cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/14277007
DeepL:
„Äußerst beunruhigend und unethisch“: Neue Vorschriften erlauben es Ärzten der Veteranenbehörde, Demokraten und unverheiratete Veteranen die Behandlung zu verweigern.
Das Ministerium für Veteranenangelegenheiten erklärt, die Änderungen seien eine Reaktion auf eine Verordnung von Trump zum „Schutz von Frauen“.
They appear to think Title 9 doesn’t affect the VA, which it definitionally does. Even their hand picked justice Gorsuch says refusing treatment while taking government funds for gay people is discriminating against their sex. EG: Carol can marry a man, but Jimmy can’t, so this is sex discrimination against the employee.
While I’m very against the executive order they describe, the headline is misleading:
Language requiring healthcare professionals to care for veterans regardless of their politics and marital status has been explicitly eliminated.
So they can also refuse to treat e.g. republicans and married veterans.
lol I wouldn’t be surprised if the republicunts thought this was the ultimate checkmate
They are too dim to understand that these dumb laws they’re passing are two-edged swords that can be used against them. Unfortunately, they DO understand that Dems won’t take advantage of these laws.
SCOTUS gave the president incredible immunity superpowers, knowing HitlerPig would abuse the privilege, but it applied to Biden, too. But did he use his immunity to lock up HitlerPig and all of his henchmen, knowing they were fully guilty of all sorts of treason and corruption? He did not.
No VA doctor should be refusing to treat any patient for those reasons. It’s absurd and unethical.
Yeah but you have MAGA people who are doctors and I’m sure they mostly don’t have ethical standards.
Problem is that good people wont do that, and bad people side with republicans so the only side thatl get hurt is as the headline describes.
I emotionally agree with you, but really the problem is that… anyone could do that in the future. Denying someone owed care because of political belief is a horrendous situation to explicitly allow, regardless of political affiliation.
Just like how the law equally prevents the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges.
That’s how it is in “both-sides” lala land but it’s always going to be the pro-fascist side that abuses it the most
Sure, it’s just important to recognize when abuse happens in the absence of law, and when abuse is law, as it would be for a law targeting Democrats and unmarried explicitly.
Everything’s politics mfs when I refuse to treat them bcs they don’t like garlic
In theory you are correct, but you are dangerously wrong in practice.
But individual workers are now free to decline to care for patients based on personal characteristics not explicitly prohibited by federal law.
An individual worker that denies treatment based on politics or marital status will become a target. Some of these veterans have very serious mental illness and will do violent things when they go off their meds.
There are already examples of veterans committing suicide in the parking lot of VA hospitals because they are denied proper care. In those examples there is no individual to blame so they feel lost and take their own life. If this is ever exercised and a veteran is denied care by an individual, that individual will be a
victimvalid target of a murder suicide. I guarantee it.I think this is the point - headline will be
“<demographic to be vilified> attacks and kills VA nurse/doctor/etc. Government to investigate risks from <demographic>”
Why on earth is there not a short list of criteria which allow you to deny care? I can only really imagine things like certain types of abusive behavior towards you/your staff and a personal connection to the patient as actual valid grounds for denial of medical treatment.
Because OFC, lets just add more harm
The fascist Hippocratic oath: “First do LOTS of harm”
Your mistake is in thinking fascists take the Hippocratic Oath, as opposed to the similar sounding but very different Hypocritic Oath.
wtf is the problem with unmarried veterans? this country redefines dumb every day
It’s not unmarried specifically, just marital status.
Probably a way from Republicans to allow them to not treat gay Vets if they aren’t married to their partner or something.
Come on. Marital status? This is an attack on queer vets bar none. They just gave them blanket permission to deny someone based on “whether they have a wife or not,” which is complete nonsense.
It’s clearly just easier to do this and allow the VA to deny benefits to anyone and everyone who isnt straight than to outright say “you can deny care to gay and trans vets” and maybe miss out on harming lesbian vets by accident.
Marital status covers any non-traditional relationship, and allows complete discretion to the fascist who controls your health to determine whether you meet the standards. Horrific. I’m glad you pointed it out.
Edit: and shame on me for not reading the article first
In making the changes, VA officials cite the president’s 30 January executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”. The primary purpose of the executive order was to strip most government protections from transgender people. The VA has since ceased providing most gender-affirming care and forbidden a long list of words, including “gender affirming” and “transgender”, from clinical settings.
So yeah, explicitly to harm queer vets almost exclusively
My now wife and I lived together for 10 years before we got married. A lot of pearl clutchers had a problem with that. I am guessing that is what they are referring to. Not single people, but unmarried cohabitants.
i just can’t imagine living life being that obsessed with other people’s relationships/orientations that have absolutely no impact on my life
Fucking same, what the hell??
I interpret it not as married or unmarried, but the gender they’re married to, though maybe that wouldn’t stand in court due to roundabout discrimination, I dunno.
According to SCOTUS, it is defacto sex discrimination
