HIV Drug Violates "Religious Freedom"

[The Hammer]

HIV drug mandate violates religious freedom, judge rules

WTH is wrong with Texas? The HIV drug PrEp does not "encourage homosexual behavior". **Sigh** HIV is not relegated to gay people only. Everyone is susceptible.

"One plaintiff in the case, Dr Steven Hotze, argued that covering PrEP drugs for his employees would be contrary to his "sincere religious beliefs"."

"Plaintiffs also wrote that they "do not need or want" to cover the drug in insurance plans "because they are in monogamous relationships with their respective spouses" and "because neither they nor any of their family members are engaged in behaviour that transmits HIV"."

I wonder if they are paying attention to the data that states:

"CDC data shows that nearly one in five new HIV cases in the US are now among women, with the vast majority coming through heterosexual contact."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

HIV drug mandate violates religious freedom, judge rules

WTH is wrong with Texas? The HIV drug PrEp does not "encourage homosexual behavior". **Sigh** HIV is not relegated to gay people only. Everyone is susceptible.

"One plaintiff in the case, Dr Steven Hotze, argued that covering PrEP drugs for his employees would be contrary to his "sincere religious beliefs"."

"Plaintiffs also wrote that they "do not need or want" to cover the drug in insurance plans "because they are in monogamous relationships with their respective spouses" and "because neither they nor any of their family members are engaged in behaviour that transmits HIV"."

I wonder if they are paying attention to the data that states:

"CDC data shows that nearly one in five new HIV cases in the US are now among women, with the vast majority coming through heterosexual contact."

And they're too stupid apparently to know of the risk of accidental sticks posed to healthcare workers.

 

[ChristineM]

I really do dispare of how the religious right are muscling into us politics and imposing their dogma on us citizens despite the first ammendment

I see on the horizon an America run on the same lines as Sharia countries

 

[PureX]

HIV drug mandate violates religious freedom, judge rules

WTH is wrong with Texas? The HIV drug PrEp does not "encourage homosexual behavior". **Sigh** HIV is not relegated to gay people only. Everyone is susceptible.

"One plaintiff in the case, Dr Steven Hotze, argued that covering PrEP drugs for his employees would be contrary to his "sincere religious beliefs"."

"Plaintiffs also wrote that they "do not need or want" to cover the drug in insurance plans "because they are in monogamous relationships with their respective spouses" and "because neither they nor any of their family members are engaged in behaviour that transmits HIV"."

I wonder if they are paying attention to the data that states:

"CDC data shows that nearly one in five new HIV cases in the US are now among women, with the vast majority coming through heterosexual contact."

Reality has nothing to do with it. There's an election coming up and being seen as "punishing the gays" will get you elected or re-elected in Texas. And getting elected is ALL that matters. You can't ride the corruption gravy train unless the public gives you that golden ticket on election day. So whatever it takes, whoever gets hurt, none of that matters.

 

[Fool]

HIV drug mandate violates religious freedom, judge rules

WTH is wrong with Texas? The HIV drug PrEp does not "encourage homosexual behavior". **Sigh** HIV is not relegated to gay people only. Everyone is susceptible.

"One plaintiff in the case, Dr Steven Hotze, argued that covering PrEP drugs for his employees would be contrary to his "sincere religious beliefs"."

"Plaintiffs also wrote that they "do not need or want" to cover the drug in insurance plans "because they are in monogamous relationships with their respective spouses" and "because neither they nor any of their family members are engaged in behaviour that transmits HIV"."

I wonder if they are paying attention to the data that states:

"CDC data shows that nearly one in five new HIV cases in the US are now among women, with the vast majority coming through heterosexual contact."

all this boils down to is my belief system is more important than yours. even if it puts you at risk of death.


cold, cold hearted

 

[The Hammer]

I see on the horizon an America run on the same lines as Sharia countries

At least in certain States. Let's see if we can keep it out of Federal hands.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"One plaintiff in the case, Dr Steven Hotze, argued that covering PrEP drugs for his employees would be contrary to his "sincere religious beliefs"."

I'm glad he said that. I'm sure that allowing abortion also violates his sincere religious beliefs. Why should anybody care about his sincere religious beliefs when he apparently doesn't care about anybody else's needs? Religious freedom to these people means that whatever they call a sincere religious belief should trump the law and the sincere beliefs of others. I hope we hear more comments like this in the future, and that they have the same effect on others that they do on me.

Not that it matters, but this is not about sincere religious beliefs. I doubt that most of these people actually have any that aren't politically based and justified using religious claims. They certainly aren't scripturally based. This is pure conservative mean-spirited homophobia: "Let the queers die." Now there's a sincere belief they hold. Is it religious? Does it matter? Would it matter even if their Bible said explicitly to not provide homosexuals with life-saving medications? Really, why should anybody treat such opinions with anything but contempt?

