Wrong… just wrong

Someone asked about it the other day in Text the Times and I gave a pretty brief but blunt answer in that column in yesterday’s paper, but as I was talking about it with my daughter over dinner, I got mad about it all over again.

So, last Friday Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed SB 289 into law. This was a bill that was passed by the majority-Republican Senate and majority-Republican House. The State Senate voted 25-6 (with 2 non-voted and 2 absentees) to pass this bill. Exactly zero Democrats voted for it. One Republican simply didn’t vote.

In the State House, the vote was 72-20 (with 8 nonvotes). Of the 20 legislators with the good sense to vote against the bill, two were Republicans (there were 4 nonvoting Republicans among the 8 who abstained).

I give you these numbers to show you just how overwhelmingly the Arkansas Republican Party’s elected legislators supported this bill. And the Republican governor wasted no time in signing SB289, thus making it Act 462 and law of the land.

Now, in case you didn’t read yesterday’s paper and you’re wondering what issue this GOP-led initiative tackled with such fervor, let me fill you in… thanks to Act 462, doctors— as in doctors who have taken an oath to provide care and comfort to those in need— can now tell gay patients to go die somewhere else.

I mean, that’s not how it’s worded. No, the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act” almost sounds progressive in its title. Who wouldn’t want “ethics” and “diversity” in the

Continued on Page 11 VIEWPOINT (cont.)

field of medicine. But if you look at the text of the bill, what it actually does is give doctors the right to refuse to treat someone in need of medical care on religious grounds. Let me say that again in a different way… if a doctor feels led by their God to refuse to treat a patient, that’s OK with the laws of the State of Arkansas.

Why would a doctor do that exactly? Well, I can’t imagine… oh, except I can.

You see, a C hristian doctor, for example, who doesn’t agree with the LGBTQ lifestyle can now be a medical “conscientious objector” and refuse care to that person. That’s the kind of “ethics” and “diversity” this law is looking to foster and it’s the most bald-faced example of intolerance and bigotry and hypocrisy I’ve seen in a long, long time.

Oh, and it goes much deeper than that. These socalled “conscientious objectors” can also refuse to treat people for all sorts of reasons. In fact, it’s not just doctors. The actual text of the bill says, “‘Conscience’ means the religious, moral, or ethical beliefs or principles of a medical prectitioner, healthcare institution, or healthcare payer.”

Yes, you read that correctly. If a doctor, nurse, hospital, clinic, or insurance company doesn’t want you to get treatment because you’re not aligned with their particular moral compass, well then to hell with you and you’re alternative lifestyle.

How anyone could think this is acceptable is beyond imagination. I have a degree in history, and I feel perfectly comfortable in saying that Act 462 is, without a doubt, the worst new law in 100 years, maybe since slavery, and every single lawmaker who voted for it should be voted out of office.

Sure, it may not be a big deal to 99% of the population, at least not for now, but where exactly is the line to be drawn. Do Christian doctors not have to treat Muslim patients?

Are we really saying that? I assume this means a doctor can refuse to treat a sick trans person. What if your religion is against mixing races? Will a mixed-race patient be refused care?

I am ashamed of my state, and you should be too.