PropertyValue
?:author
?:datePublished
  • 2014-12-06 (xsd:date)
?:headline
  • Did Michigan Exempt Emergency Medical Personnel from Treating Gay People? (en)
?:inLanguage
?:itemReviewed
?:mentions
?:reviewBody
  • On 4 December 2014, the Michigan House of Representatives passed HB 5958, also known as the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (or RFRA). That bill (which has not yet become law, as it still needs to be passed by the Michigan Senate and signed by the governor) seeks to limit governmental action that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion, which includes an act or refusal to act, that is substantially motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief. According to the text of that bill, a person who acted contrary to Michigan law because doing otherwise would burden that person's exercise of religion could use the provisions of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act as a defense in a criminal or civil case resulting from his actions (or inaction): Nothing in the RFRA specifically exempts all medical personnel from providing emergency treatment to gay patients; the claim that medical personnel could opt out of providing emergency treatment to gay patients on the grounds of religious objection is one of the hypothetical scenarios opponents have posed as what might come to pass if the RFRA were enacted: The RFRA would not, as has been claimed, allow anyone to refuse service to anyone and claim their 'religious beliefs' require them to discriminate and get away with it; the state could still substantially burden a person's exercise of religion if it could demonstrate requiring that person to obey the law is both in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Therefore, it cannot be definitively stated the RFRA would exempt emergency medical personnel from treating gay people — that supposition would be the case only if some medical practitioner actually refused to treat a gay patient on religious grounds and challenged the law requiring him to do so by asserting the RFRA as a defense. And even if that scenario came to pass, there is no guarantee the medical practitioner would prevail: the state could demonstrate the government has a compelling interest in enforcing a law requiring emergency medical personnel to treat all patients regardless of sexual orientation, and there is no less restrictive means of ensuring emergency patients receive necessary treatment in a timely fashion. Michigan Speaker of the House Jase Bolger asserted the RFRA would not bring about the scenarios opponents of the bill have been touting: However, according to Brooke Tucker, staff attorney at the ACLU of Michigan, the RFRA could still essentially allow forms of discrimination Bolger asserted would not be protected: For now, what the RFRA may or may not allow is still purely a speculative matter that awaits the bill's final passage into law and court decisions should anyone attempt to exercise its provisions. (en)
?:reviewRating
rdf:type
?:url