The issue of the limits of religious freedom in the States needs to be addressed. Exactly what are the religious guaranteed? I would limit it to the right to practice one's religion in his private spaces like home and his church, but absolutely nothing that impedes the rights of others, just like with the abortion issue. Keep it private. Don't get one if you disapprove. But when one's religious beliefs bleed into the lives of others, his religion is a menace to others and should be limited to prevent that.

I wonder if they are paying attention to the data that states: "CDC data shows that nearly one in five new HIV cases in the US are now among women, with the vast majority coming through heterosexual contact."

You wonder if they are paying attention to data in Texas? No, they're not. And even if they were, it wouldn't matter. Do you think they care about those women?

 

[PureX]

Not that it matters, but this is not about sincere religious beliefs. I doubt that most of these people actually have any that aren't politically based and justified using religious claims. They certainly aren't scripturally based. This is pure conservative mean-spirited homophobia: "Let the queers die." Now there's a sincere belief they hold. Is it religious? Does it matter? Would it matter even if their Bible said explicitly to not provide homosexuals with life-saving medications? Really, why should anybody treat such opinions with anything but contempt?

It's not about religion. These things rarely are. It's about power, and control. And making sure everyone else knows who has it and how they'll use it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

HIV drug mandate violates religious freedom, judge rules

WTH is wrong with Texas? The HIV drug PrEp does not "encourage homosexual behavior". **Sigh** HIV is not relegated to gay people only. Everyone is susceptible.

"One plaintiff in the case, Dr Steven Hotze, argued that covering PrEP drugs for his employees would be contrary to his "sincere religious beliefs"."

"Plaintiffs also wrote that they "do not need or want" to cover the drug in insurance plans "because they are in monogamous relationships with their respective spouses" and "because neither they nor any of their family members are engaged in behaviour that transmits HIV"."

I wonder if they are paying attention to the data that states:

"CDC data shows that nearly one in five new HIV cases in the US are now among women, with the vast majority coming through heterosexual contact."

They can secede any day now. Maybe the other states can annex portions of it until it's gone.

 

[We Never Know]

HIV drug mandate violates religious freedom, judge rules

WTH is wrong with Texas? The HIV drug PrEp does not "encourage homosexual behavior". **Sigh** HIV is not relegated to gay people only. Everyone is susceptible.

"One plaintiff in the case, Dr Steven Hotze, argued that covering PrEP drugs for his employees would be contrary to his "sincere religious beliefs"."

"Plaintiffs also wrote that they "do not need or want" to cover the drug in insurance plans "because they are in monogamous relationships with their respective spouses" and "because neither they nor any of their family members are engaged in behaviour that transmits HIV"."

I wonder if they are paying attention to the data that states:

"CDC data shows that nearly one in five new HIV cases in the US are now among women, with the vast majority coming through heterosexual contact."

Didn't you know radiation treatments encourage smoking?

 

[Truth in love]

HIV drug mandate violates religious freedom, judge rules

WTH is wrong with Texas? The HIV drug PrEp does not "encourage homosexual behavior". **Sigh** HIV is not relegated to gay people only. Everyone is susceptible.

"One plaintiff in the case, Dr Steven Hotze, argued that covering PrEP drugs for his employees would be contrary to his "sincere religious beliefs"."

"Plaintiffs also wrote that they "do not need or want" to cover the drug in insurance plans "because they are in monogamous relationships with their respective spouses" and "because neither they nor any of their family members are engaged in behaviour that transmits HIV"."

I wonder if they are paying attention to the data that states:

"CDC data shows that nearly one in five new HIV cases in the US are now among women, with the vast majority coming through heterosexual contact."

Seems like if we did not try to force everything that there would be no case to argue.

 

[The Hammer]

Seems like if we did not try to force everything that there would be no case to argue.

Having access to a medication is "forcing"... Not in my book.

 

[Kenny]

HIV drug mandate violates religious freedom, judge rules

WTH is wrong with Texas? The HIV drug PrEp does not "encourage homosexual behavior". **Sigh** HIV is not relegated to gay people only. Everyone is susceptible.

"One plaintiff in the case, Dr Steven Hotze, argued that covering PrEP drugs for his employees would be contrary to his "sincere religious beliefs"."

"Plaintiffs also wrote that they "do not need or want" to cover the drug in insurance plans "because they are in monogamous relationships with their respective spouses" and "because neither they nor any of their family members are engaged in behaviour that transmits HIV"."

I wonder if they are paying attention to the data that states:

"CDC data shows that nearly one in five new HIV cases in the US are now among women, with the vast majority coming through heterosexual contact."

