? Maybe with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medicine. But it is certainly not going to feed itself or even be mobile. Perhaps some of the more conservatives would like to pay for it and the raising of the child to sociological benefit out of their pocket? If life is so precious why are there so many orphans. Perhaps everyone in the congregation Sunday could adopt 1 or 2? Maybe the pope could auction off his gold to help? Of course he may need it to give the illusion of what awaits in heaven to keep the donations coming in. I wonder how many religious people ever looked at religion from an objective point of view?

The evolution of being bipedal required human offspring to be born at a lesser stage of development than most mammals in order to fit through the pelvic opening. Maybe evolution is just a theory? Maybe some only accept what they want to hear irregardless of the facts? Ignorance is bliss and heaven awaits!!!

People want to be Christian's, Muslims, Zen Taoists, Hindu's that is all cool with me, so long as they do't start imposing their will in the form of law on the rest of the population in our multicultural society. Not performing a medical transport, procedure, etc, is an imposition of will on somebody seeking medicine. All we need now is a caste system with doctors, police officers, firefighters, etc at the top and all the untouchables beneath.

I probably wasted a good bit of time trying to have an academic debate on this subject. After all, didn't Catholics figure out the sun rotated around the Earth at one point? Oops. They apologized for that when? 3 years ago?

 

[EMERG2011]

I knew Jesus would be dragged into this all sooner or later. The thing we have to all remember is that The United States of America is a secular nation. Yes her laws and rights were founded on judeo-christian ideologies, but quite frankly, over the past 8 years we've all grown quite tired of being told that God wants us to do this, or Jesus says we should do that, and my personal favorite, "God wants me to be President."

The recent election I believe was a referendum on religious politics. The American people were given the choice of a religious, but secular President, or a religious and non-secular President, and overwhelmingly chose the former. I know I'm probably sticking my fist into a hornets nest with this, but as a liberal secular christian, I'm also sick and tired of being told that I cant love who I love because your religion says so. To use a phrase, get out of my bedroom, and get out of her vagina. We all have rights, so lets try and be civil here.

 

[RESQ_5_1]

I find it interesting that Venificus spouts about Conservatives "foisting their beliefs" on people when that is exactly what homosexuals have done in legalizing same-sex marriage. a MINORITY group has FORCED a majority group to accept something they see as morally reprehensible. But, that is another thread altogether.

As someone who believes in God and has Christian/Conservative morals and values, I refer to WWJD. Jesus himself healed people he knew were sinners without judgement. Since Jesus Himself did not refuse treatment based on His moral code (which is MUCH higher than mine), I will treat every patient I have to the best of my ability. Everyone has to make their own choices and answer to them when they are before God. It is between Him and each individual alone.

 

[johnnyreb132]

In my humble opinion, I think that we have a duty to uphold our morality while helping others. I would not deny care based on whether they were an addict, prostitute, homosexual, or any other prejudice I may have. However, if it involved going directly against my values as a Christian then I would not become involved such as aiding somehow in an abortion. I would provide any life sustaining service that was needed, while making sure I transferred the patient to the appropriate level of care. To me it seems that if you go directly against your morals and values, then you are selling yourself out in order to keep your job. Then, I just think of a little scenario in my head where I'm standing in front of the Gates of Heaven and an angel is going over the deeds of man. The angel then notices that I went against what I felt was right for the sake of keeping my job and making money, so he pulls a lever and down I go. Shouldn't Christians be allowed to have laws that protect them from what they fear may cost them damnation, just as Muslims are granted protection for saying their daily prayers during work? I don't mean to be preachy but thats just how I interpret this.