To be honest, I don't understand why this person is against it as I also don't understand when people, for religious reasons, don't want blood transfusions. (although I could be accused, at some point, of the same thing but in a different area)

I do have a couple of points:

1. Though I don't agree with this position, I think that "forcing" one's beliefs the other way is probably more detrimental since it amounts to thought control and it will come around and bite us
2. I am equally concerned at the "politicization" of what one person wants and then makes it a R vs D issue. And it always is "Religious right" (not saying there isn't one) - when there are just as many "Religious left" and people on the right who are atheists, agnostics, homosexuals et al. it ends up being irrelevant IMO
3. The current exponential growth of religiophobia makes us ripe for dictatorship and persecution. IMV. After you silence freedom of religion, the next step is to silence your beliefs if it doesn't match with theirs.

 

[Revoltingest]

WTH is wrong with Texas?

Too much of that old tyme religion.

 

[The Hammer]

To be honest, I don't understand why this person is against it as I also don't understand when people, for religious reasons, don't want blood transfusions. (although I could be accused, at some point, of the same thing but in a different area)

I do have a couple of points:

1. Though I don't agree with this position, I think that "forcing" one's beliefs the other way is probably more detrimental since it amounts to thought control and it will come around and bite us
2. I am equally concerned at the "politicization" of what one person wants and then makes it a R vs D issue. And it always is "Religious right" (not saying there isn't one) - when there are just as many "Religious left" and people on the right who are atheists, agnostics, homosexuals et al. it ends up being irrelevant IMO
3. The current exponential growth of religiophobia makes us ripe for dictatorship and persecution. IMV. After you silence freedom of religion, the next step is to silence your beliefs if it doesn't match with theirs.

So freedom of religion is freedom to force your views on others? Having access to a medication through an insurer is not forcing beliefs on anyone.

It's a medication, there is nothing religious about preventing a disease. If someone doesn't want another to have access to a medication, get out of the life saving field of being a doctor.

Should a JW Dr be allowed to refuse giving a blood transfusion to a patient that needs it, because it violates their religion, allowing that patient to die from blood loss?

Edit: Also I didn't make this an R v D thing. I kept that out of it. Instead complaining about a State as a whole and their legislature.

 

[Truth in love]

Having access to a medication is "forcing"... Not in my book.

Years back the feds decided to try to micro manage health care.

This makes every new treatment, medication etc. into a major legal battle.

If they would butt out of the process than a person could buy health insurance if they wish.

No must buy orders, no force to provide health insurance and all the costly complexities etc.

 

[Truth in love]

So freedom of religion is freedom to force your views on others? Having access to a medication through an insurer is not forcing beliefs on anyone.

It's a medication, there is nothing religious about preventing a disease. If someone doesn't want another to have access to a medication, get out of the life saving field of being a doctor.

Should a JW Dr be allowed to refuse giving a blood transfusion to a patient that needs it, because it violates their religion, allowing that patient to die from blood loss?

Edit: Also I didn't make this an R v D thing. I kept that out of it. Instead complaining about a State as a whole and their legislature.

"So freedom of religion is freedom to force your views on others? Having access to a medication through an insurer is not forcing beliefs on anyone."

That is exactly what this is, the the person believes a given item is wrong (Abortion castration whatever it may be) and they are forced to pay for it its a problem.

As an employer I cannot force you to attend a religious service nor forbid you to do so. I cannot force you to say you like working for me nor prevent you from talking about working conditions in the company. How can I force you to do what you believe is morally wrong and against your religious views?

 

[Kenny]

So freedom of religion is freedom to force your views on others? Having access to a medication through an insurer is not forcing beliefs on anyone.

Q #1 = no. Q #2 Possible. This has gone through the courts in multiple states.

It's a medication, there is nothing religious about preventing a disease. If someone doesn't want another to have access to a medication, get out of the life saving field of being a doctor.

Ok.

Should a JW Dr be allowed to refuse giving a blood transfusion to a patient that needs it, because it violates their religion, allowing that patient to die from blood loss?

I already addressed this.

Edit: Also I didn't make this an R v D thing. I kept that out of it. Instead complaining about a State as a whole and their legislature.

Not you... others.

 

[The Hammer]

I already addressed this.

You mentioned you didn't understand the issue with it.

That doesn't address my concern that at this rate that falls under "religious freedom" if we allow something like not handing out life saving medications.

 

[Kenny]

You mentioned you didn't understand the issue with it.

That doesn't address my concern that at this rate that falls under "religious freedom" if we allow something like not handing out life saving medications.

Maybe I need to rephrase it...

I don't understand why the doctor would consider that a "religious" issue.