 

[Veneficus]

In my humble opinion, I think that we have a duty to uphold our morality while helping others. I would not deny care based on whether they were an addict, prostitute, homosexual, or any other prejudice I may have. However, if it involved going directly against my values as a Christian then I would not become involved such as aiding somehow in an abortion. I would provide any life sustaining service that was needed, while making sure I transferred the patient to the appropriate level of care. To me it seems that if you go directly against your morals and values, then you are selling yourself out in order to keep your job. Then, I just think of a little scenario in my head where I'm standing in front of the Gates of Heaven and an angel is going over the deeds of man. The angel then notices that I went against what I felt was right for the sake of keeping my job and making money, so he pulls a lever and down I go. Shouldn't Christians be allowed to have laws that protect them from what they fear may cost them damnation, just as Muslims are granted protection for saying their daily prayers during work? I don't mean to be preachy but thats just how I interpret this.

Just a few things to consider on your point.

Whom do you have a moral duty to? Your morals? Your divine influence or authority? Those who share your morals?

What if your definition or help is in opposition to the patient’s definition? Do you go with what you believe is best or the principles the patient thinks best?
What if helping in an abortion was life saving?

In the US, they don’t like to broach the topic, but as a medical provider you are seen as being at the top or even above society. Consider:

The person who can overrule the captain of a sea going vessel? A physician
The person who decide somebody is not capable of being sent to prison? A physician
Terminate efforts? Physician
Declare somebody born? Physician
Patient not responsible to society for their actions? A physician

What is an EMT of any level? An extension of a physician.

Nurses, not being the extension of a physician, are exempt from this.

It is why people let you into their homes, tell you their secrets, allow you unfettered access to their bodies, trust that what they tell you will not be used against them. They ask for your help with their problems under the same auspices. When you refuse them, you refuse them the help they came to you for. That position in society is more than a job where you earn money. When you put on a uniform, lab coat, or whatever, you accept that position and responsibility. You are held to a higher standard. You are part of a culture that predates Christianity, Islam, or even Judaism.

When you choose to be part of multiple cultures with their own values, it is only a matter of time before they come into conflict. You must choose whether you will choose one culture over the other or attempt to find a way to reconcile both. But no matter what you choose, best of luck in making your decision when the time comes. It is not an easy one.

In your scenario I will look at St. Peter, the Angel, Allah, Sheba, Buddha, or whoever happens to be there. I will say I did my best with what I had. If it means hell, I accept. I chose medicine over religion. I would do it again. But if you do take a look at all these religions, they all hold helping your fellow man in the highest regard.

There would not be a soldier in heaven if these religions didn’t have exceptions to when it is ok to take a life. If it is ok to take a life fighting for your country, it is ok to help your fellow man. What about the case of abuse? “Justifiable homicide” is simply a nice way to say it is ok to kill somebody else to help yourself. Some religions don’t even consider women equal to men. That killing them is not held against you. It wasn’t long ago Christians thought similar. In addition some people believe that killing innocent people in the name of your religion is a sure fire way to get into heaven.

Believe it or not, I like to think of myself as a moderate. I don’t dislike religion; I dislike blind beliefs and the absence of critical thinking.

 

[Ridryder911]

My job does not "make me". Anyone can drive a truck and place a person upon a stretcher. It's not rocket science. What I am before I place on that uniform, what is inside my soul (yes, there is such a thing) and how display and at upon that is what is really important.

Sure one could bring up points of the Catholic church and many other fanaticism religions performed decades to centuries ago. Even recent ones. As I can refer to science being ignorant upon itself. As in the recent case of exhuming of bones that was thought of being "thousand of years old"; even National Geographic started film documentation only to be embarrassed as the villagers informed them they were actually bones from the refuge and trash of their meals.. yeah, we should always believe science.

What is shameful is though, if one really understood Christianity, one understand its teaching is of loving and caring. It is part of teaching to inform people of what is wrong or right, it is their free will to make the decision to choose. Unfortunately, people in these times does not like to hear there is wrong and right. No one wants to hear that they are doing what is wrong. If you are against something that is popular or assumed to be okay by the media, then one is chastised as being a hater or ignorant. Most not understanding one can disapprove of the action(s), but still care for the person. Again the basics of Christianity is we realize, we fail short all the time and no one is perfect .. hence the purpose of Grace.

Science is not an exacta. If it was we would have a higher save rate, better treatment outcomes even including variables. I have personally seen skewed scientific reports and falsifications to obtain grant monies; again all in the name of science and yes assumed to be credible and published as gospel. Yes science is essential but as well there are areas that unexplained as could be described as "miracles". Science had no part of.

I never have signed no contract, nor taken any oath as a RN or Paramedic. Especially that would disavow any of my morale standards or beliefs nor will I ever. Again, in comparison when over viewing the number of Christian medical missionary services where no other private sector would even consider placing teams, tell me other organization that provide such efforts or care. I have been placed in remote areas of the jungle to cities where I have examined literally hundreds of patients a day. All based and witnessing the love of others. There are literally hundreds of thousands of such teams in action everyday.

In regards to adoption there are many such institutions that provide adoptions, in fact Christian organizations are one of the largest such providers. In this day and time; no one wants to hear what is right or wrong, especially in regards to being responsible person. In this time and era with birth control there is no very little excuse of becoming pregnant except for being irresponsible. From pre-coital birth control to even taking a pill days afterwards. We have instituted laws that even removes parents rights and allows immunity and discretion of minors. It is not chastising the person rather one should be responsible and knowledgeable of the potential outcome. The same as any other action has a reaction. It is not part of the Christian faith to chastise the person that do make those mistakes, as I said we are not without fault it is to emphasize to prevent and then care for those that do.

The initial post was this person was not in need of medical care. Elective abortion is not a medical need, call a cab. Don't try to cover and excuse this as a "needed" medical procedure as the left side would like it portrayed. Call it as it is ... birth control.

What is shocking is how the left or pro-choice does not want details on how these abortions are performed or what they look like. Read the details on the use of steel Yankauer catheter is placed into the cranial vault. Alike many other things, its okay as long as just as one side is provided. The part I disagree is most of the patients is nor properly informed alike any other medical procedure. How many really know the risks of such procedures as well such as high rate of infection, bleeding and sterilization? We as a society has adopted it because it is easy, fast, and no responsibility attached.

R/r 911

 

[MattMedic]

Are you acting in the best interest of your patient by following your own moral blueprint? If not, then find another career. My job is to alleviate the pain and suffering of my patient, regardless of their circumstances. Dirtbags; scumbags; a-holes; white-trash; drug addicts; chronic back pain @ 2:30 in the morning; their all welcome in the back of my ambulance. Service with a smile

 

[EMERG2011]

"In regards to adoption there are many such institutions that provide adoptions, in fact Christian organizations are one of the largest such providers"


You mean the same organizations that say that a child remaining in foster care is better off than being adopted by a gay couple?


The fact remains that in modern medicine, Doctors/Nurses/EMTs etc. are trusted above all other professions across the board. If we started witholding medical information and procedures which patients have a sovereign right to, we become no better than the most backward theological societies in the history of the world. I am a christian, a working EMT and I am going to be a doctor - my faith does not mean I have the right to violate the trust and free medical will of my patients. If someday, one of my patients requested an abortion, I would do it - not because I believe that it is right, but because she has the right to decide what can and cannot happen to her body; and I will be secure in the knowledge that the abortion would be performed in a safe, precise, and dignified environment - not with a clotheshanger over a toilet as could be the case if I refused.

 

[daedalus]

I knew Jesus would be dragged into this all sooner or later. The thing we have to all remember is that The United States of America is a secular nation. Yes her laws and rights were founded on judeo-christian ideologies, but quite frankly, over the past 8 years we've all grown quite tired of being told that God wants us to do this, or Jesus says we should do that, and my personal favorite, "God wants me to be President."

The recent election I believe was a referendum on religious politics. The American people were given the choice of a religious, but secular President, or a religious and non-secular President, and overwhelmingly chose the former. I know I'm probably sticking my fist into a hornets nest with this, but as a liberal secular christian, I'm also sick and tired of being told that I cant love who I love because your religion says so. To use a phrase, get out of my bedroom, and get out of her vagina. We all have rights, so lets try and be civil here.

Amen brother. This is a secular country and medicine and justice is impartial in its delivery. So is the delivery of rights that have been so unfairly taken away from Californians this past election.